FactBox.

Federal Register · 24 Sep 2026 · 8 vistas

Trade Commission Reviews Glass Substrate Case Against Chinese Panel Makers

Por FactBox Admin

Trade Commission Reviews Glass Substrate Case Against Chinese Panel Makers

The U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in its investigation into certain glass substrates for liquid crystal displays. The decision, published in the Federal Register of Thursday, September 24, 2026 (Vol. 91, No. 184, p. 60645), opens the remedy phase and fixes filing deadlines for the parties. The notice carries the official reference 2026-19545 and rests on the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1337.

The review concerns Investigation No. 337–TA–1433, instituted on January 24, 2025 on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Corning Incorporated of Corning, New York. Corning alleged that imports of glass substrates for liquid crystal displays, products containing them and methods of manufacturing them infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,627,684, 9,512,025 and 7,851,394, and also misappropriated trade secrets, threatening to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry.

The patent claims were later withdrawn and the investigation terminated as to the asserted patents, leaving the trade secret allegations at issue. The Commission also terminated the investigation as to HKC, VIZIO and LGE on settlement agreements, and as to Hisense on April 20, 2026.

The violation finding under review

On July 23, 2026, the presiding administrative law judge issued a final initial determination finding a violation of section 337 by Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd., Xianyang Caihong Optoelectronics, Technology Co., Ltd., TCL China Star Optoelectronics, Technology Co., Ltd. and TTE Technology, Inc., doing business as TCL North America, by reason of misappropriation of certain trade secrets. Respondents petitioned for review on August 4, 2026, and the complainant and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations filed contingent petitions the same day; responses followed on August 12, 2026.

The Commission has now decided to review three discrete matters:

  • the final determination that CHOT and CSOT are in violation of section 337;
  • the determination that relief is not barred by any statute of limitations;
  • the statements and findings that Corning did not take reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its trade secrets before pursuing legal claims.

Remedy, public interest and bonding

On August 6, 2026, the administrative law judge issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding, proposing a limited exclusion order of approximately five to six years and a cease and desist order as to TCL. The Commission is now weighing the form of remedy, including exclusion orders and cease and desist orders, and the statutory public interest factors: public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, U.S. production of like or directly competitive articles, and U.S. consumers.

If a remedy is ordered, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove or take no action on the determination; during that period the articles could enter the United States under bond.

Deadlines and next steps

  • Initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders: close of business on October 5, 2026.
  • Reply submissions: close of business on October 13, 2026.
  • Page limits: 35 pages for party opening and reply submissions, 10 pages for third parties and interested government agencies.

The Commission vote took place on September 21, 2026, and the notice was issued the same day by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. The contact for the proceeding is Lisa A. Murray, Office of the General Counsel.

The outcome matters because a limited exclusion order could bar entry of the accused glass substrates and the products containing them, reaching supply chains for televisions, monitors and other LCD goods sold by major U.S. and Asian brands. The case also tests how far trade secret protection extends across affiliated panel makers, a question the Commission has asked the parties to brief.


Source: Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 184, September 24, 2026, Notices, p. 60645 (official reference: 2026-19545).