Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 7:34 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 56 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Universal Display Corp. Message Board

  • rembrantvanrijn rembrantvanrijn Apr 11, 2013 1:38 PM Flag

    The steamroller that will cream the longs in PANL Part I ... it's not far away now ...

    When Universal Display Corporation (Nasdaq: PANL) originally patented the core technology that now ranks as its primary asset, historical records clearly suggest, the company simply combined two existing inventions and then celebrated the resulting “breakthrough” as its own.
    For its part, UDC has long proclaimed that its research partners at Princeton University first discovered modern organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology in the late 1990s and then went on to develop the actual OLED materials that now illuminate the display screens of some popular handheld devices found on the market today. In fact, however, outside researchers actually reported similar achievements years before UDC ever arrived on the scene. Armed with evidence of that “prior art,” UDC rivals now hope to severely weaken – if not completely destroy – the broad OLED patents secured by the company.
    From the start, UDC has basically relied on two early patents to serve as the foundation for its entire portfolio. The first established the design of its fundamental technology, known as the “OLED stack,” while the second covered the special “emitter” compounds – since limited to iridium by patent authorities overseas – that generate the light in OLED-powered screens. By the time that UDC received (or even requested) those far-reaching patents, however, others had already documented similar breakthroughs in the field.
    Phillips Electronics actually patented a multilevel OLED stack back in the mid-1990s, records show, some two years before UDC followed up by presenting that same type of design. Moreover, when Phillips described the core elements of its invention in 1995, the company used the same kind of language – at times almost identical in nature – that UDC would later include in a related patent issued to the company six years down the road.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I'll set you back on ignore after this post... NO...you have no support on your claims
      go to this topic in forum
      How to verify a Bashers claims regarding patent fights in Europe
      get the link, find the primary documents that support your claims and then make them.
      In the mean time you are full of poo.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Brilliant rebrant a walk down memory lane with Melissa
      Here's the Source your post (very old news)

      UNDER SURVEILLANCE
      Universal Display: A Real Work of (Prior) Art?

      by Melissa Davis - 12/13/2011 12:19:22 PM

      From the street sweeper

    • Wow, you are a Genius. The one an only big kahuna who really knows that all of UDC patents are invalid. Cambridge Display who repeatedly challenged UDC patents a few years ago overlooked this data. They simply spent thousands of dollars in Europe.... and LOST. But you know better. You also know better then Samsung, LG and a host of other companies who agreed to license the patents and sign not to try and challenge the patents. According toy your logic now these companies will challenge UDC in court. They will risk a lawsuit and squash UDC. Sounds like you are smoking high quality staff...

    • Nice one!
      Some people on this board still believe in fairy tales. So excuse them for being ignorant! This technology is only alive because of the lack of revenues from LCD displays, and the historical investment Samsung committed to OLED. OLED has flaws, that are difficult to overcome, but can be easily solved with another technology. So OLED is a failed technology! Quantum Dots rule!

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

 
OLED
36.14+0.05(+0.14%)Sep 16 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.