Iiyama reanimates LCD cartel lawsuit corpse, swings it at Samsung

Court of Appeal: Can't kick this out, let's have a trial


LG and Samsung may be getting hot under the collar after an English court agreed that the long-running liquid crystal display (LCD) price-fixing cartel case can be reopened.

In a lengthy and detailed ruling by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, handed down on Friday, Lord Justices Longmore and Henderson, along with Lady Justice Asplin, effectively ripped up a 2016 order made in the High Court that strangled legal proceedings over the cartel in the UK.

That order was made after Japanese screen maker Iiyama tried to sue Samsung and LG in the UK for damages over the cartel's actions, following a 2010 EU Commission decision under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU to fine the two companies for price fixing. Article 101 bans cartels.

Iiyama's attempt to claim damages was struck out on the grounds that the cartel lacked sufficient territorial connection to the EU. Samsung and others had argued that because the actual fixing of prices occurred in Asia, Iiyama did not have legal standing to sue in an EU member state.

Now, however, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Iiyama's claim does have territorial standing in the EU because the artificially inflated LCD prices distorted the market here as well. As the UK is currently still a member of the EU, that gives Iiyama the green light to sue in London for damages. Iiyama successfully argued that it bought monitors from Samsung and others in the cartel from within the EU.

At the Court of Appeal, Samsung tried to have Iiyama's claims dismissed summarily – that is, without a trial. The judges said they could not fully consider the whole case without a full trial, forcing them to throw out the application for summary judgment.

"Assessment of the various elements which constitute the intrinsic nature of the private law claims for infringement of Article 101 brought by these particular claimants is not in our view a question suitable for summary determination, unless the court considers it incapable of argument with any real prospect of success that the applicable law will be found at trial to be EU law," ruled the court.

Keep rolling, rolling, rolling...

The EU investigation into the LCD cartel kicked off in 2009, with Philips and LG Display initially being fingered. The cartel was eventually discovered to have been a worldwide operation, with Toshiba being fined $87m in 2012 after being found guilty of fixing screen prices in the US.

A half-a-billion-dollar settlement was signed by Samsung, Sharp, Chimei Innolux, Hitachi Display, Hannstar Display, Chunghwa Pictures Tubes and Epsom in 2011.

In 2015 the EU Court of Justice cheerfully agreed that the EU Commission had done the right thing in fining LG €210m over its involvement in the cartel.

Global distie Tech Data reported a double-digit profit surge in the final quarter of fiscal 2016 in part because of settlements it had banked from LCD vendors. The firm had started legal action against various screen vendors, including Samsung, in 2011. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Intel demands $625m in interest from Europe on overturned antitrust fine
    Chip giant still salty

    Having successfully appealed Europe's €1.06bn ($1.2bn) antitrust fine, Intel now wants €593m ($623.5m) in interest charges.

    In January, after years of contesting the fine, the x86 chip giant finally overturned the penalty, and was told it didn't have to pay up after all. The US tech titan isn't stopping there, however, and now says it is effectively seeking damages for being screwed around by Brussels.

    According to official documents [PDF] published on Monday, Intel has gone to the EU General Court for “payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commissions refusal to pay Intel default interest."

    Continue reading
  • Semiconductor industry growth to slow in 2022, warns IDC
    Chip price hikes keeping sector healthy but new fabs could lead to 'overcapacity'

    The global economy may be in a tenuous situation right now, but the semiconductor industry is likely to walk away from 2022 with a "healthy" boost in revenues, according to analysts at IDC. But beware oversupply, the analyst firm warns.

    Semiconductor companies across the world are expected to grow collective revenues by 13.7 percent year-on-year to $661 billion, IDC said in research published Wednesday. Global semiconductor revenue last year was $582 billion.

    "Overall, the semiconductor industry remains on track to deliver another healthy year of growth as the super cycle that began in 2020 continues this year," said Mario Morales, IDC group vice president of semiconductors.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022