1. Introduction
According to the announcement issued by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), on November 24, 2025, the USITC officially initiated a 337 investigation into “Certain Liquid Crystal Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same” (Case No. 337-TA-1462). [1] On September 2, the USITC had already disclosed in the Federal Register that it received a complaint from BH Innovations LLC, naming several Chinese companies including HKC, Hisense, and TCL, as well as domestic and foreign companies such as LG, Vizio, and Westinghouse as defendants, requesting the issuance of a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order to restrict the import of related LCD panels and televisions into the United States.[2]
This round of the US 337 investigation targeting TCL, Hisense, HKC, and other Chinese enterprises revolves around patent disputes concerning older LCD patents, once again bringing Chinese panel manufacturers and complete machine manufacturers to the forefront of the US-China economic and trade and intellectual property game. If the USITC ultimately makes an unfavorable ruling and issues an exclusion order, the relevant products will be banned from entering the US market, which may lead to an overall increase in the cost for American consumers purchasing televisions.
2. Background of the US 337 Investigation
“337 Investigation” refers to the “unfair import investigation” conducted by the US International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ยง1337). This provision considers “unfair competition and unfair acts in the importation or sale of imported products” as illegal, particularly characterizing the importation of products that infringe US patents, registered trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights as “unfair acts in import trade.”[3]
Unlike traditional anti-dumping and countervailing measures, the core of the 337 procedure is intellectual property enforcement rather than price cost review. Investigations are usually initiated by the rights holder (complainant), and the USITC decides whether to initiate a case. Once a case is initiated, it enters a quasi-litigation process presided over by an administrative law judge who oversees evidence disclosure and hearings, ultimately forming a preliminary ruling and a final ruling by the commission. According to statistics from the Congressional Research Service and law firm practice guidelines, the vast majority of 337 cases involve patent infringement, and the targets often include multiple manufacturers, brand owners, and distributors within a multinational supply chain.
The relief provided by the 337 investigation has a distinct “trade” character; the USITC cannot award damages but can issue powerful exclusion orders, instructing US Customs to prevent the involved products from entering the US market. It can also issue cease and desist orders against defendants with existing inventory in the US, restricting their sales and transfer of inventory. This combination of “border exclusion + domestic sales ban” makes the 337 investigation a highly deterrent weapon in global intellectual property disputes. The USITC is required to complete investigations as early as possible, with a target deadline typically not exceeding 16 months after the case is initiated, thus the procedural pace is much faster than ordinary federal court patent litigation. Additionally, the 337 provision requires the complainant to prove the existence of a “domestic industry,” which is reflected in significant investments, employment, or research and development, licensing, and other activities related to the involved patents. In patent-based 337 cases, once a patent is determined to be valid and infringed, the damage to the domestic industry is usually presumed to exist without further proof, which further reduces the burden of proof on the complainant. Therefore, the 337 investigation is viewed by many rights holders as an efficient way to resolve cross-border patent disputes.
3. Latest Developments in the Case
From the currently available public information, the case originated from a complaint submitted by BH Innovations LLC to the USITC on August 29, 2025, which was later supplemented and amended to include Longitude Licensing Limited from Ireland and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. as co-complainants. The USITC disclosed this complaint through the Federal Register and a separate announcement in early September, soliciting opinions from all parties on whether issuing an exclusion order aligns with US public interest. [4]
The complainants allege that the imported liquid crystal devices and their components, as well as terminal products equipped with the relevant LCD panels, infringe two US patents (US 7,570,334 and 7,705,948). These patents were originally held by Seiko Epson of Japan and have recently flowed into the IPValue entity 138 East LCD Advancements through patent asset transfers, with some being acquired by BH Innovations through transfers and exclusive licensing rights.
Complainant BH Innovations is an entity centered around an LCD patent portfolio, while the listed defendants cover multiple links in the LCD panel manufacturing and complete machine sales: including HKC and its Chongqing subsidiary, several HKC affiliated companies in Hong Kong and mainland China; Hisense entities in China and the US; TCL Electronics, TCL Technology, and several domestic and foreign affiliated companies; as well as Vizio, LG Electronics and its US subsidiaries, Westinghouse Electric, etc. A complaint based on older LCD patents directly includes Chinese panel manufacturers, complete machine brands, and their overseas partners in the same “defendant chain” of the 337 case.
Industry media such as CTOL interpret the nature of this case as “a US trade case surrounding old television screen patents,” believing that if the case leads to the issuance of an import ban, it will have a chain reaction on the price-competitive budget television market, potentially raising the retail prices of low-cost televisions in the US. Additionally, the subjects of the investigation include around twenty companies from China, South Korea, and the US, making this case a highly watched patent battle in the competitive landscape of the US-China display industry chain.
Currently, the case is still in the initial stage of filing. The USITC has decided to initiate the case and assigned it to the appropriate administrative law judge for hearing. The subsequent steps will include determining the target closing date for this case, conducting evidence disclosure, and hearing procedures. The defendants are expected to argue around key issues such as whether infringement occurred, whether the patents are invalid, existing licenses, and public interest.
4. Case Interpretation
First, this 337 investigation targets “products” rather than a specific company; the same panel may be produced by HKC, installed in TCL or Hisense televisions, and then sold by US retail brands. Therefore, the outcome will involve multiple companies across the entire industry chain, affecting intellectual property guarantees, compensation clauses, and arrangements for the return and exchange of goods in supply contracts. Second, once the USITC issues an exclusion order, the affected parties are not just individual transactions, but all related imported products under a certain type of technical solution, which will significantly impact the existing business models and long-term channel layouts of the relevant enterprises.
In the 337 procedure, there is also a frequently overlooked consideration of “public interest.” When deciding whether to issue an exclusion order, the USITC must not only look at whether infringement exists but also comprehensively assess the impact of the measure on public health and welfare, domestic production capacity, market competition, and consumer prices and choices. The products involved in this case are mainly mid-to-low-priced televisions and display terminals. If ultimately determined to be infringing and an exclusion order is proposed, the defendants may argue from the perspective that “restricting imports will significantly raise terminal prices and reduce consumer choices” to seek some degree of limitation on the applicability or enforcement of the exclusion order based on public interest. However, based on existing cases, it is rare for the USITC to completely overturn an exclusion order or significantly limit its applicability solely due to public interest factors.
5. Conclusion: Compliance Recommendations for Chinese Enterprises Operating in the US
This case presents new challenges for Chinese display and terminal enterprises in the US market. Chinese enterprises operating in the US should regard the 337 investigation as a long-term risk that requires attention and management. On one hand, companies need to proactively establish a clear and traceable understanding of the rights status of core components and key modules in terms of intellectual property and supply chain. On the other hand, they should plan their response paths for encountering a 337 investigation in daily operations, including how to coordinate domestic and foreign teams, how to choose between invalidation procedures, product adjustments, and business negotiations, and maintain smooth communication and information sharing with local US distributors and brand owners to be able to respond calmly to similar disputes in the future.
Notes
[1] https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er1124_67716.htm
[2] https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/dn_3845_notice09022025sgl.pdf
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1337
[4] https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er1124_67716.htm
Special Statement
The articles or information published by this WeChat public account are for communication and discussion purposes only and do not constitute any form of legal opinion or advice. If you wish to further discuss or explore related topics, please feel free to contact this WeChat public account.
If you need to reprint or quote any content of these articles, please communicate privately for authorization matters and indicate the source when reprinting.
