It's not a risk, it's a strategy: The patent lawsuit logic of Lijin's lawsuit against Samsung

The outcome of this lawsuit may still be uncertain, but the game itself has been written into the industry history of China's Micro-LED.

In January 2026, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court accepted a seemingly insignificant but highly symbolic patent lawsuit.

The plaintiff is a rising Chinese enterprise established only five years ago - Lijin Semiconductor; the defendant is Samsung Electronics, one of the rule - makers in the global display industry.

What Lijin is suing for are not marginal improvement patents, but the underlying chips and light - emitting structures of Micro-LED.

This is not an "impulsive act of safeguarding rights", but a direct confrontation over the right to speak in the next - generation display technology.

I. Rising Force vs. Industry Giant: A Seemingly Asymmetrical Game

On the surface, this is a typical case of "a small fish taking on a big one", where a local startup is suing Samsung, a display giant with over 20,000 patented technologies.

However, if one only focuses on the size gap, they will misjudge the real nature of this case.

The two patents claimed by Lijin this time directly target the vertical chip structure and light - emitting structure of Micro-LED, which are not peripheral applications but the underlying architecture technologies that determine yield, brightness, and mass - production feasibility.

In other words, Lijin is not trying to touch the branches and leaves of Samsung's "patent forest", but attempting to plant an undeniable patent stake at the foundation level of the next - generation display technology.

II. Samsung's Patent Litigation Strategy: Experienced but Not Invincible

As a long - standing rule - maker in the display industry, Samsung's patent litigation strategy is highly sophisticated, mainly presenting two typical approaches:

First, strategic settlement: When the marginal cost of litigation is higher than the commercial benefits, Samsung is not obsessed with "fighting to the end".

For example, in 2023, it paid Nanoco $150 million to resolve the quantum - dot patent dispute; in 2025, it reached a global settlement with BOE, exchanging cross - licensing for market stability.

Second, patent invalidation counterattack: Through procedures such as the PTAB and the National Intellectual Property Administration, it systematically challenges the validity of the opponent's patents, which is also the biggest risk that Lijin must face in this case.

III. Lijin's Confidence: Not a "Gamble" but a Pre - arranged Patent Structure

Lijin's courage to sue Samsung lies not in bravery but in its patent structure.

Its patent layout is not a single - path approach but is typically driven by a two - wheeled strategy of "acquisition + self - research". On the one hand, by acquiring nearly 10,000 optoelectronic patents from LG Innotek, it quickly filled the gaps in key materials and processes such as GaN and GaAs. On the other hand, since 2024, it has continuously increased its investment in the core technologies of Micro-LED, and its self - developed patents are highly concentrated in key bottleneck areas.

As of now, Lijin has 712 publicly disclosed patents in China and over 4,150 globally authorized patents. This is a patent portfolio sufficient to support proactive rights - safeguarding, rather than a "single - point attack".

IV. This Is Not an Infringement Case but a Struggle for the Right to Define the Technological Route

If we place the two parties on the same coordinate system, we will find a contrast with distinct contemporary characteristics:

Samsung has a large number of patents, covering mature display technologies, with rich experience across the entire industrial chain and a deep reserve of SEPs.

Lijin's patent scale is relatively limited, but it is highly focused on the emerging Micro-LED track. Its core patents form a closed - loop, and the technological route is clearly defined.

This determines the nature of this case: it is not about who infringes and who pays compensation, but about who can participate in defining the next - generation display technology route.

V. What Lijin Really Wants Is Far More Than Just a Victory

1. Technological Right Confirmation

During the window period when the Micro-LED standards are not fully established, confirming the stability of core patents through judicial procedures is a prerequisite for entering the standard - setting game.

2. Market Breakthrough

Whether it is the request for a sales ban or the negotiation of licensing fees, the essence is to break the existing technological blockade and strive for real - world space for the SiMiP route to enter the high - end display market.

3. Ecosystem Aggregation in China

Against the backdrop of a fragmented Micro-LED industrial chain, Lijin and IPwe are jointly building a patent pool and urgently need "verifiable core patents" to attract more enterprises to join.

4. Capital Empowerment

For an enterprise that has been established for only 5 years and is in the expansion phase, directly confronting an industry giant itself is the strongest signal of value release.

Lijin's lawsuit against Samsung may seem like an asymmetrical game, but in fact, it represents a change in the approach of the Chinese display industry. When Chinese enterprises start to take the initiative in terms of underlying technologies and patent structures, and when litigation is no longer just a defensive tool but a means of technological right confirmation and industrial competition, the right to speak of China in the high - end display field will truly begin to shift.

The outcome of this lawsuit may still be uncertain, but the game itself has been written into the industry history of China's Micro-LED.

(This article only represents the author's views and does not represent the stance of Zhichanli)

This article is from the WeChat official account “Zhichanli” (ID: zhichanli). Author: Yang Leilei. Republished by 36Kr with permission.