US International Trade Commission Finds Violation in Glass Substrates Case
Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its decision on an important case. This case involved certain glass substrates used in liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It looked into products and methods for making these displays.
The investigation began when Corning Incorporated filed a complaint. They are based in Corning, New York. The complaint said that some companies were violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint claimed these companies imported, sold for import, and sold within the United States specific glass substrates and products.
The investigation started on March 7, 2025. It named nine respondents. Some of these companies were from the United States and others were from China. Over time, some respondents were removed from the investigation due to settlement agreements.
On April 7, 2026, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found a violation of section 337. The ALJ gave recommendations on what actions to take. On June 8, 2026, the Commission agreed to review parts of the ALJ’s decision.
After a detailed examination, the Commission agreed that there was a violation of section 337. This decision was made regarding two U.S. patents. These patents were about the glass substrates for LCDs.
The Commission decided to issue a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO). This order stops the entry of infringing products that are not licensed. The LEO applies to products made or imported by the respondents or their connected entities.
The Commission also issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against one company, TTE Technology, Inc. This company operates as TCL North America in Irvine, California.
The Commission found no public interest concerns that would prevent applying the orders. A zero percent bond will be in effect during the Presidential review period.
The investigation is now finished. The Commission made this decision to protect American businesses and innovation. The authority for this decision comes from section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s rules.
Legal Disclaimer
This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
