Phosphor related
intellectual property has been and remains a major driving force with strong
impact on the shape of the led tube light manufacturer industry.
The first commercial GaN-based blue LED Garden Lamp were produced in Japan in the mid 90’s after researchers Shuji Nakamura at Nichia and Professor Akasaki at Nagoya University (IP assigned to Toyoda Gosei) succeeded in removing some of the major remaining roadblocks associated with this technology (p-doping, epitaxy quality…).
Quickly leveraging on this success, some fundamental patents describing the use of a blue LED combined with a phosphor to produce white par58 led lamp were filed by Nichia, Osram, ATMI and others.
Those fundamental patents were rapidly followed by a fast growing number of applications through 2005 as an increasing number of companies started to compete in the LED market and new applications in cell phone, laptop and LCD TV display, and general lighting were being addressed.
Phosphor IP is a major force in the LED industry. With more than 40 litigation cases, it is also used as leverage by companies which have negotiated close to 70 licensing and supply agreements to date.
It can also be argued that in the first half of the 2000 decade, the strict enforcement and lack of license grants for some fundamental IP related to the design and manufacturing of white LEDs might also have slowed down the progress of the industry by preventing more efficient competition that would allow prices to decrease.
Hundreds of
companies are involved in LED phosphor IP. Most of the major LED players are
present in the list of the top patent assignees. But independent phosphor
manufacturers like Intematix or Mitsubishi that are offering their phosphors on
the open market are also emerging as major forces in the IP landscape.
Leading Taiwan based packagers are notably absent from Yole's ranking. This weak position explains the large number of litigations and one way, royalty or supply based license agreements involving those companies.
Based on this portfolio analysis as well as on their litigation and licensing history, Yole identified 15 major players that are profiled in this report.
Leading Taiwan based packagers are notably absent from Yole's ranking. This weak position explains the large number of litigations and one way, royalty or supply based license agreements involving those companies.
Based on this portfolio analysis as well as on their litigation and licensing history, Yole identified 15 major players that are profiled in this report.
http://en.ofweek.com/
沒有留言:
張貼留言