Key Patent Analysis -Luminescent Materials for OLED Lighting, 2012 edition
The development of OLEDs has been focused on implementing color displays such as red, blue, and green, but various possibilities of white OLEDs (hereafter WOLEDs) has led constant R&D since the late 1980s. Recently, the recent development of WOLED of 20 to 30lm/W shows a lot of promise as next-generation lighting systems along with LEDs.
Like LEDs, OLEDs are eco-friendly lighting systems that are more power efficient than the existing lighting systems, in that they do not emit pollutants such as mercury and have high efficiency. OLEDs are also considered to be highly marketable as surface light sources that allow a wide range of applications (transparent and flexible lighting) with various designs.
Unlike OLED Displays, OLED lighting is used to shed a glow, so it has a structure wherein light sources of several to tens of mms in size are arranged. The most widely used one is white. Unlike OLED displays (AMOLED), it does not require TFTs. In addition, OLED lighting has its own distinctive properties such as the Color Rendering Index (CRI), light-area light emission, and overall power efficiency. In particular, the color rendering index which refers to the ability of a light source to reproduce colors is considered as one of the most important factors for OLED lighting along with efficiency and lifetime.
Accordingly, luminous materials for lighting applications have different requirements from those for display applications. (See Figure)
This report provides patent analysis on luminescent materials, which is one of the key technologies for implementing the above distinctive characteristics of OLED lighting. For this, 1,707 validated patents were selected from patents that have filed in Korea, the United States, Japan, and Europe until July, 2012, which went through quantitative analysis. In addition, after analyzing 372 U.S. patents, 65 key patents were selected for in-depth analysis. It is expected that this report will serve as a good guideline to look into the patent trend in the field of luminescent materials and related key patents.
Like LEDs, OLEDs are eco-friendly lighting systems that are more power efficient than the existing lighting systems, in that they do not emit pollutants such as mercury and have high efficiency. OLEDs are also considered to be highly marketable as surface light sources that allow a wide range of applications (transparent and flexible lighting) with various designs.
Unlike OLED Displays, OLED lighting is used to shed a glow, so it has a structure wherein light sources of several to tens of mms in size are arranged. The most widely used one is white. Unlike OLED displays (AMOLED), it does not require TFTs. In addition, OLED lighting has its own distinctive properties such as the Color Rendering Index (CRI), light-area light emission, and overall power efficiency. In particular, the color rendering index which refers to the ability of a light source to reproduce colors is considered as one of the most important factors for OLED lighting along with efficiency and lifetime.
Accordingly, luminous materials for lighting applications have different requirements from those for display applications. (See Figure)
This report provides patent analysis on luminescent materials, which is one of the key technologies for implementing the above distinctive characteristics of OLED lighting. For this, 1,707 validated patents were selected from patents that have filed in Korea, the United States, Japan, and Europe until July, 2012, which went through quantitative analysis. In addition, after analyzing 372 U.S. patents, 65 key patents were selected for in-depth analysis. It is expected that this report will serve as a good guideline to look into the patent trend in the field of luminescent materials and related key patents.
1. PATENT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
Patent Analysis Background
Patent Analysis Scope
Patent Analysis Method
2. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Structure and characteristic of OLED lighting and OLED display
White OLED Implementation Method
Luminescent materials for OLEDs
OLED lighting industry trend
3. PATENT TREND ANALYSIS
Patent search scope and technology classification system
Patent search result
Patent Trend - by country/ year
Patent Trend - TOP 10 applicants
Patent Trend - Top 10 applicants by country
4. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
Key Patent Selection
Key Patent Analysis Method
5. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - KOREAN COMPANIES
Samsung Mobile Display
LG Display
Dong Fine-chem
6. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - U.S. COMPANIES
Universal Display Corporation
Du Pont T De Nemours
7. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - JAPANESE COMPANIES
Fujifilm
Idemitsu Kosan
Sumitomo Chemical
Konica
8. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - EUROPEAN COMPANIES
Osram Opto Semiconductors
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
Merck Patent
9. CONCLUSION
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- patent trend
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- key patent trend
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- applied patent cases
Conclusion
Patent Analysis Background
Patent Analysis Scope
Patent Analysis Method
2. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Structure and characteristic of OLED lighting and OLED display
White OLED Implementation Method
Luminescent materials for OLEDs
OLED lighting industry trend
3. PATENT TREND ANALYSIS
Patent search scope and technology classification system
Patent search result
Patent Trend - by country/ year
Patent Trend - TOP 10 applicants
Patent Trend - Top 10 applicants by country
4. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
Key Patent Selection
Key Patent Analysis Method
5. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - KOREAN COMPANIES
Samsung Mobile Display
LG Display
Dong Fine-chem
6. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - U.S. COMPANIES
Universal Display Corporation
Du Pont T De Nemours
7. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - JAPANESE COMPANIES
Fujifilm
Idemitsu Kosan
Sumitomo Chemical
Konica
8. KEY PATENT ANALYSIS - EUROPEAN COMPANIES
Osram Opto Semiconductors
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
Merck Patent
9. CONCLUSION
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- patent trend
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- key patent trend
Luminescent materials for OLED lighting- applied patent cases
Conclusion
