|Samsung would never have committed so much capital into current manufacturing capacity with more coming online shortly thinking they might discard it all in a few years after the end of the this 5 year contract. |
Litigation, and the threat of litigation, is about leverage in negotiations. It is very very rarely ever as black and white as sign the contract or we are going to have to close the fab.
UDC's greatest strength versus other patent holders is the quality of their emitter materials.
If I was Samsung's management, I would need the answers to a series of questions before I signed a contract that was going to cost me billions.
First and foremost, are there commercially viable substitutes to UDC's emitter materials that dont use the identical molecule? If yes, then how many of the layers of UDC's patent pyramid do they violate? Is it only the ligands patent which begins to expire in sometime early in 2020?
If I have a commercially viable substitute, what is the probability that I would be able to win a court case in the US. What is the downside to litigation? How long would litigation take and would we be close to the expiration of the patents that we would be violating? Would the ITC actually ban all smartphones using OLED's. Would the President sign off an such an injunction?
If we go to litigation, will I be able to sign a better contract just prior to a judgement? How much money would Samsung save over the life of the contract by going this route? Would TADF materials be commercially viable before the end of the litigation?
UDC has to answer many similar questions before they decide on the lowest rate that they are willing to accept. If it really was a case of sign this contract or you are going to have to shut down your fabs, then UDC's royalty rate should be at least an order of magnitude higher. I would start negotiations at something like 15%.