The intellectual property dispute between Corning and China-based IRICO has entered a new phase at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), with the focus shifting from the finding of trade secret misappropriation to potential remedies affecting access to the U.S. market.
On July 23, an ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Determination finding that IRICO and the remaining respondents had misappropriated Corning trade secrets related to its fusion glass manufacturing technology. The judge followed with a recommended remedy on August 6, and on August 7 the ITC issued a public interest notice disclosing part of that recommendation, including a proposed Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against IRICO and the remaining respondents.
The August 7 notice provided the first meaningful public indication of the remedies being considered. When the Initial Determination was announced in July, only limited information was available publicly. For Corning, the notice marks an important step toward potential enforcement measures following the ALJ's finding that its fusion-draw trade secrets had been misappropriated.
"Corning welcomes the initial determination and recommended exclusion order by the International Trade Commission. The determination makes clear that IRICO misappropriated Corning's proprietary fusion-draw technology, underscoring the value of Corning's innovations," said Brendan Mosher, International Vice President and General Manager, Corning Display Technologies.
"Protecting our intellectual property reflects our Values and our commitment to doing what's right for the last 175-years. Through these actions, we are safeguarding our innovations, our people, and our ability to do what we do best: transform industries, support our customers, and improve lives."
Ruling Extends to Manufacturing and Downstream Products
The July 23 Initial Determination found that IRICO had misappropriated key Corning trade secrets related to fusion glass manufacturing, with the technology at issue broadly used across IRICO's glassmaking operations. The ruling did not narrow its scope based on glass generation size, glass composition, or other product-specific conditions, and applied to the remaining respondents in the case, including TCL, CSOT, and CHOT.
That distinction is important because the central issue of misappropriation is not simply which glass formulation is being used, but how the glass is manufactured. If the final determination follows the current direction, changing a glass composition or product specification alone would be unlikely to provide IRICO with a workaround.
Exclusion Order Raises the Stakes for Display Manufacturing
The August 7 public interest notice confirmed that the ALJ recommended a Limited Exclusion Order restricting U.S. imports of display products containing IRICO glass. For Corning, the significance of the remedy lies in how a dispute over manufacturing technology can carry through the broader display production chain.
Display glass sits near the beginning of that chain. Once produced, the substrate moves through panel fabrication, module integration, and system assembly before ending up in televisions and other finished products. Because the case centers on the fusion manufacturing technology used to make the glass rather than on a single composition, Corning believes the ruling creates significant risk for customers that continue to source IRICO glass for products intended for the U.S. market.
Corning is also seeking review of the recommended multi-year exclusion period, arguing that the evidence presented in the case supports a longer duration and that the final Commission determination could ultimately impose a longer restriction.
Corning Seeks Review of Limited Issues
Corning has petitioned the full Commission to review several narrowly defined issues. Corning's petition does not challenge the central finding that IRICO misappropriated Corning's fusion technology, nor does it challenge the issuance of an exclusion order. Instead, they focus on clarifying the transparent process Corning has taken to protect intellectual property rights and support the growth of the display industry in China and across the globe.
"While we appreciate the ALJ's confirmation that IRICO misappropriated Corning's technology, as well as the recommended exclusion order, Corning is seeking review of certain statements in the determination ," said Mosher.
"We have consistently acted with transparency, integrity, and responsible stewardship of its innovations, while supporting the growth of the display industry, and will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect Corning's intellectual property."
Corning maintains that it clearly and consistently communicated its concerns related to IRICO's misappropriation of its trade secrets, preserved its right to seek remedy, and presented substantial evidence in this regard.
In addition, Corning maintains its course of action over the years with respect to IRICO and the display industry was reasonable and considerate, and that it had continuously taken measures over the years to protect its trade secrets.
Commission Review Comes Next
The case has not yet reached a final ITC determination. Following the ALJ's Initial Determination, the full Commission reviews the decision and ultimately issues the Commission's Final Determination. Corning's current petitions are part of that process and identify the limited issues it wants the Commission to reconsider.
Corning is also reiterating that intellectual property protection remains a fundamental part of its long-term research and innovation strategy. The company emphasizes that invention and innovation have been at the core of its business for 175 years and that its intellectual property reflects sustained investments in R&D, technology development, and industry collaboration. When it identifies unauthorized use or misappropriation of its technology, Corning says it will take the necessary steps to protect those investments.
As the fusion trade secret case moves through Commission review, Corning will continue taking appropriate steps to protect its intellectual property while supporting the continued growth and development of the display industry.
