Philips signed a commercial material supply agreement with UDC

In November 2013 Universal Display signed a collaboration and evaluation agreement with Philips' OLED lighting unit, under which UDC will start supplying Philips with sample PHOLED materials. Today UDC announced that Philips signed a commercial material supply agreement.

This means that Philips intends to use UDC's materials in commercial OLED lighting products. This is not surprising as it is widely accepted that UDC's PHOLED materials are required to produce efficient OLEDs.

Philips is one of OLED lighting leaders. Their latest OLED panel, the Lumiblade Brite FL300 is a 12x12 cm (10x10 cm active area) bright panels that offers up to 300 lumens. The FL300 is quite efficient (over 50 lm/W) and comes in either 3000K or 4000K. Philips aims to start producing it commercially in Q3 2014. I don't know if it uses PHOLEDs or not.

Earlier this month, I posted an interview with Philips' OLED lighting division's new head of Marketing and Business Development - Jay Kim. According to Jay, Philips is very upbeat on OLEDs, and his personal expectation is that by 2018 the latest, OLEDs will be a household product that anyone can afford to buy. Kim also discusses the company's flexible OLED program, and he promises first samples towards the end of 2014 and a full launch in 2016/2017.

Posted: Jul 30,2014 by Ron Mertens


I do not agree that "it is widely accepted that UDC's PHOLED materials are required to produce efficient OLEDs". It is certainly widely agreed that "phosphorescent materials are required to produce efficient OLEDs", and in some cases this still requires a license from UDC. However, if chemicals and panels are made and sold in Europe, where UDC core IP on phosphorescence has been overturned, there is no need for such a PHOLED license. Still, of course it is good news for UDC that they will continue to be one of a number of OLED material suppliers to Philips.

One down 5 to go good call Ron!!!!!

In Europe a single patent was revoked, but others still hold (and even upheld). UDC new materials use even more recent IP so even the basic patents should not be critical any more.

And I cannot see any company developing OLEDs that will be produced in the EU and sold in the EU only. The different in material prices will not be worth the extra development, certainly not at such an early stage where most of the cost is in R&D and not in materials.

Thanks, but this does not really make Philips into a key customer yet. Even if they switch all their panels to R+G PHOLEDs, the revenue will be low as capacity is still low. I hope they will commit to a larger production fab soon, though, maybe with a capacity similar to KM's fab (1 million panels per month).

It is not a coincidence that this new agreement is annouced prior to Q3 when Philips starts mass producing the super efficient Lumiblade Brite FL 300 OLED Panel???? 

Do you Know what their capacity is on this line ???

First of all, the FL300 is not "super efficient" (50 lm/W). I do not think this panel will use UDC's PHOLEDs, it seems too soon.

Lots of work is being done with phosphorescent yellow/green and fluorescent (or even phosphorescent light blue) for OLED lighting.  It is not necessary to use red/green/blue for lighting and would likely keep costs high.  While it is unkown whether Philips had access to all of UDC's phosphoescent materials, an agreement like this could open Philips up to new materials and potentially larger quantities.  

The question is also whether UDC is ready to deliver material in large scale for OLED lighting. Could they provide same material and guaranty availability over years? Are they going to wait that OLED lighting market grows or focus mainly on OLED display market?

Anyway, I notice that the Brite FL300 from Philips outperforms his competitors because lumen density is significantly higher than other panels. Life time and efficiency at the same lumen density as their competitors (so much lower lumen density) should be very high.


 I think also new player like KM will need more time than expected to reach the same final yield in production as former OLED lighting companies, even if flexible OLED lighting is more or less new for everybody.