January 6, 2016
Company name: Enplas Corporation
Representative: Daisuke Yokota, President
Code No.: 6961, TSE 1st Section
Inquiries: Takashi Sakai, Senior Managing Director
Tel: 03-6268-0259

Enplas Display Device LED Diffusion Lens Litigation

In October 2013, Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. (SSC) threatened our Enplas Display Device Corporation(EDD), Enplas (U.S.A.), Inc. (EUSA) and Enplas Tech Solutions, Inc. (ETS) subsidiaries with infringementof two U.S. Patents (6,473,554 and 6,007,209, the “Patents-in-Suit). In response, EDD, along with EUSAand ETS, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California that our Light Enhancer Cap™ products do not infringe, directly or indirectly, either ofthe Patents-in-Suit and that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid. (Case No. 3:13-cv-05038-NC)
In October 2015, EDD, EUSA and ETS moved for summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidityof the Patents-in-Suit.
In an effort to avoid summary judgment, SSC issued unconditional covenants not to sue for infringement
under the Patents-in-Suit in favor of EUSA and ETS.

On December 3, 2015, the U.S. District Court, inview of those covenants, dismissed all claims against EUSA and ETS with prejudice, thereby clearing themof any allegation of infringement. (Case No. 3:13-cv-05038-NC, Docket Entry 244).
On the same day, the District Court granted the EDD’s motion for summary judgment that certain alleged
products do not infringe either of the Patents-in-Suit, and that all other alleged products do not directly orcontributorily infringe those patents in EDD’s favor and against SSC. (Case No. 3:13-cv-05038-NC,
Docket Entry 244). SSC has also issued to EDD a covenant not to sue for direct and contributory
infringement under the Patents-in-Suit, thereby committing itself not to file any such suits against any of ourLight Enhancer Cap™ products in the future.
There have also been patent invalidation proceedings (IPR) in the US against three Enplas patents, withrespect to one of which the PTAB decision is currently appealed. While the remaining two patents have beenfound invalid in part, what we consider the most important claims were maintained as being valid. In
response to invalidation proceeding in Japan, the PTO held the Enplas Japanese patent to be valid on allcounts.
We are confident that our Light Enhancer Cap™ do not infringe any third party patents.

In addition, wehave numerous patents relating to its diffusion lens products in the U.S. and Asian countries such as Japan,China, Taiwan and Korea, which we will actively enforce against any third party that seeks to copy orotherwise engage in the unauthorized use, manufacture and/or sale of lenses incorporating our proprietary
technologies.

Notice:1. This announcement contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on Enplas's current
assumptions, expectations and beliefs in light of the information currently possessed by it and involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors. Such risks, uncertainties and other factors may cause Enplas’s actual results, financial position or cash
flows to be materially different from any future results, financial position or cash flows expressed or implied by theseforward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors referred to above include, but are not limited to, thosecontained in Enplas's latest Annual Securities Report and Quarterly Securities Report, and Enplas undertakes no obligation to
publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.
2. The official version of this announcement was published in Japanese. An unofficial English translation is provided for theconvenience of overseas investors. For any discrepancies between the Japanese and English versions, the Japanese version shall prevail.