UPDATE 2-US ITC: Samsung infringed, should face import bar

* U.S. trade body backs import bar over four patents

* Sharp had filed complaint

* Samsung expects no impact on sales (Adds comment from Samsung)

WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Sharp Corp (6753.T), a major manufacturer of liquid crystal displays, convinced a U.S. trade body to recommend that its South Korean rival, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS), be prohibited from selling some televisions and other LCD devices in the United States.

The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled on Monday that Samsung infringed Sharp patents and should no longer sell infringing devices in the United States. LCDs are used for television screens and computer monitors.

Samsung is required to post a bond worth 100 percent of the affected products pending a review of the ITC ruling by the U.S. executive branch.

The ITC decision upheld a ruling by an ITC administrative law judge, who had found that Samsung infringed four patents and urged an import ban.

Sharp, the world's fourth-largest LCD television maker, and market leader Samsung face cut-throat price competition and weak demand for bigger TVs with higher profit margins.

In Seoul, Samsung said it expected the decision to have no impact on its sales.

"We are fully committed to honor our responsibility to our business partners and are taking appropriate actions to meet the market demand for Samsung LCD panels and products without any interruption," said Samsung spokesman James Chung.

The patented technology improves the picture for viewers sitting on the side. It also improves the speed with which the screen can change the image, which is important for viewing sports, in particular.

Sharp filed the complaint against Samsung with the ITC in March 2008.

Sharp had initially sued Samsung over liquid crystal display patent violations in 2007 in a Texas court, and Samsung promptly countersued in both Texas and in Delaware.

In June, the ITC ruled that Sharp had infringed one Samsung patent. Patent suits, appeals and settlements are often a long prelude to a cross-license agreement.

The case before the U.S. International Trade Commission is investigation No. 337-TA-631. (Reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington and Rhee So-eui in Seoul; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)