LG Energy Solution and SK Innovation are continuing their battery patent battles every day. This time, the interpretations of the two companies were mixed as to whether the stance of the U.S. Patent Office contained the’possibility of invalidity’ for the LG battery patent. The nervous war is intensifying about a month before the final judgment on the battery trade secret infringement lawsuit.
SK Innovation said on the 18th that “LG Energy Solutions must answer the possibility of invalidation of LG patents mentioned by the Patent Tribunal (PTBA) of the US Patent Office, which is the essence of the issue.”
On the 12th (local time), PTAB, which mediates the patent litigation of both companies, declined to initiate an investigation into the eight patent invalidation trials (IPRs) related to SRS and positive electrode material patents filed by SK Innovation against LG Energy Solutions.
However, LG Energy Solutions and SK Innovation came up with different interpretations of PTAB’s IPR dismissal decision.
LG claimed that “SK is in a situation where it has not even started a dispute over the validity of our patents.” On the other hand, SK countered that “PTAB rejected the request to initiate a patent invalidation trial investigation for procedural reasons, but it mentioned the possibility of the LG patent invalidation on an essential issue.”
Two interpretations in one statement… LG-SK fights again
On the day, SK Innovation stated, “PTAB (in his dismissal decision) clarified the opinion that’the applicant presented a reasonable possibility of invalidation’.” “For the ‘517 patent’, which is an issue patent,’a reasonably strong case on unpatentability I also made clear the opinion that’I presented a).
SK Innovation said, “The 310 patent, which is the domestic counterpart of the 517 patent, was ruled invalid through a patent invalidation trial filed in Korea in 2011, but it was agreed with (LG) for a massive cooperation ahead of the Supreme Court ruling.” It is true that’PTAB’s mention of the possibility of invalidity of LG patent’ that avoids the answer is true.”
Regarding this, LG Energy Solutions said, “SK is misleading as if it were true by extracting only some of the PTAB opinions.” Whether or not, it is not that the possibility of invalidation is high in the end.”
The gist of LG’s argument is that PTAB would have continued the investigation if there was a high possibility of patent invalidation.
LG Energy Solutions stated, “PTAB has stated that’there are interpretations of the scope of patent rights and facts that can be revealed only through an investigation of sufficient evidence in relation to the issue.’ “PTAB generally considers six requirements to determine whether to initiate an investigation. To make a decision, what SK claims is only one of these elements,” he added.
SK “Respond transparently to everything” vs. LG “It’s not worth responding to”
In such a fierce battle situation, the possibility of the agreement between the two companies was even lower until the final judgment on the US ITC’s battery trade secret infringement lawsuit on the 10th of next month (local time). Earlier, Ji Dong-seop, CEO of SK Innovation’s battery business (President) and others, mentioned that they would continue the conversation, but the emotional goal is still deep.
SK said, “We are sorry to the public and the media for the battery litigation issue of both companies, and we are very sorry,” he said. “We will work fairly and fairly so that the lawsuit can be completed as soon as possible, and I will speak transparently about everything.”
LG also responded, “Even if I see the unspoken actions of competitors asking for answers to matters that should be covered in court, I don’t feel the value of responding at all.” did.
The final decision of the ITC is predicted in three main ways: ▲Keeping the decision of early defeat of SK ▲Possibility of termination without additional administrative order ▲Possibility of postponing the ruling due to additional investigation.
Related Articles
2020 is the year of Korean batteries… ‘Top 5’alongside LG, Samsung, and SK
PTAB and SK Ino dismissed the LG battery patent invalidation trial
US ITC, LG-SK battery lawsuit final decision and postponement
SK Ino-LG Energy’crash’ ahead of US ITC ruling
In the final decision, if ITC gives LG’s hand, the US import ban on SK battery cells, modules, and packs is expected to occur. It has already invested KRW 1.9 trillion, and there is a high concern that the aftermath of the operation of the SK US Georgia battery plant, where an additional KRW 1 trillion will be invested in the expansion of the second plant.
An official in the industry predicted, “The two companies have reached an agreement under the water, but the position difference remains,” and “if the agreement cannot be found before the final judgment, the lawsuit will go into a long battle.”