SK claims patent invalidity
LG “Some of the opinions… Odo”
[천지일보=정다준 기자] The battle between the two companies is intensifying as SK Innovation has rejected the patent invalidation trial (IPR) applied to the Patent Tribunal (PTAB) of the US Patent Office against LG Energy Solutions.
On the 18th, SK Innovation insisted on the possibility of invalidating the patent of LG Energy Solution, and against this, LG Energy Solution refuted that it was misleading, only a partial excerpt of PTAB opinion.
On the day, SK Innovation said in a statement, “SK intends to clarify that the’remarks on the possibility of invalidity of LG patents by PTAB’ that LG avoids answering are true.”
“SK’s application to PTAB in the US to reveal that the LG patent is invalid was based on an objective analysis of the patent lawsuit filed against SK in 2019 with the US International Trade Commission (ITC), and it was determined that the possibility of invalidation was very high. “It was because at the time of filing the IPR, it was not only before the policy changes of the US patent authorities were formalized, but also because most of the IPRs filed during the ITC litigation were open, so they were convinced that the possibility of invalidation was high.”
SK said, “PTAB clarified the opinion that’the applicant presented a reasonable possibility of invalidity’ while dismissing the IPR application issued by SK. In particular, it made clear the opinion that it had’provided a strong basis for invalidation’ for the patent 517 patent at issue. Also, it supports SK’s judgment.” In addition, “The 310 patent, a Korean patent that corresponds to the US 517 patent, was a patent that was declared invalid in a patent invalidation trial (Patent Tribunal and Patent Court) filed in Korea in 2011,” he said. We have agreed on a cooperation level.”
LG Energy Solutions responded to SK Innovation’s assertion, “SK is misleading as if it were true by extracting only some of the PTAB opinions.” “It is one of the six judgment factors in determining whether or not to initiate an investigation, which is invalid enough to initiate an investigation. Did you claim the issue? It is not that there is a high likelihood of ultimately being invalidated.”
“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 this issue.” “In PTAB, in the case of invalidity of a patent, substantial facts and scope of rights are confirmed and legal He added that it is only possible to accurately judge whether it is a prior document or not.”
“Typically, PTAB generally considers six requirements to decide whether to initiate an investigation,” he said. “What SK is advocating is only one factor. If the possibility of patent invalidation due to this part was high, PTAB would have initiated an investigation, but as a result, it would have made a decision to dismiss.”
Previously, on the 12th (local time), PTAB decided to refuse to initiate an investigation on two IPRs raised by SK Innovation against LG Energy Solutions in the United States. In November of last year, PTAB rejected a total of eight referee claims, including six dismissals.
‘;
Copyright © Cheonji Ilbo-Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution of the Press for New Era