In response to the final decision of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) that’SK violated 22 battery trade secrets of LG’, SK Innovation refuted that the ruling was different from the facts. SK said, “It plans to actively clarify the problems posed by the ITC decision in the presidential review process and strongly request the exercise of the veto.”
On the 5th, SK Innovation said, “I am sorry for the US ITC’s decision to develop its own battery technology, which has been prepared since 1982, and the substance of it has not been properly heard.”
In the’LG Energy Solution-SK Innovation ITC Business Secret Infringement Litigation Opinion’ posted on the site that day, ITC stated that SK’s infringement of trade secrets. In a 96-page ruling, ITC emphasized that SK violated Article 337 of the U.S. Customs Act by violating LG’s trade secrets, and attempted to destroy evidence in the course of a lawsuit.
In response, SK Innovation said, “As I mentioned immediately after the ITC lawsuit was filed, the company and LG do not need LG’s trade secrets because the battery development and manufacturing methods are different.” We also signed a supply contract with the company.
“Even with our own technology, ITC made a decision based on defects in the litigation procedure without a substantive verification of the alleged infringement of LG Energy Solutions’ trade secrets,” he said. “I am concerned that the decision will cause various problems.” Emphasized.
SK Innovation said, “Although ITC decided that it was infringing trade secrets, it was unable to determine what trade secrets were infringed and how it was infringed.” “There was no evidence of the infringement of trade secrets, which is the essence of the matter, in the ITC opinion,” he argued.
The company said, “LG presented a 100-page document that could be said to be the entire battery-related technology in response to ITC’s request to specify the infringed trade secret, but even ITC decided that it could not be considered that it was presented as a trade secret.” “ITC has designated 22 trade secrets that LG has reluctantly reduced, but admitted that the scope is ambiguous, and has ordered a separate approval as to whether individual imported goods are actually subject to import bans,” he added.
It was also said that the ITC issued a ruling that did not fully consider the impact on the public interest. SK Innovation said, “The basis for calculating the period for Ford and Volkswagen products that have been suspended is unclear,” and said, “The two companies are appealing that’the grace period is absolutely insufficient and there is no alternative method.'”
Related Articles
US ITC “SK, LG would have taken 10 years to develop batteries without trade secrets”
US ITC and LG raised their hands… “SK Inno bans battery import for 10 years”
[속보] US ITC quotes SK Innovation’s early defeat decision… Prohibition of importing batteries for 10 years
SK Inno “Efforts to settle smoothly including ITC litigation, settlement”
At the same time, SK Innovation said, “We plan to actively call out the problems of the ITC decision in the Presidential Review process and strongly request the exercise of the veto (Veto).”
According to foreign press and industry sources, SK Innovation recently requested the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to exercise the presidential veto against the import ban order decided by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). In the request, SK Innovation is said to have emphasized that the ITC’s final decision could have a negative impact on the social value that the Georgia plant will create.