SK Innovation and LG Energy Solutions collided again a month before the final judgment on the lawsuit for infringing the trade secrets of electric vehicle batteries. The interpretations of the two companies are sharply mixed over the fact that the battery patent invalidation lawsuit filed by SK against LG in the United States was recently dismissed.
LG Energy Solutions emphasized that the decision of the US Patent Office will have a major blow to SK’s patent litigation strategy. SK Innovation responded by saying that some litigation proceedings were only suspended due to a series of policy changes, and that LG was trying to drive public opinion as if it was a judgment in its favor.
According to foreign press and industry sources, the US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Tribunal (PTAB) refused to initiate an investigation into the eight cases of IPR related to SRS and anode material patents filed by SK Innovation on the 12th (local time).
On the other hand, one IPR related to battery module that LG Energy Solutions filed against SK Innovation to PTAB is reported to be in progress on September 30, last year.
LG Energy Solutions distributed a reference material containing such information on the previous day (14th). At the same time, LG said, “It is impossible to appeal against the decision to initiate an investigation,” and argued that “SK Innovation is in a situation where it has not even started a dispute over the validity of our patents.”
“Industrial experts said,’Since SK Innovation has higher patent inefficiency at PTAB than the US International Trade Commission (ITC), many IPRs have been filed with PTAB. ‘I’m looking at it,’ he said.
On the 15th, SK Innovation refuted, “LG Energy Solutions is misleading public opinion by distorting the essential content of the decision.”
SK Innovation said, “PTAB rejected the request to initiate a patent invalidation trial investigation for procedural reasons, while mentioning the possibility of the LG patent invalidation on the essential issue.” “In particular, this ruling is different from the patent litigation in progress at ITC. As a separate matter, the procedure for arguing that LG’s patent is invalid in the ITC litigation proceedings is proceeding as scheduled.”
There are three main reasons for SK’s argument. ▲PTAB has rejected all trials for invalidation of patent lawsuits pending with ITC ▲PTAB expressed’Some strength to the merits’ for some of the claims for invalidity of patents filed by the company ▲Conversely, LG The patent-free song filed by the authors is not conducted in the ITC, but in the federal court, and the investigation is only started.
SK Innovation explained that “PTAB’s rejection of the patent invalidation trial on eight patent issues was not a matter of lawsuits, but it was based on policy.”
“Rather, PTAB rejected IPR for the above reasons, and judged that’SKI presented a reasonable possibility of invalidity for 6 out of 8 cases filed by SKI regarding invalidity of patents.’ In regards to this, he said, “a reasonably strong case on unpatentability” was suggested.
SK Innovation said, “This is the PTAB’s dismissal of the case for procedural reasons, while providing ITC with PTAB’s view of patent invalidity. We plan to discuss patent invalidation with LG in the ITC procedure by referring to this PTAB view.” Added.
LG Energy Solutions also refuted SK Innovation’s claim on the day. In response to SK’s claim that’the decision to dismiss the application for invalidation has begun due to a duplicate claim’, LG said, “There is no explanation as to why the eight cases were filed at a cost.” It is clear that all applications from PTAB (US Patent Tribunal) were rejected and the opportunity was lost.”
Related Articles
US ITC, LG-SK battery lawsuit final decision and postponement
Final decision date for LG-SK’battery patent litigation’ confirmed
PTAB and SK Inno dismissed the LG battery patent invalidation trial
2020 is the year of Korean batteries… ‘Top 5’alongside LG, Samsung, and SK
LG Energy Solutions said, “It is the duty of both companies to clearly cover the disputes through litigation and to show responsibility for the results. We are firm against any actions that infringe on intellectual property rights, including 27,000 battery patents. “We will respond with it,” he said.
On the other hand, the final decision of the US International Trade Commission (ITC)’s lawsuit for infringing battery trade secrets, which is separate from the patent lawsuits of both companies, is scheduled for the 10th of next month (local time).