[ad_1]
In response to the final decision of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) that ‘K violated 22 LG battery trade secrets’, SK Innovation disputed that the decision was different from the facts. SK said: “He plans to actively clarify the issues raised by the ITC decision in the presidential review process and strongly request the exercise of the veto.”
On the 5th, SK Innovation said: “I regret US ITC’s decision to develop its own battery technology, which has been in the works since 1982, and the essence of it has not been properly heard.”
In the ‘LG Energy Solution-SK Innovation ITC Trade Secret Infringement Litigation Opinion’ posted on the site that day, ITC stated that SK had infringed trade secrets. In a 96-page ruling, ITC emphasized that SK violated Section 337 of the United States Customs Law 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. ” he said.
“Even with our own technology, ITC made a decision based on flaws in the litigation procedure without substantial verification of the alleged infringement of LG Energy Solutions’ trade secrets.” Stressed.
SK Innovation said: “Although ITC decided that it was infringing trade secrets, it could not determine which trade secrets were infringed and how they were infringed.” “There was no evidence of trade secret infringement, which is the essence of the matter,” he argued.
The company said: “LG submitted a 100-page document that arguably is all battery-related technology in response to ITC’s request to specify the infringed trade secret, but even the ITC decided that it could not be considered filed as” The ITC has designated 22 trade secrets that LG has reluctantly reduced, but admitted that the scope is ambiguous, and has ordered a separate approval on whether individual imported products 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 discontinued is unclear,” and said: “The two companies are appealing that ‘the grace period is absolutely insufficient and there is no alternative method ‘”.
Related Posts
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 the import of batteries for 10 years”
[속보] US ITC Cites SK Innovation’s Early Defeat Decision … Battery Import Ban for 10 Years
SK Inno “Efforts to reach a smooth settlement, including litigation and ITC settlements”
At the same time, SK Innovation said: “We plan to actively clarify the issues raised by 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 asked the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to exercise the presidential veto against the import ban order decided by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). In the application, SK Innovation is said to have emphasized that ITC’s final decision could negatively impact the social value the Georgia plant will create.
