[ad_1]
Before the final judgment of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) on the electric vehicle battery lawsuits (October 5), LG Chem and SK Innovation face a more difficult conversation. The atmosphere tends to linger before trials rather than settlements. The two companies are pursuing three battery-related lawsuits, including the ITC trade secret infringement lawsuit. It could take up to five more years for the related lawsuit to be finalized. In this case, large losses are expected to be inevitable for both parties, including astronomical litigation costs.
On the 6th, LG Chem said, “Please be fair to the claim” through a “requirements for SK position” statement. Previously, LG Chem submitted a request for sanctions to the ITC, alleging that the patent (patent 994) for the patent infringement lawsuits filed by SK Innovation with the ITC was using LG Chem’s previous technology. LG Chem explained that on the 4th Before SK Innovation filed for patent 994, it had already sold LG Chem products equipped with the technology. LG Chem insisted that “SK Innovation took our technology and registered it as a patent, so it even filed a patent infringement lawsuit and destroyed the evidence to hide it.”
He also emphasized that “running a US factory with stolen technology is an unfair act and that it is not true to claim patent infringement from the ITC.” Furthermore, he wrote: “Unfortunately, we monitor the level of competitors and the quality of the applied patents,” and said: “We are belittling the patents registered by SK Innovation.”
SK Innovation refuted. He said that there was no reason to apply for a patent that would cease to be valid if the state of the art is known. SK Innovation criticized, “LG focused on defaming SK rather than the patent dispute itself, and went so far as to make claims beyond common sense.” The documents cited by LG Chem as evidence were also said to contain “patent-related information.”
True, the inventor of the patent was transferred from LG, but he added that it was a compelling claim because he moved to work in 2008, five years before LG Chem launched related products in 2013. SK Innovation specifically mentioned the number of employees that they left LG Chem and said, “The reason so many people are retiring at LG is a problem that LG should look back on.”
The prevailing view is that defamation from both sides beyond the province is due to stalemate in negotiations related to the trials. LG Chem has established trillions of won for the settlement money, but SK Innovation informed the industry that it offered tens of billions of won, which is the level of labor costs equivalent to three years for billing. LG Chem said: “Over time, it will only increase the burden on SK Innovation, so a wise judgment is necessary.” On the other hand, SK Innovation said: “I know LG Chem is talking about a large quantity without a clear standard” and said: “We cannot agree on a ridiculous quantity.”
As the ’emotional struggle’ intensifies, it is observed that it is difficult to wait for an agreement between the two parties before the final decision. The industry predicts that it will take 3-5 years to complete all litigation. So far, both parties are known to have spent around 400 billion won on litigation costs alone. It is also predicted that if the ‘chicken game’ aspect continues, both companies could spend more than $ 1 trillion each in litigation costs. A trade official said: “Electric vehicle batteries are the main business of both companies and it is difficult to give up at the group level. If demand continues, both companies may become losers.” You have to make an effort. “
Reporter Kang Ju-hwa and Kwon Min-ji [email protected]
[ad_2]
