[ad_1]
SK Innovation ‘994 patent’, LG Chem ‘confer to our prior art’ VS SK’s self-development ‘
Around the secondary battery, which is a battery for cars, a tough battle between LG Chem and SK Innovation continued over the weekend.
Previously, the dispute between the two parties, which arose from LG Chem’s filing with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in April last year for breach of invasion secrets against SK Innovation, occurred simultaneously in the country and abroad, such as SK Innovation’s patent 994 infringement in September of that year. It led to a court case.
On the 4th, LG Chem also pointed out that it had filed a lawsuit because it was not enough to bring the technology.
LG Chem rebutted on the 6th, saying: “When registering a patent for a developed technology, we regard strict standards as having elements as core technology.”
As for the technology that SK Innovation claims to violate, the internal standard at the time of development did not have a feature that could be registered as a patent and protected, and LG Chem said it was determined that there would be no risk of patent dispute if installed in customer products and was disclosed.
“We monitor the level of competition and the quality of applied patents,” he said, and lowered the technological level of patents registered by SK Innovation.
In addition, he argued that “after taking someone else’s technology, after registering it as his own patent and filing a lawsuit for infringement, a situation of destruction of evidence emerged to hide it.”
Earlier on the 4th, SK Innovation argued that LG Chem was monitoring the development of competing patents, and if there were older technologies, it would not have been possible to register 994 patents at the time of 2015.
LG Chem also responded to SK Innovation’s earlier point that it “raised the issue after the litigation proceeded for a long time.” We must first disclose whether we had the data and why we are trying to destroy it. “
SK Innovation also released a rebuttal on this day.
The core of the rebuttal is that there is no reason to apply for a patent that will be invalid if the state of the art exists.
SK Innovation criticized, “LG Chem is focused on defaming SK rather than the patent dispute itself, and has gone to the point of making claims beyond common sense.”
Regarding the documents cited by LG Chem as evidence of the prior art, he dismissed it, saying: “It does not contain any patent-related information” and “I just submitted the title of the document and said there was something.”
Furthermore, he added an explanation that the ‘old technology claim’ was suppressed in chronological order when LG Chem moved out of LG in 2008, prior to 2013, when LG Chem launched related products in relation to the inventor of the 994 patent.
Regarding the destruction of evidence alleged by LG Chem, he emphasized that “as a party bringing the lawsuit, there was no reason to erase the data, nor did it.” “It clarifies that data related to the patent lawsuit was not deleted.”
At the same time, SK Innovation chided LG Chem for filing a “or not” lawsuit and convincing arguments, saying: “Please provide the basis clearly.”
SK Innovation said on the 4th that it was a ‘self-developed technology’ for the 994 patent. If it had been of the technique, it would not have been registered ”.
Furthermore, “at the time of filing a lawsuit, we are not even aware of the ‘product claiming to be a leading product’, but only after the process has advanced, do we belatedly filing and reinforcing the similarity.” I am concerned that it may be misunderstood that it can be solved with a problem. “
Reporter Dahun Yang [email protected]
[ⓒ 세계일보 & Segye.com, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]