The battery fight extended to LG-SK’s main weapon … “Reasonable repair” versus “not acceptable”

▲ LG Chem, SK Innovation shareholders’ meeting from left to right ⓒ Each company

LG Chem and SK Innovation, which are fighting a lawsuit for trade secret infringement of electric vehicle batteries, continued their battle at the general meeting of shareholders.

When LG Chem warned that it “won’t happen,” SK Innovation strongly emphasized its current position that it couldn’t meet the demands of the competition. The veto of the president of the United States, Joe Biden, against the decision of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is about two weeks away, and the nerves of the two companies are even more intense.

SK Innovation CEO Lee Myung-young said in a greeting at the 14th General Shareholders’ Meeting held at SK Building in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the morning of the 26th. The point was revealed again.

Director Lee said: “While admitting that it is not clear what trade secrets are, ITC cited vague arguments from competitors without judging the facts about trade secrets infringement, which is the gist of the case due to the lack of document management”. We are very sorry, “he said.” It is impossible to accept the demands of the competition at a level that does not make sense to continue the battery business in the United States or that significantly reduces business competitiveness.

He continued: “Our battery has been recognized for its competitiveness differentiated from customers in terms of stability and quality, such as the absence of fire accidents,” he said. “We will do everything possible to enhance shareholder and corporate value in the remaining legal proceedings. Added.

This is interpreted as a counter-action response to the previous day, when Hak-cheol Shin, Vice President of LG Chem, expressed his strong position at the ordinary shareholders meeting held at LG Twin Tower in Yeouido, Seoul. Vice President Shin Hak-cheol mentioned that this issue cannot be ignored and that he will take strict measures in order to receive adequate compensation.

Vice President Shin said, “The reason that ITC even mentioned the organizational culture and presented a strong reason for the ruling was unusually due to the serious recognition of the importance and seriousness of this issue,” he said. “The competitors did not accept.” this, and the cause had no experience in global disputes. It seems to be considered only as what has happened. ”

LG Energy Solutions also released data after the SK Innovation shareholders meeting and said: “It is very regrettable not to acknowledge the content of the ITC ruling and to mislead even the specific facts.” “The two companies can directly verify the evidence related to the secret list.”

More than a month has passed since LG Energy Solutions assisted ITC in a trade secret infringement lawsuit, but the positions of the two companies remain parallel. The ITC ordered ’10 years to ban imports from the US ‘, alleging that SK Innovation’s battery cells, modules, packages and related parts and materials violated Section 337 of the US Customs Act. USA, infringing the trade secrets of LG Energy Solutions.

However, imports of Ford F150 electric pickup truck battery parts and materials were allowed for 4 years, Volkswagen MEB battery parts and materials for 2 years, and Kia electric vehicle battery repair and replacement battery products. already sold.

In the industry, following the ITC ruling, LG Energy Solution and SK Innovation were predicted to reach an agreement, but news of the progress has yet to be delivered. Rather, they disagree on the size of the settlement amount and the method of payment, and the conflict is escalating. LG Energy Solution is known to require more than 3 trillion won, while SK Innovation wants to strike a deal at the 1 trillion won level.

Consequently, whether or not the president of the United States exercises veto power has become a key variable. The ITC process is similar to the Korean administrative judgment and is subject to the president’s approval process. The President of the United States can review the ITC decision and invalidate the decision within 60 days of the decision. The deadline for the veto is April 11.