Disputes between LG Chem and SK Innovation

The dispute between LG Chem and SK Innovation, one of Korea's leading battery makers is on the rise. The two companies are currently in a dispute over a battle for battery-related core manpower. SK Innovation has contradicted against LG Chem, saying that they’re ready to take the legal action, and the dispute between the two companies is spreading as a fight.

lgchem.com

The dispute that started with LG Chem's lawsuit,

The dispute began in the US by filing a lawsuit, LG Chem claimed that SK Innovation violated LG Chem’s battery-related trade secrets. LG Chem claims that SK Innovation has stripped about 70 key employees of LG Chem from 2017. LG Chem said that the job application for the SK Innovation’s recruitment application included details of the project in the previous job and the name of the co-worker.

skinnovation.com

Refuting against each other,

SK Innovation said that it is only a form of proof of career documents that is commonly used, and that filing a petition in a foreign country for legitimate business activities of the company is concerned about damage to national interests. LG Chem then reiterated that it would be a national interest to protect the core technology and intellectual property rights secured by research and investment, and that no company would make a bold investment if latecomers were allowed to use their trade secrets . In addition, it is not always routine to ask for the results of collaborative work and researchers' information on personal affairs with regard to the application documents.

pixabay.com

Increasing disputes between two companies,

Meanwhile, SK Innovation said that LG Chem's business secrets are not needed because it SK Innovation has secured the world's best technology through its own research and development. As a result of these two companies' lawsuits, refutations, re-refutations and rebuttal of materials, the gap between the two companies gradually increased, and the likelihood of a full-scale war was heightened. However, as the two companies are Korea's representatives for energy, hopefully that they will be resolved smoothly so as not to cause unfortunate events that would reduce the competitiveness of the country due to the exhaustion of the enterprises.

[WIPSTUDY #4] Taiwan- Patent Litigation case study #4

Following up #3,
this time we're going to review the statistics of Taiwan patent status as analyzed US patent infringement litigation, also find out the reason why they became inactive through various cases focusing on;

• Canceled
• Terminated
• Reissued
• Expired

                                 < search n analysis database : WIPS Global >

4. Review Taiwan cases of US Patent Infringement Litigation Analysis

The followings are the conditions to review the *Taiwan cases out of the US infringement litigation. 

• Federal court filing year (2011- present)
• Analysis target : 200 cases
• Current status of US 

* Taiwan cases means, litigation cases that Taiwan corporations are involved as the plaintiff or defendant. 

wipsglobal.com > SmartAngle- Status [US]

◀Statistics of Taiwan Status;
Active : 80% (178)
Inactive/ Canceled : 1% (2) 
Inactive/ Terminated : 1% (1)
Inactive/ Reissued : 2% (3)
Inactive/ Expired : 8% (16)













As see the above chart, Inactive status is described in 4 cases- Canceled, Terminated, Reissued, Expired. From now on we're going to review various cases corresponding to each of inactive cases.

✔ Inactive/ Canceled : 1%

Case : Lotes Co.Ltd v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.,Ltd
⇿Summary : Lotes Co.Ltd filed against Hon Hai Precision Industry on Mar. 7, 2011.
                  Ex Parte Reexamination occured on Aug. 30, 2013, which resulted in the
                  entire claims 1-17 were canceled.

wipsglobal.com > Litigation search

• Case type : Infringement
• Terminated by : Likely settlement
• Product : Connetors, CPU sockets, coolers and antennas for notebook computers...
• Plaintiff : Lotes Co.,Ltd
• Defendant : Hon Hai Precision Industry et al. 1
• Patent : US 6908313

   ⏪ Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
says;
The patent is hereby amended as indicated below.
As the result of reexamination, it has been determined that:
Claims 1-17 are cancelled.




















✔ Inactive/ Terminated : 1%

Case : Epistar Corporation v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
⇿Summary : Apr. 28, 2017, Epistar filed an infringement suit against the Lowe's
                 Companies. On Aug. 30, 2018 Fujian Sanan Group filed an invalidation suit
                 against Epistar but the institution was denied. (ref. second below
                 screenshot) '020 patent was terminated on Nov. 11, 2019 as a terminal
                 disclaimer.

wipsglobal.com > Litigation search

• Case type : Infringement
• Status : open
• Product : Kichler Lighting 60W Equivalent Dimmable Soft White A15 LED Decorative Light Bulb and the UTILITECH 60W Equivalent Warm White A19 LED Light Fixture Light Bulb.
• Plaintiff : Epistar Corporation
• Defendant : Lowe's Companies Inc. et al. 1
• Patent : US 8587020

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal search

• Court name : PTAB (Patent Trial Appeal Board)
• PTAB case : IPR (Inter Partes Review)
• Outcome : No claims invalidated/ Canceled
• PTAB status : Institution denied
• Petitioner : Fujian Sanan Group
• Patent Owner : Epistar Corp.

◀ Status of the patent '020' has been inactive by being terminated.

 ; as stated in Application history, filed in Nov.19, 1998 and terminated Nov.20, 2018









✔ Inactive/ Reissued : 1%

Case : Phison Electronics Corporation v. PNY Technologies
⇿Summary : Phison Electronics filed a suit against PNY Technologies on Nov. 2011. And
                  PNY filed an invalidation trial on PTAB next year, the patent owner filed the
                  Reissue application on Mar. 2015.

wipsglobal.com > Litigation search

• Case type : Infringement
• Terminated by : Likely settlement
• Product : Memory storage products include, Cube and Attache families of products, flash memory drives containing SMI controllers....
• Plaintiff : Phison Electronics.
• Defendant : PNY Technologies
• Patent : US 7518879

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal search

• Court Name : PTAB (Patent Trial Appeal Board)
• PTAB case : IPR (Inter Partes Review)
• PTAB status : Final Written Decision

⏪ Inter Partes Review Certificate

    ⏪ Reissued document of the
       US patent RE 46871 E


       Applicant : Phison Electronics Corp.
       Reissue of Patent no. 7518879


















✔ Inactive/ Expired : 7%

Case : Cpumate Inc. v. Sony Corporation
⇿Summary : Cpumate Inc. filed a suit against several companies. After that the
                 corresponding patent was expired by the failure of paying maintenance
                 fees.

wipsglobal.com > Litigation search

• Case type : Infringement
• Terminated  by : Transferred out
• Product : Sony PlayStation 3 game console
• Plaintiff : Cpumate, Inc.
• Defendant : Sony Corporation et al. 2
• Patent : US 8387250

wipsglobal.com > Search-View Detail

◀ Status is appeared 'expired' dated Mar. 5, 2017 even the patent was filed Nov. 4, 2008.

wipsglobal.com > Search-View Detail > Legal Status

◀ It's described in the Legal Status that patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees.

Continued.....>>

Samsung Electronics Huawei ends patent dispute

The patent dispute between Samsung Electronics of Korea and Huawei of China finally ended. Samsung Electronics and Huawei have been in patent disputes for about three years from 2016 to February 2019. After a dramatic agreement in February, it is said that the formal legal process has finally come to an end.

flickr.com ©DennisM2

Patent dispute on smartphone of two companies

When Samsung Electronics emerged as a leader in the smartphone market, Huawei, which is newly entering the smartphone market, filed a lawsuit alleging that Samsung infringed the essential patent on the LTE communication in 2016. Since there were many opinions that Samsung Electronics was ahead of Huawei by technology, it was expected that Samsung Electronics would win easily. However, as the Chinese court held Huawei 's hand, the lawsuit went unexpectedly and eventually the dispute persisted for a long time of three years.

flickr.com ©Open Grid Scheduler

Reasons for reconciliation of two companies?

There were many opinions that Huawei filed a lawsuit, not for a victory but a strategic suit. It is a strategic lawsuit filed to improve the image of Huawei, which has entered the smartphone market late, and to take a favorable position in negotiations with Samsung. Cross-license agreements between Samsung and Huawei show that Huawei's strategy of the litigation may have worked.

pixabay.com

What is the relationship between Samsung Electronics and Huawei, from now on?

The patent dispute between the two companies has been terminated, but the rivalry between the companies seems to be not over yet. Currently, both companies are competing for 5G communication technology. Unlike 4G, there are many opinions that Huawei is preoccupying a favorable position under Chinese government’s active support. We’re going to have to watch the future of smartphone  rivalry.

PEPSI filed suit against Indian farmer

PEPSI, a US food and beverage manufacturer famous for its PEPSI CO., sued the Indian farmers for trademark infringement. The goods that were subject to trademark infringement were potatoes, not cola. Pepsi said that they filed a lawsuit for damages with trademark infringement, arguing that farmers grew their trademarked potatoes without permission.

pixabay.com

India's largest potato buyer

According to an Indian business official, PEPSI is India's largest fair-grade potato buyer. Recently, PEPSI's potato chip have become very popular, and they are purchasing large amounts of potatoes from India every year to produce potato chips. An Indian official says the lawsuit is designed to counter the unauthorized use of potato varieties registered as a trademark from the company's standpoint and is a legitimate exercise of corporate rights.

pixabay.com

Indian farmer appealing for being unfair

On the other hand, the accused Indian farmer said that he didn’t violate the Indian Agricultural Law. He argued that cultivating some crops or seeds would not violate the law unless they were sold or transformed the trademarks. A farmer's group in India said PEPSI is infringing India's food sovereignty. He will fight to the end with the accused farmer.

pixabay.com

Controversy over big companies and local business in foreign countries

In 2017, there has been a boycott of PEPSI due to infringement of food sovereignty in India  as well. It is also argued that PEPSI and other major US retailers are violating the local business of India by threatening economic sovereignty rather than simple trademark rights. The confrontation between large corporations and local business is not limited to a few countries.

[WIPSTUDY #3] Taiwan- Patent Litigation case study #3

Following up #2,
this time we're going to see litigation action with a few of important documents that you need to check with another new litigation cases focusing on;

• IPR Request
• Invalidation Search (+IDS)
• Inter Partes Review Certificate
• Inter Partes Re-exam Certificate 

                                                        < search n analysis database : WIPS Global >

3-1. Litigation Action (case 1)

This time let us start with a new case of patent infringement litigation. 

Dr. Chien-Min Sung vs Kinik Company

wipsglobal.com > US litigation search

 

• Case type : Infringement
• Court name : Delaware Dist.
• Termination by : Voluntary dismissal 
• Product : Chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) tools such as the CMP Diamond disk.
•  Patent : US 8777699 

This case filed by Dr. Chien-Min Sung claiming that the '699 patent he owned the rights in the USA was infringed by the Kinik Company. As this case was closed by voluntary dismissal, more detail on trial information is needed.    

Below is the detail information through the trial search of the patent.

         

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal search

   

• Court name :  PTAB (Patent Trial Appeal Board
• PTAB case : IPR (Inter Partes Review)
• PTAB Outcome : All instituted claims invalidated/ cancelled
• Claims challenged : 1-19
• Claims instituted : 1-12 and 17-19
• Invalidated cancelled claims : 1-12 and 17-19
• PTAB status : Final written decision 

From the details PTAB information, it's learned that the defendant requested IPR and this case closed with some of instituted claims invalidated in the end. 

wipsglobal.com > Invalidation advisor

🔍WIPS Global's Invalidation Advisor is a analysis tool recognizing the date of novelty and creativity, which is an intellectual product of WIPS logic from multi-year's research and know-how. 

Prior art references searched in Invalidation Advisor tool above are found which are expected to be based on invalidation. And they're referred as the prior art references of the corresponding patent in the docket of the trial as below.

IPR docket referring the prior art references

             ⏪ Docket of the trial 

             ; Final Written Decision

  

  

⏪ says "Claims 1-12 and 17-19 of the '699 patent are held unpatentable; ..... "

⏫ Inter Partes Review Certificate

One of very important steps during searching invalidation documents is to check IDS (Information Disclosure Statement). 

As only exists in the US, IDS is the obligation of the applicant to disclosure all the information that they have referred to. Violating IDS means that the patent could be unenforceable. So it must not be overlooked. 

wipsglobal.com > Invalidation Advisor > IDS check

⏪ literature in the highlight box are the patents that might not be included as the reference in the document of the corresponding patent.

3-2. Litigation Action (case 2)

Let's take a look another case showing different kind of docket which is also a part of litigation action.

Industry Technology Research Institute vs LG Corporation

wipsglobal.com > US Litigation search

◀ Litigation information  

• Case Type : Infringement
• Court Name : New Jersey Dist.
• Termination by : Likely settlement
• Product : BD590 Blu-Ray disc player, GP08LU30 Optical media super-multi rewriter, .....
• Plaintiff : Industry Technology Research Institute
• Defendant : LG Corporation
• Patent : US 7672198 

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal search

◀ Trial/Appeal information

• Trial/Appeal type : Appeal
• Application type : Re-exam
• Decision document type : Decision
• Patent : 7672198

⏪ Patent Board Decision of 

Inter Partes Re-examination

; The Examiner's decisions not to adopt the proposed rejections are affirmed.

The infringement case between ITRI and LG Corp. was closed by settlement of two parties as the case was requested Re-examination. 

wipsglobal.com > patent search > view detail

⏫ Inter Partes Re-examination Certificate

Continued .......>>

Seoul Semiconductor filed suit against US lighting company

Seoul Semiconductor, a Korean LED company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against US lighting company SATCO. Seoul Semiconductor claimed that SATCO infringed on its 11 patents. There is interest in this litigation between Korean and US lighting companies.

Seoulsemicon.com

LED driver patent of Seoul Semiconductor

The patent that was the focus of the patent lawsuit is the LED driver patents owned by Seoul Semiconductor. The patents include patents applied to lighting products mounted on walls, ceilings, etc. as well as replacement light bulbs, and it is said that dimmable driver technology capable of controling brightness and sequential drive technology without flicker are described. In particular, Acrich drivers are highly valued because they account for over 70% of the world's household bulbs with high-voltage LED driver technology and multi-chip technology capable of integrating multiple LED chips in a small area.

pixabay.com

What are the chances of winning?

Seoul Semiconductor is on the rise, winning all of its overseas patents in the LED-related patent lawsuits. In particular, it continues to win in the LED-related patent lawsuit, winning both lawsuits against Everlight, a Taiwan-based company that has filed disputes over patents related to the Acrich technology. The lawsuit is likely to win as the lawsuits related to the Acriche technology are prioritized.

pixabay.com

Seoul Semiconductor actively responds

Unlike other Korean companies, Seoul Semiconductor continues to actively respond to patent lawsuits filed against foreign companies. According to the Vice President at Sales division of Seoul Semiconductor, they’re investing US$102 bn. in annual development costs. In addition, the company has filed a lawsuit to prevent unfair competition in its efforts to develop innovative products and abuse of investment. I wonder if Seoul Semiconductor will win the race against SATCO again this time.