LG-SK Clash Over "Distortion" in US Patent Invalidity Trial (Comprehensive)

[Asia Economy Reporter Park So-yeon] On the 15th, SK Innovation claimed that the dismissal of the trial it filed with the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) asserting that LG Energy Solution's battery-related patents are invalid is "merely a procedural issue" and accused LG Energy Solution of "misleading public opinion."

This is a rebuttal to LG Energy Solution's statement the previous day that all eight patent invalidation trials filed by SK Innovation against it at the PTAB last year were dismissed between the end of last year and recently.

LG Energy Solution acknowledged that one patent trial it filed is ongoing and claimed that "SK Innovation has not even started the dispute, and it seems their patent litigation strategy will be impacted."

On the same day, SK Innovation issued a rebuttal press release stating that the PTAB's dismissal of the patent invalidation trials it filed was solely due to an overall policy change at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Both companies are engaged in trade secret infringement and patent lawsuits at the US International Trade Commission (ITC), and the PTAB's patent invalidation trials arose during the patent litigation process.

SK Innovation explained, "Since early last year, the PTAB has started dismissing patent invalidation trials on the grounds of procedural duplication if it determines that the ITC or federal court litigation results will be issued first."

SK Innovation added that the USPTO Director announced this policy encouragement in September last year, and since then, all patent invalidation trials for patents pending in ITC litigation have been dismissed.

SK Innovation further stated, "LG Energy Solution is presenting the results of the USPTO's policy change as if it has actually received a legally favorable judgment," calling it "a self-serving distortion and misleading of public opinion."

SK Innovation also claimed that the PTAB found that SK Innovation presented a reasonable possibility of invalidity in six out of the eight trials it filed, which were dismissed, and particularly asserted that it provided "strong invalidity grounds" for a specific patent called the '517 patent.'

Regarding the PTAB's dismissal of patent trial requests due to procedural duplication, SK Innovation said, "There are criticisms within the US that this is an abuse of authority lacking legal grounds, and companies like Apple and Google are already disputing this unfairness," adding, "We have been preparing for the possibility of dismissal due to policy changes."

Regarding the one patent trial filed by LG Energy Solution that the PTAB accepted and is proceeding with, SK Innovation pointed out that "this patent case is only proceeding in federal court, not the ITC, and the federal court litigation itself has been suspended due to the PTAB's initiation of the trial," suggesting it holds little significance in the overall dispute between the two companies.

SK Innovation said, "LG Energy Solution is well aware of these procedural differences but is distorting the fact that its patent trial was accepted as if it has gained an advantage in the patent dispute," calling it "a typical distortion of public opinion."

It added, "We believe this will have a positive impact on the ITC patent litigation and will continue to engage in the process fairly and squarely."

LG Energy Solution also issued a rebuttal statement on the same day, saying, "If the PTAB had indeed started dismissing cases due to duplication as SK Innovation claims, why would they have gone through the expense of filing eight cases?" and criticized, "It is very regrettable that they distort their mistakes to their advantage without such explanations."

LG Energy Solution stated, "It is a clear fact that all the applications at the PTAB, where the most efficient invalidation judgments against competitor patents can be obtained, were dismissed, resulting in a lost opportunity," and added, "Both companies should clarify the facts through litigation and take responsibility for the outcomes."

It further said, "We will respond firmly to any acts infringing on intellectual property rights, including more than 27,000 patents, which are the most important in the battery business."