SKC

● U.S. court orders full trial on trade secret infringement… to proceed separately from patent litigation with focused examination.

● “Solus Advanced Materials' evidence amounts to mere one-sided assertions… lacks convincing proof for patent invalidation.”

● Ongoing patent litigation in Europe could result in sales restrictions… while four patents have been invalidated in Korea.

SK Nexilis, an SKC affiliate specializing in copper foil for EV batteries, announced on the 14th that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has decided to proceed with a full trial on its trade secret infringement claims against Solus Advanced Materials in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuit.

The court’s decision follows an amended complaint filed by SK Nexilis last August, in which the company added claims against Solus Advanced Materials and its affiliates for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). The complaint alleges that Solus misappropriated SK Nexilis’ trade secrets, including additive recipes, electrolyte operating conditions, and drum management methods—all core elements of the copper foil manufacturing process.

The court accepted the amended complaint, allowing both the patent infringement and trade secret infringement claims to be addressed within the same case. However, given that the patent infringement case had already progressed significantly, the court decided to procedurally separate the two issues and conduct the proceedings accordingly. SK Nexilis views this approach as significant, as it could enable a faster determination on the patent infringement claims while allowing for an in-depth review of the trade secret allegations.

SK Nexilis also emphasized that the court's recent acceptance of evidence submitted by Solus Advanced Materials aimed at proving patent invalidation is merely a procedural decision. The company stressed that this does not in any way recognize the credibility of the invalidation evidence or the likelihood of the patents being invalidated.

SK Nexilis stated that the products submitted by Solus Advanced Materials as the basis for its invalidity claims cannot be verified in terms of their source or storage conditions, and that the results presented amount to nothing more than one-sided assertions with little persuasive power to prove patent invalidity. Moreover, the company highlighted that Solus' motion to dismiss SK Nexilis' infringement claims was denied by the court, demonstrating that these claims will be formally reviewed in the patent infringement proceedings..

Meanwhile, SK Nexilis has also filed a patent infringement injunction lawsuit against a Solus Advanced Materials affiliate in Europe. A ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) carries simultaneous effect across major European countries, including Germany and France. Should Solus Advanced Materials lose at the first instance, strong measures such as immediate sales and use bans, as well as inventory recall or destruction, could follow across these key European markets.

 A similar trend is unfolding in Korea. Of the eight patent infringement lawsuits filed by Solus Advanced Materials against SK Nexilis, four patents have already been ruled invalid. Notably, two of Solus' remaining four patents were recently acquired from a Japanese company before being used to initiate patent infringement injunction lawsuits. This approach—purchasing patents from a Japanese company to launch legal actions against a domestic competitor—is regrettable, as it appears to leverage Japanese intellectual property as a weapon against a fellow Korean company, rather than engaging in fair technological competition among domestic firms.

An official at SK Nexilis stated, "For the healthy growth and advancement of the battery industry, acts of misappropriating others' rights must be prevented at all costs. This lawsuit also holds significance in safeguarding our technological edge in competition with Chinese companies." The official added, "If Solus Advanced Materials acknowledges its intellectual property infringement and cooperates in establishing a fair market order, the possibility of a settlement remains open.” [End]