Legal

Battery IP Litigation: Recent Developments Beyond patents, battery companies are increasingly embroiled in litigation over trade secrets and trademarks. Trade secret disputes typically concern confidential know-how not covered by patents, such as unique manufacturing processes or formulas, while trademark and trade dress cases centre on brand identity, names, logos, and packaging. These legal battles are shaping the competitive landscape, with courts issuing significant injunctions and damages. Not only is it important to engage with IP to protect innovation and navigate market entry, but it is also key to protecting your brand. Trade Secrets in the Spotlight:

Tesla vs. Rivian 202020241: Tesla sued Rivian in the US for allegedly poaching employees and stealing battery trade secrets, underscoring Teslaʼs willingness to defend its proprietary know-how. The case was settled in 2024 before trial.

Tesla vs. Matthews International 20242, 3: US Lawsuit over alleged misuse of Teslaʼs dry coating electrode manufacturing process by a supplier. Matthews was alleged to have used Teslaʼs confidential trade secrets in its patent filings, and by ‘selling equipment for dry battery electrode DBE manufacturingʼ, which ‘embodied Teslaʼs confidential trade secretsʼ, with Teslaʼs estimate of damages exceeding $1 billion. The opinion of the District Court confirmed the previous arbitration decision in Matthewsʼ favour regarding their right to continue selling DBE technology.

Trademark Disputes Emerge:

Tesla vs. Tesla Power 20245: Trademark dispute over the use of the “Teslaˮ name by an unrelated Indian battery manufacturer. Trademark law generally prevents use of names that cause confusion in related industries, and here “Tesla Powerˮ was deemed close enough to potentially mislead battery buyers for the Indian court to issue an interim injunction barring use of the name.

Exide vs. Amara Raja 20256: Trade dress (branding design) dispute over Exideʼs distinctive red and white battery packaging in India. Exide is the registered proprietor of the mark EL (used since 1987) and owns copyright over a fragmented ‘Oʼ lettering device, which it has been using since 1973. The court sided with Exide, granting an injunction and clarifying the limits of trademark protection for colour schemes in the industry.

Zeon Corp. vs. Shenzhen Haodyne 2025 4: Japanʼs Zeon Corp won an injunction and ¥1 million £110k damages for trade secret theft in China involving battery binder formulas. The decision has been appealed. Exideʼs Product (battery-front)

Source: 1 Nat Law review, 2 Matthews, 3 Reddie, 4 Zeon, 5 Legal Online, 6 World Trademark Review

Amaraʼs Product (battery-front)

Exideʼs Product (box-front)

Amaraʼs Product (box-front)

Extracted from the PDF; charts and images may read imperfectly.