Tesla is suing Matthews International, a former machinery supplier, for “stealing industry secrets” similar to its battery production.
Matthews claims Tesla is looking to borrow his technology.
Over the years, Tesla has sued several corporations and former workers for allegedly stealing industry secrets, related to battery production, dojo, and more.
Now, Tesla is a new one on the list.
The company filed a lawsuit in a California court against Matthews International, which it describes as a supplier of “Tesla’s patented dry electrode battery production technology,” for spreading its trade secrets.
Tesla says it decided to have Matthews be “one of its suppliers of apparatus that Tesla used to refine its production of dry electrode batteries and put them into mass production. “The automaker claims that the supplier has signed a non-disclosure agreement and will share its generation with other customers.
The automaker claims that Matthews stole its trade secrets in two ways: by filing patents that included Tesla’s generation, and by promoting his generation to customers.
Tesla wrote in the lawsuit about Matthews’ infringement of its patents:
Unbeknownst to Tesla, Matthews deployed Tesla’s confidential industry secrets for various illegal purposes and, in doing so, caused common harm to Tesla. First, Matthews deliberately incorporated Tesla’s confidential industry secrets into the patent applications. In doing so, Matthews unambiguously attempted to claim ownership or intellectual property of Tesla’s confidential industry secrets. Furthermore, by filing those requests, Matthews has triggered events that could lead (and in some cases have already led) to the release of certain confidential Tesla information related to the dry electrode production process. Matthews never sought Tesla’s permission to record those programs, nor even revealed his lifestyles until Tesla discovered the programs on his behalf by locating Tesla’s proprietary secrets in patent programs published and sent through by Matthews Array. Since he identified Matthews’ irrelevant behavior, Tesla has worked to block and/or delay the release of the affected programs, and only a subset of Tesla’s confidential data related to dry electrode production has been released. published so far. In any case, the result of Matthews’ irrelevant conduct was to deny Tesla’s patent rights to his own generation and, just as worrying, share with the public, adding competition from Tesla. High-value generation set that would not have otherwise been accessible, resulting in direct and serious damage to Tesla and its business.
In the lawsuit, Tesla added that Matthews sells its generation to unnamed companies:
Second, Matthews disclosed Tesla’s confidential trade secrets to other companies, adding to Tesla’s competitors. This included Matthews attempting to sell, and in some cases selling, devices for the production of dry electrode batteries to Tesla’s competitors, where such devices incorporated confidential secrets from Tesla’s industry. Such moves were beside the point because Tesla has never authorized, and in fact expressly forbids, the sale or use of its confidential generation to or to anyone other than itself. Similarly, Tesla has never authorized, and in fact expressly prohibited, any inspection or demonstration of any apparatus or machinery containing Tesla industry secrets through or for a competitor of Tesla. As a result, certain valuable Tesla confidential technologies for the manufacture of dry electrodes have been transferred, or are about to be transferred, through Matthews, without authorization, to Tesla’s direct competitors, resulting in direct and serious harm to Tesla and its activities.
If Tesla hired them to expand or refine a process, they would make it Tesla’s property, just as if they were executing a concept or task for their employer.
Tesla is compensating and recently “conservatively” estimates the damages at $1 billion.
Matthews denies Tesla’s claims:
The allegations made in this threadbare complaint are absolutely unfounded, and we intend to vigorously protect this matter. Notably, the complaint vaguely refers to industry secrets, but does not identify any industry secrets that Tesla may have leaked to Matthews. We continue to compare this. file a complaint and would possibly seek legal recourse.
In fact, the company claims that Tesla is looking to borrow its dry electrode technology:
Contrary to the allegations in the lawsuit, Tesla’s lawsuit is just one tactic in its ongoing efforts to intimidate Matthews and mistake Matthews’ valuable intellectual property. In addition, Tesla’s complaint attempts to prevent us from providing our cutting-edge responses to others, thereby saving the market from realizing significant benefits from the savings related to our dry battery electrode (“DBE”) responses and thereby interfering with Matthews’ ability to price our intellectual property.
Tesla bought Maxwell Technologies in 2019 with the number one goal of getting its generation of dry electrodes and integrating it into its new generation of 4680 battery-powered phones.
Fred is an editor and senior editor at Electrek.
You can send via Twitter (DMs open) or by email: fred@9to5mac. com
Through Zalkon. com you can view Fred’s portfolio and get green inventory investment ideas monthly.