Companies spend years, resources, and money developing battery technologies. Yet, employees who have access to R&D data often share tech secrets with competitors.

Firms involved in electric vehicle battery technology have been reporting cases of theft of battery manufacturing technology and employee poaching for some time now. And this is not surprising at all. The rapidly growing electric vehicle sector is driving researchers to develop more efficient and better-performing batteries. It won’t be wrong to say that some companies use unethical ways to save time and money spent on years of research and development.

Let’s take a look at the details from five battery technology theft cases and lawsuits making headlines.

LG Energy Solution Vs. OLA

South Korean LG Energy Solution approached the National Intelligence Service and Seoul Police in January 2025. The company, in its complaint, has claimed that one of its researchers stole proprietary technology information before resigning. The employee joined an Indian EV maker, OLA, after leaving South Korea. Further, he shared some key information about next-generation high-density pouch-type ternary lithium-ion battery cells with the Indian company.

Proprietary technology is owned by a specific company and is not legally allowed to be used by anyone else.  LG Energy Solutions realized the theft of proprietary technology when the concerned Indian company launched its battery in the market last year.

During the investigation, the researcher agreed he had transferred the data. But he claimed he was not aware it was confidential in nature. OLA fired him in October 2025. The Indian company also declared that its battery is not based on LG’s stolen technology. The case is being investigated by South Korean probe agencies. The stolen set of production processes and material ratios is deemed as South Korean “national core technology. ”

Phillips 66 Vs. Hongjin Tan

Phillips 66 is an energy company headquartered in Houston, Texas. In December 2018, the company approached the FBI and filed a complaint against its former employee, Hongjin Tan. The company claimed its employee had indulged in proprietary battery technology theft. Stolen trade secrets were valued at $1 billion.

Tan was a staff scientist and worked as a part of the battery development group at the company’s Bartlesville, Oklahoma-based research center. Phillips 66 submitted evidence highlighting that Tan used his high-level access to steal details about stationary energy storage manufacturing procedures. He also stole data associated with secret chemical formulas before resigning in 2018.

This technology was expected to be used in cell phone batteries, EV batteries, and storage systems. His intention was to deliver this info to a Chinese material supplier, Xiamen Tungsten. Thus, the case also makes it to the list of Chinese battery IP disputes. A routine forensic audit conducted after Tan’s exit highlighted the suspicious activity on his workstation. He was caught before leaving for China. And the FBI recovered a drive containing all the data from his residence later during the investigation. Later, Tan pleaded guilty to the theft in 2019. He was sentenced to pay $150,000 in compensation along with a 24-month prison sentence in February 2020.

LG Energy Solution Vs. SK Innovation

Another South Korean company, SK Innovation, allegedly poached 70-100 of LG’s engineers and other employees. They helped in misappropriating 22 trade secrets related to the lithium-ion battery production.

After realizing this, LG registered complaints against SK Group in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)  and courts in April 2019. The proceedings confirmed the theft. The ITC judge issued a judgment in February 2020, highlighting that SK Innovation intentionally destroyed thousands of documents and emails. This made a fair trial impossible. Further, in February 2021, the ITC’s final determination upheld that SK Innovation had misappropriated 22 trade secrets. The ITC imposed a 10-year U.S. import ban on affected batteries and components. This put SK’s subsidiaries SK On and SK Battery America under the spotlight. This was not good news because SK Battery America supplied batteries to brands like Volkswagen and Ford.

But finally, the legal battle was settled out of court. SK agreed to pay $1.8 billion to LG and entered into an agreement to pay certain technology-related royalties as well. In exchange, LG dropped all the lawsuits against the company in America and Korea.

Tesla Vs. Rivian

Rivian Automotive is an American electric truck and SUV maker. Tesla approached the California state court and filed a lawsuit against Rivian in July 2020. Musk’s company claimed that Rivian  recruited more than 170 former Tesla employees who were working with critical battery and powertrain teams. These employees played a key role in leaking data about advanced battery technology, manufacturing processes, and charging infrastructure technologies. As per Tesla, these workers violated their non-disclosure agreements. Some of them were even caught stealing sensitive data related to next-generation batteries.

On the other hand, Rivian Automotive denied all the allegations in court and argued that Tesla’s claims lacked merit. Yet, the court found Tesla’s argument to be true and allowed the case to proceed. A key trial hearing was set for March 2025. But in November 2024, both decided to settle the matter out of court. Both parties approached the court in December 2024 and asked for dismissal of related cases. No information about financial compensation was made public.

BASF Vs. Duracell

BASF approached the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and filed a case against the American battery giant, Duracell. The case pattern is different from others because it does not involve former employees.

BASF has claimed in court that the company was chosen as the lead developer and intended supplier for cathode active materials. The German company was helping Duracell in producing lower-cost, high-performance cathode materials used in lithium-ion battery technology. As a part of a collaboration agreement signed in 2018, BASF shared confidential data regarding a proprietary process with Duracell.

However, Duracell shared data for BASF’s processes with a third-party manufacturer claiming to be their own. The American battery maker also sidelined BASF as a supplier, effectively leading to a loss on financial returns associated with years of R&D investments. On the other hand, Duracell denied all the claims and told the court that its battery chemistry is a result of independent internal research, which is covered under its own patents. It rejects BASF’s claim about IP (Intellectual Property) Infringement, including energy density specs. The case between the two remains ongoing and active. The Jury trial will start on May 22, 2028. This matter highlights the dangers of sharing technologies with partners in joint-development projects.

Need fresh content to engage your audience? Let Nitten help you with 100 percent human-written blog posts, articles, and press releases on a variety of topics at highly affordable rates. Don’t have a big budget for content? No worries, Nitten can still help! He can assist you with story ideas and getting the best content from AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Co-Pilot, etc. Feel free to get in touch: nittengokhaley24@gmail.com