Tesla sues former supplier for ‘stealing battery trade secrets’, but they claim the contrary
Tesla is suing Matthews International, a former machinery supplier, for “stealing trade secrets” related to its battery production.
Matthews claims that it’s Tesla who is trying to steal its technology.
Over the years, Tesla has sued quite a few companies and former employees for allegedly stealing trade secrets, including regarding battery production, Dojo, and more.
Now, Tesla is adding a new one to the list.
The company filed a lawsuit in California court today against Matthews International, which it describes as a supplier of “Tesla’s proprietary dry-electrode battery manufacturing technology”, for streaming its trade secrets.
Tesla says that it selected Matthews in 2019 to be “one of its suppliers for equipment that Tesla used to refine its dry-electrode battery manufacturing and to put it into mass-production.” The automaker says that the supplier agreed to a confidentiality agreement and not to share its technology with other clients.
The automaker claims Matthews stole its trade secrets in two ways: filing for patents that include Tesla technology and selling its technology to other clients.
Tesla wrote in the lawsuit about Matthews infringing with its patents:
Without Tesla’s knowledge, Matthews applied Tesla’s confidential trade secrets to a variety of impermissible purposes, and in so doing visited extraordinary harm on Tesla. First, Matthews improperly incorporated Tesla’s confidential trade secrets into patent filings. By so doing, Matthews unambiguously attempted to claim for itself both ownership and inventorship of Tesla’s confidential trade secrets. Still further, by filing these applications Matthews set into motion events that could lead (and in some cases have already led) to publication of certain Tesla confidential information regarding the dry-electrode manufacturing process. Matthews never sought Tesla’s permission to file these applications, nor even disclosed their existence until Tesla discovered the applications on its own by finding Tesla-proprietary secrets in published patent applications submitted by Matthews. Since discovering Matthews’ improper conduct, Tesla has been working to block and/or delay publication of affected applications, and only a subset of Tesla’s confidential information regarding dry-electrode manufacturing has published thus far. Regardless, the result of Matthews’ improper conduct has been both to deny Tesla patent rights to its own technology and, just as troubling, to share with the public, including Tesla’s competitors, high-value technology that would not otherwise have been accessible, leading to direct and serious harm to Tesla and its business.
In the lawsuit, Tesla added about Matthews selling its tech to other unnamed companies:
Second, Matthews disclosed Tesla’s confidential trade secrets to other companies, including Tesla competitors. This included Matthews attempting to sell and, in some cases, actually selling equipment for dry-electrode battery manufacturing to Tesla competitors, where said equipment embodied Tesla’s confidential trade secrets. Such acts were improper because Tesla never authorized, and in fact expressly proscribed, the sale or use of its confidential technology to or for anyone other than itself. Similarly, Tesla never authorized, and in fact expressly proscribed, any inspection or demonstration of any equipment or machines embodying Tesla trade secrets by or to any Tesla competitor. As a result, certain of Tesla’s high-value confidential technology for dry electrode manufacturing has been conveyed, or is imminently about to be conveyed by Matthews, without authorization to Tesla’s direct competitors, resulting in direct and serious harm to Tesla and its business.
Tesla is seeking damages and currently estimates the damages “conservatively” at $1 billion.
Matthews is denying Tesla’s claims:
The claims stated in this threadbare complaint are utterly without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the matter. Notably, the complaint vaguely references trade secrets, but fails to identify even one trade secret that Tesla purportedly disclosed to Matthews. We are continuing to evaluate this complaint and may pursue legal remedies.
In fact, the company claims that Tesla is the one trying to steal its dry electrode technology:
Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, Tesla’s lawsuit is simply a new tactic in their ongoing efforts to bully Matthews and improperly take Matthews’ valuable intellectual property. Furthermore, Tesla’s complaint attempts to restrict us from offering our innovative solutions to others, preventing the market from significantly benefiting from the savings associated with our dry battery electrode (“DBE”) solutions, and thus interfering with Matthews’ ability to realize the value of our intellectual property.
Tesla bought Maxwell Technologies in 2019 with the main goal of acquiring its dry electrode technology and integrating it into its new 4680 battery cell technology.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Google to invest $25 billion in data centers and AI infrastructure across largest U.S. electric grid
Locals call him the “Bicycle hero,” but Texas man Evan Wayne says he’s just doing what he can to help his community after it was cut off due to the recent devastating and deadly flooding tragedy.
When the local Sandy Creek flooded following torrential rains in Texas, it destroyed the only bridge into one community. Residents were cut off from access to supplies, including everything from necessities like food, water, and medicine to basic comforts.
Although the bridge was impassable to cars, volunteers who quickly organized to help the stranded residents found that the damaged bridge could still be traversed on foot. Or in the case of Evan Wayne, it could be covered by an electric bike.
Evan joined hundreds of volunteers who answered the call of grassroots organizers by working together without any official capacity. While many started by hand-pulling garden carts of supplies uphill to reach the stricken community, Evan jury-rigged a trailer to an e-bike and took on as much of the load as he could, helping shuttle much-needed food and gear into the community over hundreds of round-trip journeys.
“This was a dog trailer 48 hours ago. I had a hacksaw, hacked the top off, grabbed some bungee cords, and here we are,” explained Evan in an interview with CBS Austin, while waiting for the next load of gear to be stacked on his trailer.
In the first two days of the operation, he made around 100 round trips each day, shuttling food and water as well as critical rescue supplies. “Right now, I’m waiting on a couple of chainsaws that I’ll bring in for a crew that’s been going at it with handsaws so far.”
In addition to delivering needed supplies, Evan has often found himself moving something even more important: information. “I’ve flagged down medics. I’ve been the guy that goes between Austin EMT and STAR Flight because I’m quicker than cell phones sometimes, people don’t have signal a lot of the time.”
Evan quickly points out that he isn’t the only one helping. “I’ve got an e-bike, but other people are pulling carts. People are walking, people are carrying things. Everyone is doing what they can.” But there’s no doubt that his ability to carry more gear at higher speeds and make hundreds of round-trip journeys so far in and out of the stricken neighborhood has helped impact countless lives.
“This is all volunteers here. They’re just taking it upon themselves to get people where they need to go. I think there’s an umbrella company coming in, taking over tomorrow, but until they get here, people are just taking care of people, which is what you’ve got to do.”
E-bikes proving their worth in emergencies
While many people consider electric bicycles just another form of recreation, they’ve proven to be potent transportation alternatives after natural disasters worldwide.
Not only do their small and efficient batteries make performing hundreds of rescue trips like Evans’ possible, but recharging can be done simply and easily with a solar panel when electricity is out after a disaster. And when gas stations are out of fuel (or simply can’t pump it with the power grid down), e-bikes can keep running while gasoline-powered motorcycles or ATVs run dry.
Electric bicycle batteries have also proven to be a handy source of emergency power after hurricanes and other disasters, often helping owners keep their phones charged up for days to remain in contact with family or rescue services.
While most hope to never need theirs for emergency purposes, electric bicycles have proven their worth in countless disaster scenarios, adding benefits far beyond just alternative transportation, recreation, or fitness riding.
Image credits: CBS Austin (screenshots), used under fair use
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies during a remote video hearing held by subcommittees of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on “Social Media’s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation” in Washington, U.S., March 25, 2021.
Handout | Via Reuters
Block jumped more than 5% on Monday, leading a rally in shares of fintech companies as analysts downplayed the threat of JPMorgan Chase’s reported plan to charge data aggregators for access to customer financial information.
The recovery followed steep declines on Friday, after Bloomberg reported that JPMorgan had circulated pricing sheets outlining potential fees for aggregators like Plaid and Yodlee, which connect fintech platforms to users’ bank data.
In a note to clients on Monday, Evercore ISI analysts said the potential new expenses were “far from a ‘business model-breaking’ cost increase.”
In addition to Block’s rise, PayPal climbed 3.5% on Monday after sliding Friday. Robinhood and Shift4 recorded modest gains.
Broader market momentum helped fuel some of the rebound. The Nasdaq closed at a record, and crypto rallied, with bitcoin climbing past $123,000. Ether, solana, and other altcoins also gained.
Evercore ISI’s analysts said that even if JPMorgan’s changes were implemented, the most immediate effect would be a slight bump in the cost of one-time account setups — perhaps 50 to 60 cents.
Morgan Stanley echoed that view, writing that any impact would be “negligible,” especially for large fintechs that rely more on debit, credit, or stored balances than bank account pulls for transactions.
PayPal doesn’t anticipate much short-term impact, according to a person with knowledge of the issue. The person, who asked not to be named in order to speak about private financial matters, noted that PayPal relies on aggregators primarily for account verification and already has long-term pricing contracts in place.
While smaller fintechs that depend heavily on automated clearing house (ACH) rails or Open Banking frameworks for onboarding and compliance may face real pressure if the fees take effect, analysts said the larger platforms are largely insulated.
WATCH: Congress moves to redraw $3.7 trillion crypto market rules, opening door to Wall Street
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike