Quantcast

Pa. chemical company says competitors stole its patented technology to get an edge in the Chinese market

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Pa. chemical company says competitors stole its patented technology to get an edge in the Chinese market

Federal Court
Data

ALLENTOWN – A small Pennsylvania chemical company contends that a pair of competitors based domestically and abroad conspired to steal patented technology it created - technology which could later be used to generate solar energy.

PPT Research, Inc. of Allentown filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 5 versus Solvay USA, Inc. of Princeton, N.J. and Rhodia Operations S.A.S., of France.

PPT says it spent years and millions of dollars to develop the LVS micro-gel particle slurry suspension system (MGP Technology), which consists of a water-based formula used in the process of cutting solar wafers, which, in turn, are used to manufacture the solar cells for solar panels.

“Under a technology licensing agreement, PPT licensed the MGP Technology to Solvay for use in China and South Korea, in exchange for a modest royalty fee of 7 percent. PPT accepted this small royalty fee to gain access to the lucrative China solar market, with which Solvay purported to have extensive ties. PPT (and Solvay) knew that PPT’s MGP Technology would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once it was successfully commercialized in China,” per the lawsuit.

Solvay is said to have wanted the MGP Technology, but did not want to pay for it. Allegedly, it created a plan hinged on discrediting the technology and secretly filing a fraudulent patent application to disrupt and de-value PPT’s existing intellectual property and patents/active applications.

“Solvay intentionally deviated from PPT’s patented technology, training, S.O.P.s, recommendations and directions in tests with China based solar wafer manufacturers to ensure that the tests would fail,” the suit says.

“The culmination of the plan involved coercing PPT into agreeing to allow Solvay to patent the Solvay solution in Solvay’s own name. Rather than focusing its efforts on commercializing PPT’s technology, Solvay spent the next five months (from November 2015 to April 2016) lying to PPT in an effort to co-opt PPT’s valuable technology.”

The suit states PPT later learned when it saw the Solvay-filed patent application, for the first time in April 2018, that its technology solution was anything but “independent." Solvay’s solution was instead derived from PPT work product shared with Solvay, and was a derivative of PPT’s patented technology and confidential intellectual property, the suit says.

Although Solvay was successful in misappropriating PPT’s MGP technology, the lawsuit says it ultimately failed in its efforts to commercialize the technology in China. This was due to another new technology, diamond wire slicing (DWS), taking the lead in the Chinese market and superseding PPT’s technology, the suit says.

The suit says if not for “Solvay’s breaches of contract and scheme to steal PPT’s trade secrets, PPT’s technology would have been the prominent technology in the Asian market, not the competing technology that now exists.”

“Solvay’s conduct was and is a substantial factor in PPT losing out on a lucrative business opportunity with production revenue that easily would have exceeded $100 million annually,” the suit states.

For counts of misappropriation of trade secrets and injunctive relief under both the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act and Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, in addition to breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the defendants from disseminating or utilizing PPT’s trade secrets, requiring the immediate return of all copies of the proprietary trade secret information from defendants, plus compensatory damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, plus such other relief as this Court deems equitable.

The plaintiff is represented by Justin E. Proper of White & Williams, in Philadelphia.

The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-02645

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News