# Valence Prevails in Patent Dispute



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

You guys need to read this article.

The implications could be far reaching.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

david85 said:


> You guys need to read this article.
> 
> The implications could be far reaching.


What's your interpretation?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The patent of the LiFePO4 has been weakened.

The university of texas owend the pattent and only licensed the it to a123 systems, who then signed a deal with GM and is keeping the battery expensive and out of reach. It was the NIMH battery all over again.

This ruling could change things. If the EPO has sided with valance by saying that this battery *"does not deserve a pattent"* than anyone can legally make and market the battery without restriction or licensing within the bountry of this pattent office (namely in the EU).

I do not believe that this ruling applies to north america, but as it stands now, many of the chinese made LiFePO4 batteries were in a bit of a grey area in legal terms. That could change if this ruling is a sign of things to come.

At the very least there is now another domestic battery company that wants to make LiFePO4 batteries. Since valence has its HQ in texas as well, I think its only a matter of time before they attempt a similar court challenge in the states.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

Valence has its own patent, as the article says. So I think this is more about a domestic patent going against a foreign patent, not so much throwing out Lifepo4 patents entirely. Valence has been making these batteries for some time. This now opens up the european market for them. Good for them. Not necessarily good for us considering how insanely priced Valence's batteries are. So what am I missing?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I do not believe that this ruling applies to north america, but as it stands now, many of the chinese made LiFePO4 batteries were in a bit of a grey area in legal terms. That could change if this ruling is a sign of things to come.
> 
> At the very least there is now another domestic battery company that wants to make LiFePO4 batteries. Since valence has its HQ in texas as well, I think its only a matter of time before they attempt a similar court challenge in the states.


Actually, a patent thrown out in Europe constitutes basis for challenging and dismissing similar patents in the U.S.

Bad news for the patent holders, great news for us!


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Bad news for the patent holders, great news for us!


I still don't see how it's great news for us. There's still going to be at least one patent left standing (such as Valence's) and the Chinese will be liable for infringement of said patent. Patents are doing nothing but impeding battery progress by keeping the technology locked in startups with limited resources who can not or will not scale out production. We really need an "open source" next-gen battery technology that is not allowed to be patented and fast-track it to commoditization.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah I don't see how this is a big deal for us. It's just a potential change of patent holders, not a removal of all patents.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

This story is only beginning. What will happen to a123 systems? what of the battery that was supposed to be used in the chevy volt (made by a123)? Can a123 still make their LiFePO4 batteries?

Lots of questions are not answered and I think this is something worth following. It could be good news or bad news, but it is worth taking note of what happens.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That is true, A123 might have to pay a licensing fee, which would drive the price up. Whatever the outcome I'm betting it won't be good for the consumer


----------

