In this article, Ben Lincoln covers how Tulip Innovation’s patent action against Sunwoda Group illustrate the growing role of intellectual property strategy in the competitive landscape of EV battery manufacturing.
Tulip Innovation is the operator of a patent licensing scheme, set up in 2024, that allows for licensing of over 5,000 patents related to lithium-ion battery technology developed by LG Energy Solution and Panasonic Energy. It is claimed by Tulip Innovation that the scheme represents the largest aggregation of patents offered for license in the battery industry to date.
The scheme is intended to offer battery manufacturers an efficient way of obtaining access to patented technologies from LG Energy Solution and Panasonic Energy through a single license. The breadth of subject matter covered by the patents that are part of the scheme includes materials and processes related to cathode, anode, electrolyte, separator and electrode, as well as structures and processes related to cells, modules and packs.
Tulip Innovation is known as a‘non-practicing entity’, meaning it does not manufacture products but instead licenses patents. NPEs can be seen as controversial in the IP world. However, others see them as essential enforcers of patent rights, especially when acting on behalf of leading manufacturers.
How do licensing bodies operate?
In general, a licensing entity will advertise the IP they are willing to licence, which may be related to an industry standard. A manufacturer wishing to exploit the technology can then request a licence and, if the terms are acceptable, the licence can be taken. The manufacturer is then free to produce the product that falls within the claims of one or more of the patents being licensed and will pay the negotiated royalty.
Following evaluation or negotiation there can be alternative outcomes. It may be decided that the manufacturer’s proposed product doesn’t include patented technology. Alternatively, the terms of the licence may be undesirable. Whichever the outcome, the licensing entity will be watching the market for potentially infringing products. If the use of patented technology is detected, then the licence will be offered. Litigation in the courts is typically a last resort when negotiations over the licence terms fail.
What happened between Tulip Innovation and Sunwoda?
Sunwoda Group is a Chinese battery manufacturer supplying electric vehicle batteries to European markets and the alleged infringement was lithium- ion battery technologies used in vehicles such as theDacia Spring. Tulip Innovationbrought patent infringement actions at the Munich District Court againstSunwoda Group, alleging infringement of three European Patents.
- EP 1 829 139 B1
- EP 2 528 141 B1
- EP 2 378 595 B1
As part of the actions, Tulip Innovation requested injunctive relief. Aninjunctionis a legal remedy that prevents a party from continuing an infringing activity. In Germany, injunctions are granted relatively quickly and areimmediately enforceable, even while appeals are pending. This makes them a powerful tool for patent holders. Once issued, the party granted the injunction can select when to enforce it.
The injunctive relief relating to patents EP 1 829 139 B and EP 2 528 141 B granted a temporary sales ban in May 2025. With Tulip having the court-endorsed ability to enforce the injunction against Sunwoda, the company will have been able to continue licensing negotiations with the upper hand.
A subsequent injunction, issued in July 2025, following a decision related to EP 2 378 595 B, included additional obligations. The injunctive relief ordered:
- A sales ban on infringing battery models
- Recall and destruction of infringing batteries
- Damages to be paid to Tulip Innovation
- Disclosure of accounting data to calculate compensation
These rulings are significant, given the disruption caused for Sunwoda and its partners, and shows that Tulip Innovation is not hesitant in enforcing the patent rights of LG and Panasonic when it feels it is warranted. Sunwoda has filed an appeal, but the injunctions are effective should Tulip Innovation enforce them in Germany. The Tulip Innovation vs. Sunwoda case is significant for EV batteries and highlights the strategic importance of IP and the difficulties that can arise if agreements cannot be reached.
The patents explained
EP 1 829 139 B relates to an organic/inorganic composite porous separator, which comprises: (a) a substrate which is a porous polyolefin-based separator; and (b) a mixture of inorganic particles. The mixture of inorganic particles are required to have a series of properties comprising being electrochemically stable in a battery and a binder polymer having a glass transition temperature between -200°C and 200°C in a weight ratio of 60:40 to 99:1 coated directly on a surface of the substrate and a part of the pores present in the substrate, which forms an organic/inorganic composite porous active layer. Further, the electrochemically stable inorganic particles in the active layer are interconnected among themselves and are fixed by the binder polymer and permit interstitial volumes to be formed among them, and the interstitial volumes among the electrochemically stable inorganic particles form a pore structure that permits lithium ions to move therethrough. Further, as the size of the electrochemically stable inorganic particles increases, interstitial distance among the inorganic particles increases, thereby increasing the pore size, with the proviso that the organic/inorganic composite porous separator is not a porous film comprising an organic/inorganic composite porous film substrate and a coating layer comprising styrene-butadiene rubber formed on at least one region selected from a surface of the substrate and a part of the pores in the substrate, the substrate comprising a porous film and a layer which comprises a mixture of inorganic particles and a binder polymer coated on a surface of the porous film and/or a part of the pores in the porous film.
EP 2 528 141 B relates to a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte, wherein the separator is an organic/ inorganic composite porous separator, which comprises: (a) a substrate which is a porous polyolefin-based separator; and (b) a mixture of inorganic particles being electrochemically stable in a battery and a binder polymer in a weight ratio of 60:40 to 99:1 coated directly on a surface of the substrate and a part of the pores present in the substrate, which forms an organic/inorganic composite porous active layer. The patent claim requires the electrochemically stable inorganic particles to have further properties.
EP 2 378 595 B relates to an electrode assembly comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a separator, wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode non-coating portion that is not coated with an active material in a portion of a positive electrode collector, the negative electrode includes a negative electrode non-coating portion that is not coated with an active material in a portion of a negative electrode collector, the non-coating portions are disposed in at least one of upper and lower portions of the electrode assembly in a longitudinal direction of the electrodes, a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab are connected to the non-coating portions, the separator is a complex porous separator including a substrate coated with a binder polymer or an organic/inorganic mixture formed of a binder polymer and inorganic particles. The distinguishing feature of the patent is said to be that the electrode assembly comprises an integral laminated structure of the positive electrode, the separator, and the negative electrode.
