Chinese Battery Maker CALB Fined for "Commercial Defamation" in Landmark Ruling

Published: June 18, 2025 18:37

Court Decision Ignites Debate Over Free Speech Boundaries in EV Sector


SHENZHEN, [25.06.18] — A Chinese court has ordered lithium-ion battery manufacturer CALB (China Aviation Lithium Battery) to pay ￥2.2 million ($303,000) in damages and issue a public apology after ruling its 2022 corporate statement constituted commercial defamation against industry leader CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited).



source: CALB

The ruling by the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan Province marks a rare judicial intervention into corporate communications within China’s hyper-competitive electric vehicle (EV) supply chain. At stake are fundamental questions about permissible criticism in an industry where patent litigation has surged 67% year-on-year, according to 2024 China Power Battery Industry Whitepaper data.



source: OFweek 



The Controversial Statement


On July 27, 2022, CALB published an official declaration asserting that "while protecting intellectual property safeguards innovation, wielding non-innovative patents covering pre-existing public-domain technologies to maliciously suppress competitors violates the Patent Law’s宗旨 (legislative purpose) of promoting technological progress." The statement, issued during ongoing patent validity proceedings between the rivals, notably omitted direct reference to CATL.




CALB's July 2022 statement deemed defamatory by Chinese court  (Source: CALB WeChat Platfrom)


The statement was released while patent litigation between the companies remained pending, with no final judgment rendered at the time.



Judicial Reasoning


The court determined CALB’s generalized criticism constituted implicit targeting of CATL, thereby violating Article 11 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Legal analysts note the verdict establishes that even unnamed criticism may incur liability if recipients can be reasonably identified.



"Effectively, the court confiscated the microphone before dissenting voices could be rationally heard," commented an intellectual property attorney familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity.



Global Context


The ruling contrasts sharply with Western judicial approaches:


  • In Parkervision v. Qualcomm, U.S. courts denied injunctions against arguably defamatory videos, asserting judges shouldn’t "police speech however implausible."

  • The General Court of the European Union in October 2024 overturned a Spanish ruling against newspaper El Mundo, reaffirming that reputational claims must yield to press freedom.



Parallel Patent Battles


As Chinese battery makers expand globally, patent conflicts are escalating abroad:


  • On May 22, the Munich Regional Court barred a Chinese firm from selling batteries in Germany for infringing LG Energy Solution and Panasonic separator patents.

  • Industry data indicates Japanese and Korean players maintain 74% of core lithium-ion IP, leveraging decades of foundational R&D.


Innovation Pathways


Facing patent thickets, latecomers are pursuing:

  1. Licensing models: Eve Energy’s "CLS" framework (Cooperation, Licensing, Service) monetizes IP through joint ventures.

  2. Breakthrough R&D: Solid-state and sodium-ion technologies potentially bypass existing IP.



Broader Implications

Legal experts warn the CALB precedent may:


① Suppress public industry discourse


② Drive patent conflicts into opaque administrative channels


③ Increase burdens on judicial resources already strained by 500+ annual battery IP cases



"Establishing specialized mediation mechanisms is critical," urged OFweek Energy, an industry observer. "The alternative is endless litigation that stifles the innovation these patents purport to protect."


The CALB ruling may have dual effects on the industry: while potentially discouraging public corporate disputes, it could also drive companies toward more covert forms of patent warfare.


As China's battery sector continues its global expansion, the case underscores the need for more sophisticated dispute resolution mechanisms that balance competitive discourse with intellectual property protection—without overburdening judicial resources with commercial speech disputes.


The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for an industry where innovation speed often outpaces legal frameworks, and where the line between legitimate competitive commentary and actionable defamation remains increasingly blurred.


— Reporting by [Erdong], translating by [Charlene], OFweek Energy