FOLLOW US

A California federal judge has dismissed a trade secrets lawsuit against Hyundai Motor Co. by startup Soelect Inc., ruling that the claims related to electric vehicle battery technology were filed in the wrong venue. The suit alleged Hyundai misappropriated Soelect's battery innovations and violated a nondisclosure agreement.

Hyundai Trade Secrets Suit : Venue Dispute Leads to Dismissal

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that California was not the proper jurisdiction for the Hyundai trade secrets suit. Soelect, a Delaware-based company, had argued that because part of its nondisclosure agreement with Hyundai’s subsidiary HATCHI was negotiated in California, the state was the correct venue. However, Judge Breyer disagreed, pointing out that Hyundai is a South Korean company, and Soelect’s business operations are primarily based in North Carolina.

Judge Breyer stated that the agreement’s ties to California were minimal and incidental. "There is no guarantee that the nondisclosure agreement grants the state federal court jurisdiction over Hyundai," he wrote, noting that the subsidiary involved, HATCHI, is based in Michigan and is not a party in the suit.

Insufficient Evidence for Trade Secrets Claim

Soelect claimed Hyundai improperly tested battery samples provided under its agreement with HATCHI, alleging that Hyundai went beyond the scope of the testing allowed. The startup accused Hyundai of misappropriating trade secrets concerning its battery technology, which was designed to reduce fire risks and short-circuits in lithium batteries.

However, Judge Breyer ruled that Soelect failed to adequately support its claims. He noted that the startup's reliance on a previous New York case involving WebMD and a nondisclosure agreement was misplaced, as the circumstances were different. In Soelect's case, there was no indication of any "nefarious" contracting process, nor any evidence that the alleged misappropriation occurred within the United States.

"Here, the alleged misappropriation happened entirely in South Korea," Judge Breyer said. He added that there was no point in allowing Soelect to amend its complaint since California was clearly not the appropriate venue for the dispute.

Hyundai Trade Secrets Suit : Next Steps for Soelect

Soelect's attorney, Christopher Smith, expressed disagreement with the ruling, saying in a statement, "We respectfully disagree with the judge’s order and are considering all available options at this time." No further details were provided on whether Soelect plans to refile the Hyundai trade secrets suit in another jurisdiction.

Hyundai’s legal team did not provide a comment on the decision.

Legal Representation

Hyundai is represented by attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP, including Matthew W. Walch and Gary Feinerman. Soelect is represented by counsel from Bailey & Glasser LLP, including Christopher D. Smith and Jonathan R. Marshall.