Background
BASF Corporation, the U.S. arm of the German chemical giant, sued Duracell U.S. Operations (owned by Berkshire Hathaway) in April 2025, alleging that Duracell misappropriated proprietary technology for manufacturing high-performance cathode active materials — a crucial component of lithium-ion batteries used in consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems.
According to BASF, the company invested substantial resources over many years developing a proprietary process for producing lower-cost cathode materials at industrial scale. BASF shared these innovations with Duracell under a formal collaboration agreement in which both sides agreed to keep the technology secret. BASF alleges that Duracell then improperly shared the technology with an unidentified third-party company, effectively cutting BASF out of its role as developer and supplier.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Gregory Williams denied Duracell’s motion to dismiss the trade secret claims. Duracell had advanced three primary defenses: first, that it independently developed the cathode manufacturing process years before working with BASF; second, that it could not misappropriate technology that was licensed to it under the collaboration agreement; and third, that BASF waited too long to bring suit.
While the full memorandum opinion is under seal pending redactions proposed by both parties, the denial means the court found that BASF adequately stated claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the pleading stage. Duracell’s arguments about independent development, licensing rights, and timeliness did not warrant dismissal as a matter of law and will be tested through discovery and later proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Trade secret claims arising from collaborative R&D agreements can survive dismissal even when the defendant asserts independent prior development and licensing rights — these are factual defenses that typically require discovery to resolve.
- The case highlights the risks inherent in technology-sharing partnerships in the battery materials space, where cathode formulations and manufacturing processes represent enormous competitive value.
- BASF is seeking monetary damages and an order requiring Duracell to destroy all documents obtained through the collaboration — remedies that could significantly impact Duracell’s battery business if the claims succeed.
Why It Matters
This case sits at the intersection of trade secret law and the rapidly growing lithium-ion battery industry. As demand for high-performance batteries surges across electric vehicles, consumer electronics, and grid-scale energy storage, the proprietary processes for manufacturing cathode materials are among the most valuable trade secrets in the energy sector. The outcome could have significant implications for how companies structure collaborative R&D agreements and protect shared technology in this space.
For Berkshire Hathaway’s Duracell, the ruling means it must now face discovery into the details of its collaboration with BASF and its alleged sharing of proprietary technology with a third party — a process that could reveal sensitive information about its battery manufacturing operations.