Taiwan largest lens supplier Largan settles IPR disputes with Ability Opto-Electronics

Taiwan largest lens supplier Largan settles IPR disputes with Ability Opto-Electronics

Taiwan motivates the parties to take up the possible settlements outside the court before they start reviewing the case

Taiwan giant Largan Precision Co., a supplier of smartphone camera lenses to Apple Inc. announced that it had reached a settlement with the Ability Opto-Electronics Technology over a dispute over acquiring optical lens-related technology, thereby infringing the trade secret and copyright under the respective Acts.

A civil lawsuit was filed by Largan against Ability Opto-Electronics Technology as well as its chairman, president, and four other employees (who used to work for Largan) based on the Trade Secrets Act and the Copyright Act. Largan claimed that the defendant had conspired against Largan acquiring the four resigned employees for getting the know-how of the optical lens technology. Largan contended that the said act have infringed the trade secret and copyright act under the respective law.

The Intellectual Property Court in January 2021 ruled in favor of Largan that Ability and the other six defendants should jointly pay the monetary compensation for NT$1,522,470,639 (US$50.7 million) to Largan.

Largan even filed a criminal complaint against Ability as well as its chairman, president, and other four employees (who used to work for Largan) against their criminal liabilities. In January 2021, the Taichung District Court gave the decision in favor of Largan finding all defendants guilty in violation of the Trade Secret Act, the Copyright Act, and the Criminal Code concerning breach of trust and then imposed punishments for five or six months in jail.

However, Largan announced in March 2021 that it will withdraw the civil and criminal litigation as well as any other enforcement action against Ability and other people as it has settled with Ability. Largan did not disclose the details of the settlement agreement due to the non-disclosure agreement.

Undoubtedly, both the company have spent huge costs over litigation in the past year which will affect their workings. Probably getting on to the settlement would be a better option for both the companies. Taiwan has a long history of lawsuits ending up with settlements mainly for commercial disputes. Even to the extent, the public prosecutors and the judges also motivate the parties for taking up the possible settlements outside the court before they start reviewing the case.