Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal battle between two major companies in the lithium battery materials industry, Tianqi Materials and Yongtai Technology, focusing on allegations of trade secret theft and the implications for their competitive positions in the market [4][8]. Group 1: Legal Disputes - Tianqi Materials, controlled by Xu Jinfeng, has filed a lawsuit against multiple parties, including former engineer Li Sheng and competitor Yongtai Technology, claiming that Li violated confidentiality agreements and leaked proprietary technology related to lithium hexafluorophosphate [5][7]. - The lawsuit seeks nearly 900 million yuan in damages, while Yongtai Technology has countered with a defamation claim, demanding 57.52 million yuan [7][19]. - The legal conflict centers on whether Yongtai Technology unlawfully acquired and utilized Tianqi's trade secrets, with both companies presenting evidence to support their claims [25][26]. Group 2: Company Performance and Market Position - Tianqi Materials reported a revenue of 10.8 billion yuan in the previous year, accounting for 86% of its total revenue, with significant investments in R&D exceeding 1.1 billion yuan over three years [12][13]. - The company has established itself as a leader in the production of lithium hexafluorophosphate, achieving a 40% cost advantage over competitors, which is considered a key competitive barrier [23][31]. - Despite facing challenges, including a significant drop in profits to 480 million yuan, down 74.4% year-on-year, Tianqi has managed to improve production efficiency and profitability in the first quarter of the current year [34][36]. Group 3: Industry Context - The article highlights the competitive landscape of the lithium battery materials sector, where both Tianqi and Yongtai are vying for market share in the production of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a critical component for battery electrolytes [23][25]. - The price of lithium hexafluorophosphate has seen a dramatic decline from a peak of 600,000 yuan per ton in early 2022 to around 50,000 yuan by July 2023, impacting the financial performance of companies in this space [34]. - The ongoing legal disputes and market dynamics underscore the intense competition and the need for companies to protect their intellectual property while navigating pricing pressures [36][37].

Core Viewpoint - A legal battle is unfolding between two billion-dollar listed companies, Tianqi Materials and Yongtai Technology, over allegations of trade secret theft and defamation [2][9]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Tianqi Materials, controlled by Xu Jinfeng, has filed a civil lawsuit against 12 parties, including former chief engineer Li Sheng and competitor Yongtai Technology, claiming that Li violated confidentiality obligations and leaked proprietary technology [3][6][7]. - The lawsuit seeks nearly 900 million yuan in damages [7]. - Yongtai Technology has countered with a defamation lawsuit against Tianqi, demanding 57.52 million yuan in compensation [8]. Group 2: Company Background - Tianqi Materials, based in Jiangxi, has a market value of 35 billion yuan and generated 10.8 billion yuan in revenue last year, accounting for 86% of its total revenue [4][12]. - The company has invested over 1.1 billion yuan in R&D over the past three years and holds more than 300 patents [12]. - Li Sheng, who previously held key positions at Tianqi, allegedly profited 4.285 million yuan from sharing proprietary technology with Yongtai and another company [14]. Group 3: Industry Context - The dispute centers around lithium hexafluorophosphate, a key electrolyte material for batteries, where Tianqi is recognized as a leading domestic producer [27][28]. - Tianqi claims a 40% cost advantage over competitors in producing lithium hexafluorophosphate, which is a significant competitive barrier [29]. - The company has established relationships with major battery manufacturers, including CATL and LG Chem, with over 500,000 tons of electrolyte shipped last year [30]. Group 4: Financial Performance - In 2023, Tianqi's total revenue was approximately 12.52 billion yuan, a decrease of 18.74% compared to 2022 [32]. - The revenue from lithium-ion battery materials was about 10.97 billion yuan, representing 87.67% of total revenue, down 22.19% year-on-year [32]. - The company's gross profit margin for lithium battery materials was 17.45%, higher than the industry average [47]. Group 5: Market Challenges - The price of lithium hexafluorophosphate peaked at 600,000 yuan per ton in early 2022 but has since dropped significantly, affecting profitability [50]. - Tianqi's net profit fell by 74.4% to 480 million yuan last year, leading to a substantial decline in Xu Jinfeng's wealth [51]. - Despite challenges, the company has improved production efficiency and profitability in the first quarter of 2023, reporting a profit of 150 million yuan [52].

华夏时报记者 夏高琴 南京报道 7月以来，两家锂电材料上市企业天赐材料（002709）（002709.SZ）与永太科技（002326） （002326.SZ）的商业秘密纠纷迅速发酵，已从刑事判决延伸至民事战场。 日前，天赐材料公告称，公司全资子公司九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件，向江西省高院提起民事诉 讼，对包括李胜、永太科技及其控股子公司邵武永太等12个被告提起总计8.87亿元的索赔。 天赐材料起诉永太科技等12名相关方"窃密" 7月2日晚间，天赐材料公告称，全资子公司九江天赐作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级 人民法院提起民事诉讼，涉案被告为另一上市公司永太科技、九江天赐前员工等12名相关方。永太科技 则迅速回应称，公司可能涉及诉讼，但尚未收到任何相关诉讼材料。从天赐材料提供的情况来看，正是 液体六氟磷酸锂相关技术遭到商业秘密侵权。 天赐材料称，李胜在离职后违反保密义务，与永太科技等相关方达成合作，将不正当手段非法获取的九 江天赐液体六氟磷酸锂工艺技术资料，运用在了邵武永太高新材料有限公司年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业 化项目中。其中提到，李胜获取违法所得共计428.504万元，郑飞龙获取违法所得 ...

当8.87亿元商业秘密侵权索赔撞上5752万元名誉权反诉，两大锂电材料企业的"互撕"正揭开行业暗战。 7月2日晚间，天赐材料（002709.SZ）公告称，公司全资子公司九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件，向 江西省高院提起民事诉讼，对包括李胜、永太科技及其控股子公司邵武永太等12个被告提起总计8.87亿 元的索赔。 永太科技与天赐材料均系电解液材料上市公司，都生产六氟磷酸锂等主流电解液材料，因经营范围类似 双方存在直接的竞争关系。 作为反击，7月3日，永太科技（002326.SZ）公告称，公司及控股子公司邵武永太因天赐材料侵害名誉 权的行为，分别向临海市人民法院和邵武市人民法院提起民事诉讼，要求天赐材料停止侵权行为，并赔 偿5752万元经济损失。 究竟是永太科技涉嫌技术盗窃，还是天赐材料利用商业诋毁不当竞争？目前双方各执一词。这场围绕液 态六氟磷酸锂技术的攻防战，将锂电材料行业的竞争白热化推向高潮。 双方各执一词 早在今年2月，天赐材料曾称，九江天赐前员工李胜伙同他人将公司技术资料泄露给邵武永太。李胜等 人在另一起诉讼中，已被法院一审判决犯侵犯商业秘密罪。 最新公告显示，李胜于2017年8月进入九江天赐工作，与九 ...

在永太高新看来，天赐材料起诉永太科技及公司的目的是为了抢占市场，"给公司名誉造成了严重影 响，并引起了相关公司股票的震荡，造成公司巨大的经济损失。" 此前，天赐材料于7月2日晚间宣布，其子公司九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级人民法院 提起民事诉讼，起诉永太科技、永太高新等，被告包括企业和自然人合计12人。 在公告中，天赐材料表示，相关案件被告人李胜违反保密义务，伙同郑飞龙与永太科技、何人宝达成合 作协议后，永太科技、永太高新等将其非法获取的九江天赐液体六氟磷酸锂工艺技术资料，运用于永太 高新年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业化项目（下称"13.4万吨液体锂盐项目"）中。 九江天赐合计提出了7条诉讼请求。其中包括判令12名被告共同赔偿原告的经济损失8.87亿元并公开道 歉等。 永太科技去年1月曾披露，13.4万吨液体锂盐项目（首期年产6.7万吨）已完成设备安装调试工作，开始 了试生产。7月2日晚，永太科技发布公告回应天赐材料时透露，公司目前仅生产固态六氟磷酸锂产品， 尚未生产销售上述案件所涉（液体锂盐）产品。 A股两大锂电材料巨头的纠纷进一步发酵。 7月3日晚，永太科技（002326）公告称，公司及控股子公 ...

以下文章来源于时代财经APP ，作者何明俊 时代财经APP . 聚焦于企业财经新闻，互联网新闻信息服务许可证编号：44120230006 来源|时代财经APP 作者 | 何明俊 编辑 | 高秋榕 7月2日晚，A股上市公司天赐材料（002709.SZ）披露公告称，公司全资子公司九江天赐高新材料 有限公司（下称"九江天赐"）作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级人民法院提起民事 诉讼，涉案金额预期经济损失8.87亿元及律师费115万元。 公告显示，涉案被告共有十二名，其中包括另一家A股上市公司永太科技（002326.SZ）、邵武永 太高新材料有限公司（下称"永太高新"）、何人宝、王国超、邵鸿鸣、上海桦置工程科技有限公 司、郑飞龙、姜存华、李胜、浙江美阳国际工程设计有限公司、汪婷以及卢珍珍。 同日晚间，永太科技亦披露诉讼对应公告称，截至目前，公司尚未收到任何涉及该案的诉讼材料。 "公司一直以来尊重他人知识产权和重视知识产权保护，所研发的生产工艺具有完全自主的知识产 权，本公告涉及的可能发生的诉讼案件不会对公司核心技术和自主研发能力产生影响。"永太科技 在公告中表示，"同时，公司始终坚守公平竞争的原则，反对滥用 ...

据介绍，该项目由被告四王国超、被告五邵鸿鸣具体负责，并由被告十浙江美阳国际工程设计有限公司进行项目产线设计，并由被告六上海桦置工程科技有 限公司（该公司由郑飞龙、被告八姜存华与何人宝成立，实控人为何人宝）承接项目部分。 基于江西省九江市濂溪区人民法院已做出的一审《刑事判决书》所审查查明的事实及原告掌握的被告实施的侵权行为，九江天赐认为，被告具有明显的侵权 故意，应就其共同侵权行为承担连带赔偿责任。因此，九江天赐依法向法院提起诉讼，请求判令被告立即停止侵害技术秘密信息的行为，销毁侵权项目中的 生产产线设备及生产工艺资料，销毁承载商业秘密的专用设备、存储设备及工艺资料，共同赔偿经济损失及律师费用，并在相关媒体上赔礼道歉，消除影 响。 天赐材料表示，因本次诉讼事项中公司的全资子公司作为原告，预计不会对公司当期损益产生直接的负面影响。但因本案尚未开庭审理，亦不排除在审理过 程中达成和解或进行调解的可能，公司目前尚无法判断本次公告的诉讼对公司期后利润的影响。公司将密切关注本次诉讼事项的后续进展情况，并按照相关 规定履行信息披露义务。 天赐材料作为一家在行业内具有重要影响力的企业，此次提起的诉讼不仅是为了维护自身的合法权 ...

每经记者｜孔泽思 每经编辑｜文多 天赐材料一方因此认为，上述主体具有明显的侵权故意，侵权规模及获益巨大。 公告中，九江天赐提出的诉讼请求包括，判令邵武永太销毁年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业化项目中利用九 江天赐技术秘密建设的生产线设备及生产工艺资料；判令12个被告停止侵害原告技术秘密信息的行为； 判令12个被告共同赔偿8.87亿元等。 天赐材料表示，九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件主张赔偿权利，预计不会对公司当期损益产生直接的 负面影响。但因案件尚未开庭审理，不排除在审理过程中达成和解或进行调解的可能，公司目前无法判 断此诉讼对公司期后利润的影响。 7月2日晚间，天赐材料方面向《每日经济新闻》记者表示，公司的液体六氟磷酸锂技术比较独特，目前 此案件中还有其他待起诉的主体，公司正在收集证据。"取证确实不容易，其他很多公司也有类似的侵 权事件，只是没有我们这样的决心。"公司方面称。 天赐材料（SZ002709）的一起商业秘密侵权纠纷有了新情况。 7月2日晚间，天赐材料公告称，公司全资子公司九江天赐高新材料有限公司（以下简称九江天赐）就商 业秘密侵权纠纷案件，向江西省高院提起民事诉讼，被告涉及李胜、永太科技（SZ002 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Tianqi Materials has initiated a lawsuit against Yongtai Technology for alleged trade secret infringement, with the case now accepted by the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court, involving a claimed economic loss of 887 million yuan and legal fees of 1.15 million yuan [1][2]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Tianqi Materials' subsidiary, Jiujiang Tianqi, is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Yongtai Technology and its subsidiaries, alleging the misuse of proprietary technology in the production of lithium salt [1][3]. - The lawsuit seeks the destruction of production line equipment and process documentation used in Yongtai's 134,000-ton liquid lithium salt project, which is claimed to utilize Tianqi's trade secrets [1][5]. - Yongtai Technology has reported consecutive losses over the past two years, with a net profit of only 554 million yuan in 2022, which is less than the amount claimed in the lawsuit [1][3]. Group 2: Background and Implications - The lawsuit follows a previous criminal case where a former employee of Jiujiang Tianqi was found guilty of disclosing trade secrets to Yongtai Technology [3][4]. - The liquid lithium salt project by Yongtai Technology has a total investment of 793 million yuan, with 90% of the budget already spent, and is projected to generate annual revenues of 5.4 billion yuan and net profits of 670 million yuan once fully operational [5][6]. - Legal experts suggest that if the production line is found to infringe on trade secrets, it may face significant financial penalties, potentially impacting Yongtai's future operations and profitability [6][7].

以下文章来源于e公司 ，作者证券时报 曾剑 e公司 . e公司，证券时报旗下专注上市公司新媒体产品，立志打造A股上市公司资讯第一平台。提供7x24小时 上市公司标准化快讯，针对可能影响上市公司股价的主题概念、行业事件及时采访二次解读，从投资者 需求出发，直播上市公司有价值的活动、会议。 天赐材料（002709）7月2日晚间披露，公司全资子公司九江天赐作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠 纷案件向江西省高级人民法院提起民事诉讼，并于近日获得受理。 上述判决未提及永太科技等。天赐材料当时称，案涉岳敏、张春晖，永太科技等将另案处理。 本案中，九江天赐将A股另一家锂电材料企业永太科技(002326)，以及永太科技同宁德时代的合资公司邵 武永太高新材料有限公司（下称"邵武永太高"）等列为了被告，被告包括企业和自然人合计12人。 九江天赐称，被告李胜于2017年8月进入公司工作，与九江天赐签订了《劳动合同》《商业保密、竞业限 制协议》等。2021年5月，李胜从九江天赐离职。其在九江天赐工作期间先后担任电池生产部工艺技术总 监、总工程师等职务。 在九江天赐看来，李胜违反保密义务，伙同郑飞龙与永太科技、何人宝达成合作协议后，永太科技、 ...