A federal judge in Delaware has denied Duracell's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by German chemical maker BASF that alleges the battery maker misappropriated trade secrets connected to a proprietary lithium-ion battery process.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams on Tuesday rejected Duracell's effort to throw out the April 2025 complaint, according to court filings that are currently under seal while proposed redactions from both companies are considered. Lawyers for the two firms had not submitted public comments on the sealed ruling at the time of filing.
In its complaint, BASF said it invested significant resources to develop a proprietary production method for a high-performance cathode material it described as a crucial component for lithium-ion batteries. BASF alleged that Duracell feigned compliance with a collaboration agreement, transferred misappropriated information to a third party, and orchestrated manufacturing arrangements while falsely claiming responsibility for the process, causing substantial and irreparable harm.
Duracell responded by asserting it had invented the process years before collaborating with BASF and maintained that it cannot be accused of misappropriating intellectual property that was licensed to it. The company also argued that BASF delayed too long before initiating litigation.
The complaint comes amid BASF's corporate restructuring efforts. In December 2023 the company announced plans to separate its battery chemicals business and two other units into autonomous divisions to drive earnings improvements. Lithium-ion batteries, for which the disputed cathode material is used, power a wide range of products including consumer electronics, electric vehicles, home appliances, toys and energy storage systems.
Duracell, acquired by Berkshire Hathaway from Procter & Gamble for about $2.9 billion in 2016, is named in the suit. Warren Buffett was Berkshire's chief executive at the time of the purchase and remains chairman. The judge's ruling allows BASF's case to proceed in federal court; the public record of the decision remains partially sealed pending the proposed redactions.
Legal posture and next steps
With the motion to dismiss denied, the case will move forward through the litigation process unless the parties reach a private resolution or the sealed ruling is later altered. The precise timeline and scope of discovery, or any further motions, will depend on subsequent court filings and scheduling orders.
Context
- BASF alleges misappropriation of a proprietary cathode production method for lithium-ion batteries.
- Duracell contends it had prior rights to the process and that BASF’s suit was untimely.
- The judge’s decision is under seal pending redactions submitted by both parties.