Why should Japanese steel companies sue? In fact, this is mainly because they think their non-oriented electromagnetic steel plate is developed by them, so they have a patent, but now this technology has been adopted by Baosteel. Baosteel adopts silicon steel products, which are almost the same as non-oriented electromagnetic steel plates in some properties. They believe that Baosteel's behavior infringed their patents and caused them huge losses, so they proposed compensation of 20 billion yen.
How does Baosteel Group respond? Baosteel's response to Japan's request is also simple. They think that technology like this is actually useless and every company should want it. At the same time, Baosteel did not infringe. At the same time, they also said that if there is infringement, then Japanese steel can produce reasonable evidence to prove it.
How to treat this kind of infringement? Let's take a look at the output of this kind of steel in Baosteel Group. At present, it has reached 1 ten thousand tons, ranking first in the world. I didn't know we could produce so much without patented technology. Baosteel has been recognized by the market. Non-oriented electromagnetic steel plate, as an important raw material in the new energy market, is really very important and involves many fields. I hope Baosteel can win this time and prove its innocence.
Why is this happening? In fact, similar patent disputes have occurred in many fields. After all, many enterprises think that this patent is their own, and Nippon Steel says that the non-oriented electromagnetic steel plate is their own. However, they have not produced enough evidence on this matter, and our Baosteel Group has also responded to this, saying that if we want to safeguard our rights and interests, we will ask the other party to produce evidence.
What do I think of this matter? In view of the claim and litigation conditions of Nippon Steel, I think we should actively defend our rights and provide them with some supporting materials. At the same time, if Nippon Steel can't provide enough evidence to prove that we do have infringement. If they monopolize only because they unilaterally discovered the application of this material for the first time, I think they are asking for trouble.