I've talked to people from that very lab at the Université de Montréal many years ago, before the parent expired.
The IP was licensed by Hydro-Quebec first, and some of it was also held by UT. A123 was a US company manufacturing LFP batteries in 2005 in infringement of the patents.
A123, Hydro-Quebec, UT spent 15 years suing each other (and also suing BAK technology in China and other companies that used the technology), complete with secondary patents, etc...
Hydro-Quebec actually was producing LFP batteries commercially, along with an EV program. Those ventures were cancelled, in no small part because of the political issues when Canadian SoEs compete with American businesses (but also for other reasons). HQ is restarting the LFP manufacturing program now, though, through a new spinoff.
Anyways, this is not like Nortel at all - we had two decades of a headstart and we didn't give the license to Chinese companies until quite a few years later. A big part of the issue is because an American company violated the IP, then filed secondary pattents and tried to get the originals invalidated, which led to a huge legal battle strongly discouraging investment. There was really no mistake done in licensing it to Chinese companies.
The IP was licensed by Hydro-Quebec first, and some of it was also held by UT. A123 was a US company manufacturing LFP batteries in 2005 in infringement of the patents.
A123, Hydro-Quebec, UT spent 15 years suing each other (and also suing BAK technology in China and other companies that used the technology), complete with secondary patents, etc...
Hydro-Quebec actually was producing LFP batteries commercially, along with an EV program. Those ventures were cancelled, in no small part because of the political issues when Canadian SoEs compete with American businesses (but also for other reasons). HQ is restarting the LFP manufacturing program now, though, through a new spinoff.
Anyways, this is not like Nortel at all - we had two decades of a headstart and we didn't give the license to Chinese companies until quite a few years later. A big part of the issue is because an American company violated the IP, then filed secondary pattents and tried to get the originals invalidated, which led to a huge legal battle strongly discouraging investment. There was really no mistake done in licensing it to Chinese companies.