Ola Electric issued a statement on Sunday dismissing the report as “misleading and baseless,” following claims by a South Korean news outlet that an unnamed former LG Energy Solution executive had tried to pass on pouch cell technology intellectual property to the Indian EV maker.
In its rebuttal, Ola said it has “no research or commercial interest in the dated technology,” adding that “client loss is forcing the foreign rival to attack its indigenous battery tech.” The company said its in-house 4680 Bharat Cell is built using “advanced dry electrode technology in a cylindrical form factor,” a step ahead of the pouch cell technology cited in the report.
“The insidious media report emerges at a telling time, just as Ola’s 4680 Bharat Cell has entered commercial production,” the statement read. Ola began commercial deliveries of its cells earlier this month and is now ramping up manufacturing capacity. The company expects to generate revenues from its in-house battery technology and its upcoming residential energy storage system, Ola Shakti.
Ola recently secured certification from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) under the latest AIS-156 Amendment 4 standards issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The approval covers its 4680 Bharat Cell battery packs in a 5.2 kWh configuration, a milestone for its domestic battery ecosystem ambitions.
Earnings and stock performance
On Thursday, the company reported a narrower net loss for the second quarter at Rs 418 crore, compared with Rs 495 crore a year earlier, helped by cost-cutting efforts. Operating revenue, however, fell 43% to Rs 690 crore from Rs 1,213 crore a year ago due to weaker sales of its electric two-wheelers.
Shares of Ola Electric closed 1.7% lower at Rs 46.79 on the BSE on Friday. The stock is down roughly 46% so far in 2025.
Also read | Ola Electric Q2 Results: Cons loss narrows to Rs 418 crore YoY, revenue plunges 43%
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
