In an EV battery plant, the moulds and drawings are where the real technology value sits. When cooperation with the Chinese side ends, who may take the moulds and who keeps the drawings decides whether the plant can still produce.
What tooling transfer means in a battery plant
Tooling transfer is the movement of the production tool set — electrode pressing moulds, fixtures, test jigs, cell casing dies — together with design drawings and machining parameters from the Chinese side to the plant in Vietnam for local production. Unlike a turnkey line transfer, tooling is often invested in and shipped by the Chinese side under a JV or processing contract, while the Vietnamese plant is the daily user. That very split between tooling investor and daily user creates an ownership grey zone if the contract does not fix it at the start.
Who owns moulds invested by the Chinese side
Vietnamese law has no dedicated default regime for JV tooling: the contract determines mould ownership. If the contract records the moulds as the Chinese side’s property on loan for use, that side may take them back on termination; if the mould purchase price was counted into the Vietnamese entity’s capital or costs, the ownership argument tilts to the entity. The decisive evidence layers are purchase invoices, import records — whether the moulds entered under temporary import for re-export or formal import — and which side books the asset. Fix all three layers when the moulds arrive at the plant, not when a dispute erupts.
Drawing licences on termination: ownership versus past use
Mould drawings are technical documents that can simultaneously be copyright subject matter and trade secrets under the IP Law. On termination the drawing licence normally ends with it: the plant may not use the drawings to make replacement moulds or pass them to another maker, unless the contract preserves a limited maintenance right for a period. Products lawfully made with the tooling during the licence term are not recalled. A wise clause distinguishes clearly: originals returned, copies certified destroyed, any retained maintenance right limited, and a ban on reverse-engineering the moulds to recreate equivalent drawings.
Can the moulds be taken back on termination
Yes, if the moulds belong to the departing side and the contract carries no retention clause — and the removal must follow the customs route matching the original import mode: temporarily imported moulds must be re-exported as committed, formally imported and duty-paid moulds export as ordinary goods with related tax handling. The practical risk is a Vietnamese-side retention claim while payment or compensation is disputed — the contract should pre-agree the mechanism: escrow, independent valuation or arbitration, instead of letting the moulds become a hostage of the dispute.
Frequently asked questions
What is tooling transfer in an EV battery factory?
It is the transfer of the mould, fixture and drawing set with related parameters from the Chinese side to the plant in Vietnam for local production, usually under a JV or processing contract, with the Chinese side as tooling investor.
How are mold and drawing licenses handled when the contract ends?
Under the drawing licence’s termination clauses: typically originals are returned, copies certified destroyed, and use to make replacement moulds stops; products lawfully made during the licence term are not recalled, and any limited maintenance right exists only if the contract preserves it.
Who owns the molds invested in by the Chinese side?
It follows the contract and evidence: moulds recorded as the Chinese side’s property on loan belong to that side; mould money counted into the Vietnamese entity’s capital or costs tilts ownership to the entity. Invoices, import mode and accounting are decisive.
Can the molds be taken back when cooperation ends?
Yes, if the moulds belong to that side and no retention right applies; export must match the original import mode — re-export for temporary import, ordinary export for formally imported moulds — with any retention dispute handled by the pre-agreed mechanism.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council