Energy Storage — US PTAB Patent Cases
51 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 51 total
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully challenged the ’282 battery‑binder patent, with the PTAB finding all 16 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over multiple carbon‑nanotube references.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution’s challenge to the ’924 lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The Board found no sufficient evidence of obviousness over the cited prior art, leaving all five claims intact.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging the validity of Molecular Rebar Design's patents covering advanced nanomaterials for batteries. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references, alongside arguments regarding lack of written description support.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution initiated an IPR challenge against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding patents covering battery/electrolyte materials utilizing nanotubes. The core dispute centers on whether the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Bosnyak-392 and Son. Petitioner argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these claimed innovations.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution challenges Molecular Rebar Design's patent on lithium-ion battery composites, arguing the technology is obvious based on prior art combinations of carbon nanotubes.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding lithium-ion battery technology. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims despite arguments of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully convinced the PTAB that its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design's battery patent were strong enough for institution. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations, leading to the IPR being instituted on all 16 claims.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's battery patent (8968924). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Ohata and Kavan. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to a full trial phase at the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon’s petition for Director Review of the institution decision on NL Giken’s patent 9,948,968 was denied, leaving the institution intact.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' IPR challenges against SK nexilis regarding claims covering electrolytic copper foils for secondary batteries. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly rejecting conclusory expert testimony used to bridge prior art gaps.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against SK nexilis Co., Ltd. was denied institution by the PTAB, despite a 'close call' on the merits. The denial hinged primarily on procedural factors related to scheduling and parallel litigation.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution filed an IPR Petition challenging claims related to lithium ion batteries and nanomaterials. The petitioner argues that the claimed compositions are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, such as Ohata/Kavan or Lee/Wepasnick.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition against claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, finding that the combination of prior art references did not render the copper foil obvious. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success when combining properties from materially different sources.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.