Short Summary
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00405, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. contests U.S. Patent No. 11,769,910 owned by Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., which claims lithium‑ion battery electrolytes containing fluoroethylene carbonate and propanesultone. The petitioner’s authorized response asserts that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the majority of the 21 challenged claims (1‑6 and 12‑26). The response also rebuts the Patent Owner’s arguments that challenges to claims 20‑26 were forfeited and that the Director should overturn a prior discretionary denial, emphasizing that no new circumstances exist. The petition relies on multiple foreign patent publications (Zeng, Zhou, etc.) to show disclosure of the claimed elements.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. vs Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Voltage, LLC et al.vsShoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al.vsAgventure B.V.
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
Digital Global Systems, Inc.vsDeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al.vsBelden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are invalid based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Specifically, they argue prior art references such as Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor render the claimed features unpatentable.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsCroga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of Croga Innovations’ VoIP codec‑switching patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.