PTAB

IPR2025-00405

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co Ltd v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electrolyte, Electrochemical Device, and Electronic Device
  • Brief Description: The ’910 patent discloses non-aqueous electrolytes for high-voltage lithium-ion batteries. The electrolytes comprise a specific mixture of a dinitrile compound, a trinitrile compound, and propyl propionate, formulated within claimed weight percentage ranges and mathematical ratios to improve electrode stability and battery performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zeng - Claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 16-26 are obvious over Zeng

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeng (China Patent Application Publication No. 106099187A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zeng’s working Embodiments 4 and 6 disclose electrolytes containing all the required components: a dinitrile (adiponitrile and 1,2-bis(2-cyanoethoxy)ethane), a trinitrile (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile), and propyl propionate (PP). Petitioner asserted that the weight percentages (denoted X, Y, Z) and their calculated ratios (X+Y, X/Y, Y/Z) in Zeng’s examples either fall directly within or substantially overlap the ranges recited in the challenged claims. For example, Zeng’s X+Y value of 3.5 wt% is within the claimed range of about 2.2-8 wt%, and its calculated PP content (Z) of <17.7 wt% overlaps the claimed range of 5-20 wt%. Petitioner contended that any minor deviations, such as an X/Y ratio of 2.5 in Zeng versus "about 2.3" in the claim, are close enough to establish obviousness, especially given the ’910 patent’s own disclosure that "about" can mean ±10%.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to implement Zeng’s Embodiments 4 and 6 because they are presented as successful, self-contained working examples that demonstrated significantly improved capacity retention over comparative examples.
    • Expectation of Success: The detailed compositional data and successful test results for Zeng’s working examples would have provided a POSITA with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zhou - Claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 16-26 are obvious over Zhou

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhou (China Patent Application Publication No. 105552439 A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhou’s Example 8 discloses an electrolyte containing the claimed dinitrile (adiponitrile) and trinitrile (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile) compounds. While this example uses ethyl acetate (EA) instead of propyl propionate (PP), Zhou explicitly identifies PP as one of only eight suitable and interchangeable linear carboxylic acid esters. Petitioner contended that substituting PP for EA is an obvious modification. The resulting electrolyte composition, with a PP (Z) value of 16.56 wt%, falls within the claimed 5-20 wt% range. The other component ratios in Zhou’s Example 8, such as X/Y of 0.67, also meet the claimed limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (Substitute): A POSITA would be motivated to substitute PP for EA because Zhou teaches a recognized need to improve the kinetic properties of electrolytes and presents a finite, predictable list of eight interchangeable esters to achieve this goal. Selecting PP from this short list was argued to be an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as Zhou teaches that PP and EA are fungible esters that both provide the desired function of supporting ion conductivity in fast-charging batteries.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Zeng and Sunose - Claims 13 and 14 are obvious over Zeng in view of Sunose

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeng (China Patent Application Publication No. 106099187A) and Sunose (Japan Patent Application No. 2009-252349).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Zeng provides the claimed electrolyte composition, as detailed in Ground 1. Sunose was argued to supply the structural limitations of claims 13 and 14, which relate to the electrochemical device’s electrode. Specifically, Sunose discloses a cathode with both single-sided and double-sided coatings on a current collector, and it provides working examples where the compaction densities (D1 and D2) and their ratio (D1/D2) fall within the ranges required by the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because Zeng focuses on electrolyte chemistry but is silent on specific electrode configurations, creating a need to look to analogous art for implementation details. Sunose provides a known solution in the same field (lithium-ion batteries) to improve battery performance by maximizing electrode area and improving adhesion, which are well-known industry goals compatible with Zeng’s electrolyte improvements.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining an improved electrolyte from Zeng with an improved electrode structure from Sunose, as both are directed at enhancing the performance of conventional lithium-ion batteries.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Matsuoka (Application # 2013/0224535) to provide explicit teachings of PP ranges and Kim (Application # 2017/0288268) to motivate fine-tuning the trinitrile-to-PP ratio.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), Petitioner asserted the grounds and prior art (Zeng, Zhou) are substantially different from those considered during prosecution, which focused on an anticipation rejection over a different reference. Regarding Fintiv factors, Petitioner argued that the petition was filed early in the parallel district court litigation, before the deadline to answer the complaint and before significant resources have been invested. Petitioner further stipulated that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds in the related litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6 and 12-26 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.