PTAB

IPR2025-00722

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co Ltd v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electrochemical Device and Electrolyte Composition
  • Brief Description: The ’131 patent discloses an electrochemical device, such as a lithium-ion battery, featuring an electrolyte with specific weight percentage ranges of a dinitrile compound, a trinitrile compound, and propyl propionate. The claims also recite an electrode structure comprising a first electrode with a single-sided coating and a second electrode with a double-sided coating having a specified ratio of compaction densities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 14-17 are obvious over Zeng and Hirai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeng (China Application # CN 106099187A) and Hirai (Application # 2015/0017542).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zeng’s Embodiments 4 and 6 disclose an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery containing a dinitrile, a trinitrile (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile), and propyl propionate (PP) that meets the claimed weight percentage ranges for their sum (X+Y), their ratio (X/Y), and the trinitrile-to-PP ratio (Y/Z). While Zeng teaches the electrolyte chemistry, Hirai allegedly discloses the claimed physical electrode structure: a laminated battery with a first, outermost electrode having a single-sided coating and a second, inner electrode having a double-sided coating. Hirai further teaches compaction density ratios (D1/D2) between these electrodes that fall within the claimed range of about 0.8 to 1.2.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zeng's high-performance electrolyte with Hirai's electrode structure because Zeng focuses on chemistry but not a specific physical embodiment. Hirai provides a suitable laminated structure designed to improve performance in large-scale batteries—the target application for Zeng’s electrolytes—by addressing thermal management and power output unevenness, making it a logical choice for implementing Zeng’s chemistry.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because the references are in the same technical field, and Hirai’s structure was designed to work with conventional non-aqueous electrolytes like those described by Zeng.

Ground 2: Claim 15 is obvious over Zeng and Hirai, further in view of Han

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeng (China Application # CN 106099187A), Hirai (Application # 2015/0017542), and Han (Japan Application # JP 2018-78052 A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Zeng/Hirai combination to specifically address the cathode compaction density (D2) limitation of claim 15 (3.5 g/cm³ to 4.3 g/cm³). Petitioner asserted that while Hirai’s examples disclose densities just below this range (3.1-3.3 g/cm³), Han explicitly teaches a preferred cathode density range of 2.5 to 3.8 g/cm³, which substantially overlaps the claimed range.
    • Motivation to Combine: Han is analogous art from the same assignee as Hirai (Nissan) and addresses the same technical problem in the same type of laminated battery. A POSITA seeking to optimize the cathode density of the Zeng/Hirai battery would have been motivated to consult Han for guidance, especially since it was known that higher densities improve capacity.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that Han and Hirai describe different aspects of the same laminated battery technology from the same company, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Han’s teachings on cathode density to the Hirai structure.

Ground 3: Claims 14-17 are obvious over Zhou and Hirai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhou (China Application # CN 105552439 A) and Hirai (Application # 2015/0017542).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhou’s Example 8 discloses an electrolyte containing the claimed dinitrile and trinitrile compounds in amounts satisfying the X+Y and X/Y ratio limitations. Although Zhou uses the ester ethyl acetate (EA) instead of propyl propionate (PP), Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to substitute EA with PP because Zhou itself lists PP as one of only a few suitable alternative esters. This substitution would result in an electrolyte meeting all composition limitations. Hirai, as in Ground 1, supplies the claimed electrode structure and compaction density ratios.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would implement Zhou's advanced electrolyte chemistry in Hirai's advantageous physical battery structure. The motivation to substitute EA with PP is provided directly by Zhou, which identifies PP as a fungible component for achieving the desired properties of improved kinetic performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because the substitution involves one known ester for another structurally similar ester, which Zhou teaches are interchangeable for the same purpose within a finite, predictable set of solutions.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges based on combinations including Matsuoka (Application # 2013/0224535) to provide explicit teachings on preferred weight percentages for PP, and Kim-’268 (Application # 2017/0288268) to provide further motivation to combine trinitrile and PP and optimize their relative ratio (Y/Z).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary prior art references, including Zeng, Zhou, Hirai, and Han, were not substantively evaluated during prosecution. It was asserted that the Examiner only had access to English-language abstracts for Zeng and Zhou, which were insufficient for a complete patentability analysis.
  • Petitioner further contended that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted because the co-pending district court litigation is in its nascent stages, with minimal investment of resources by the parties or the court, making the inter partes review (IPR) a more efficient forum for resolving the validity dispute.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 14-17 of Patent 11,799,131 as unpatentable.