China Lithium Battery Technology Co Ltd v. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2022-00008
• Patent #: 10,930,932
• Filed: November 23, 2021
• Petitioner(s): China Lithium Battery Technology Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Lithium-Ion Battery
• Brief Description: The ’932 patent is directed to a lithium-ion battery having a positive film comprising a layered lithium-containing compound. The patent focuses on the positive film having a specific Orientation Index ("OI value") of 5-100, which is defined as the ratio of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) peak area of the (003) crystal plane to that of the (110) crystal plane.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Batteries in Public Use and On Sale - Claims 1-19 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Several commercially available lithium-ion batteries, including "Battery #1" (LG B4 18650), "Battery #2" (Sanyo NCR18650GA), and "Battery #6" (ATL 1320 mAh pouch battery), all purchased prior to the patent’s effective filing date.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented detailed testing data for multiple prior art batteries, arguing they meet every limitation of the challenged claims. For example, testing on Battery #1 allegedly showed it is a battery with a positive electrode film comprising a layered lithium-containing compound (NMC), a negative electrode, and a separator. Its measured OI value was 15, falling within the claimed range of 5-100 (claim 1). The testing also allegedly showed the battery met the dependent claim limitations for areal density (claims 2, 7, 9), particle size (claims 11-12), powder OI (claims 13-14), and pressing density (claims 15-16). Similar detailed analyses were provided for other tested prior art batteries.
  • Key Aspects: This ground relies on physical evidence and expert analysis of commercially sold products that were publicly available before the patent's priority date, asserting the claimed invention was already in public use.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Jiang - Claims 1, 3, and 19 are anticipated by Jiang.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jiang (Chinese Application # CN201710507311.5).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jiang, a Chinese patent application, explicitly discloses batteries that meet all limitations of claims 1, 3, and 19. Jiang describes batteries with positive electrodes made from layered lithium-containing compounds, specifically lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and lithium manganese oxide (LMO). Jiang’s disclosed Embodiment 14 (NCA) and Embodiment 16 (LMO) allegedly have OI values of 99 and 72, respectively, both falling within the claimed 5-100 range. Petitioner asserted that Jiang also teaches the generic material of claim 3 and the standard battery components of claim 19.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Jiang in view of Gallagher - Claims 1-10 and 19 are obvious over Jiang in view of Gallagher.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jiang (Chinese Application # CN201710507311.5) and Gallagher (a 2015 journal article).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Jiang teaches batteries with OI values within the claimed ranges but does not explicitly disclose the areal density (ρ) or the mathematical product (OI×ρ) recited in claims 2 and 7-10. Gallagher teaches optimizing areal density in lithium-ion battery electrodes to improve cycle life and capacity. Petitioner argued that Gallagher provides specific, successful examples of areal densities (e.g., 0.0125 g/cm² and 0.0190 g/cm²) that a POSITA would have applied to the batteries disclosed in Jiang. The combination of Jiang’s OI values (e.g., 72) with Gallagher’s areal densities (e.g., 0.0125 g/cm²) would result in an OI×ρ value of 0.9, which falls squarely within the ranges recited in claims 2, 7, and 8.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Jiang’s teachings on optimizing crystal orientation (OI) with Gallagher’s teachings on optimizing areal density to achieve the common goal of improved overall battery performance, including high capacity and good cycle life.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because crystal orientation and areal density were known to be complementary and independently optimizable structural properties for improving battery performance.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Jiang in view of Lim (for pressing density), Sun (for particle size and monocrystals), Ueki (for powder OI), and Schaefer (for mixed active materials). Petitioner also asserted that claims 1-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112 for lack of written description and lack of enablement, and that claims 13-14 fail to further limit claim 1.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Layered lithium-containing compound" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "Lithium metal oxide compounds having layered crystal structures containing (003) and (110) crystal planes, including materials having the listed lithium metal oxide formulae and modifications thereof." This construction is based on the patent's specification and is central to mapping the claim scope to the prior art materials like NMC, NCA, and LCO.
• "Monocrystal particles" (claim 17): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "single or non-agglomerated particles." This construction is based on amendments and statements made by the Patent Owner during prosecution, where "monocrystal particles" was explicitly equated with "single particle (it means non-agglomerated particle)" in the specification.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Equivalence of XRD "Intensity" and "Area" Ratios: A central technical contention is that a POSITA would understand the XRD "peak intensity" ratio disclosed in Jiang to be equivalent to the "peak area" ratio claimed in the ’932 patent. Petitioner argued these terms were used interchangeably in the art for characterizing crystal orientation, especially for sharp XRD peaks like those in Jiang, and noted that the Patent Owner itself equated the two during foreign prosecution.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial. Under §325(d), denial is inappropriate because the primary prior art reference, Jiang, was only submitted in an IDS in Chinese with a brief English abstract and was never substantively considered by the Examiner. Further, Petitioner stated there are no co-pending district court litigations involving the ’932 patent, making discretionary denial under Fintiv inapplicable.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’932 patent as unpatentable.