CATL v. CosMX Battery: Six-Patent Lithium-Ion Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice After 655 Days
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (CATL) filed suit against Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting six US patents covering lithium-ion battery technology. After 655 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs and fees.
CATL vs. CosMX: A Major Battery IP Clash Ends Quietly in Texas
On 6 September 2024, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (CATL), one of the world's largest lithium-ion battery manufacturers, filed a patent infringement action against Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. CATL asserted six US patents — US12015118B2, US11769910B2, US11799131B2, US11923498B2, US10964927B2, and US11575148B2 — all directed at lithium-ion battery products and related services.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), jointly moving to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, directed the clerk to close the case, and denied all pending requests for relief as moot.
The case ran for 655 days before resolution — a duration consistent with cases that progress through substantial discovery and claim construction activity before the parties reach a resolution. The equal cost-bearing arrangement is notable: it suggests neither party extracted a concession on fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to dismiss, if any, are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 655 days
655 days from filing to dismissal — a substantial first-instance run in E.D. Texas
US12015118B2 and five further CATL lithium-ion battery patents

Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling lithium-ion battery products into the US market should assess freedom to operate against CATL's six asserted patents. This applies especially to cell manufacturers, EV battery pack integrators, and consumer electronics suppliers operating in product categories that overlap with CosMX's accused lithium-ion battery products and related services.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepting the Rule 41(a)(1) joint stipulation is procedural in nature — it records the parties' mutual agreement to end all claims with prejudice and carries no judicial finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The equal cost-bearing direction reinforces the non-adjudicative character of the resolution. All six asserted patents remain legally intact.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) is a final, res judicata-effect termination of all asserted claims. Because it is filed as a joint stipulation, the court requires no judicial finding on the merits — the parties mutually agree to end the litigation permanently. CATL cannot reassert these six patents against CosMX on the same accused lithium-ion battery products in a future action.
Permanent bar on re-filingCATL's patents survive but enforcement window closes
A dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate CATL's six asserted patents — they remain in force and enforceable against third parties. However, CATL's ability to relitigate these specific infringement claims against CosMX on the accused products is extinguished. The patents' commercial value for future enforcement against other competitors is unaffected by this outcome.
Patents remain validCosMX obtains finality — but not a validity ruling
CosMX achieves closure on this litigation without any court finding of infringement or damages. Critically, however, no court ruled on the validity or enforceability of CATL's six patents. CosMX does not benefit from an invalidity judgment that could be used offensively elsewhere. The each-party-bears-own-costs order means CosMX absorbs its own legal expenditure.
No merits adjudicationSix CATL battery patents remain a live enforcement risk for the sector
Because the case ended without a validity or infringement ruling, CATL's six lithium-ion battery patents carry no litigation-tested weakness. Competitors operating in the same technology space — particularly those manufacturing cells with similar electrode or electrolyte architectures — should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. The 655-day litigation trajectory suggests CATL is prepared to sustain prolonged litigation to protect its IP position.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ningde Amperex Technology Limited | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Abigail Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brad Estes | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chunmeng Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Lin Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Daniel Powell | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Quincy Lu | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Razmig Hagop Messerian | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sable Bahleda | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yunzhi Lin | Attorney | Counsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis & Llewellyn LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Redwood) | Law Firm | Representing Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (LA) | Law Firm | Representing Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Blaney Harper | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan Peter Tassis | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gasper Joseph LaRosa , II | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Harry Lee Gillam , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Charles Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Farley | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Franklin Cleveland , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Christopher Hendershot | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Breetz | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | T. Kaitlin Crowder | Attorney | Counsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brackett & Ellis PC (Fort Worth) | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the lithium-ion battery IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from CATL's enforcement of six lithium-ion battery patents against CosMX in the Eastern District of Texas.
CATL's US patent filing activity in lithium-ion cell design
CATL's assertion of six distinct US patents in a single action suggests a deep and continuously growing US patent estate in lithium-ion cell architecture. Monitoring CATL's US application publications — particularly those citing the six asserted patents — can reveal next-generation cell design directions and identify where CATL is building defensive moats ahead of competitors.
CATL US portfolio depthFiling trends in lithium-ion electrode and cell architecture patents
The six asserted patents span multiple application dates and technical aspects of lithium-ion battery construction, reflecting a broad innovation front. Tracking global patent filing trends in electrode design, electrolyte composition, and cell assembly by leading Chinese and Korean manufacturers can identify where the next IP thicket is forming — and where white space remains for differentiated R&D.
Cell architecture trendsCosMX's patent portfolio and defensive IP position
As a fast-growing Chinese battery manufacturer supplying consumer electronics OEMs, CosMX's own US and global patent filings signal its R&D priorities and potential counterclaim arsenal. Analysing CosMX's patent estate can reveal whether it is building an IP position capable of cross-licensing leverage or remains primarily exposed to assertion from established players like CATL.
CosMX IP postureAdjacent R&D opportunities near the six asserted CATL patents
The specific claim scope of the six CATL patents defines both the risk zone and the adjacent opportunity space. Engineering around the asserted claims — particularly in alternative electrode geometries, novel electrolyte formulations, or next-generation solid-state architectures — may offer R&D teams a path to differentiated products outside the asserted claim boundaries. A claim-level gap analysis is a practical starting point.
Battery IP white spaceSimilar lithium-ion battery patent infringement cases in US federal courts
Cases involving lithium-ion battery patent assertions in the Eastern District of Texas and other US district courts, including disputes between Chinese battery manufacturers.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Lithium-ion battery products and/or related services-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedNingde Amperex Technology Limited's broader IP enforcement history
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the lithium-ion battery IP landscape
CATL's willingness to litigate six patents for 655 days in E.D. Texas signals a sharpening enforcement posture in the global battery IP race.
CATL is using US courts to police its lithium-ion IP against Chinese rivals
Filing in E.D. Texas against CosMX — a direct Chinese competitor — signals that CATL is prepared to deploy US patent litigation as a competitive tool internationally. Battery manufacturers sourcing from or competing with Chinese cell makers should assess exposure to CATL's growing US patent portfolio.
Six asserted patents with no validity ruling: the risk window stays open
No court ruled on the validity or infringement of any of the six asserted patents. They emerge from this litigation untested and unchallenged on the merits. Any company making, using, or selling lithium-ion battery products that overlap with the claimed technology should conduct a fresh FTO assessment against all six patent numbers.
CosMX's defence strategy may inform how rivals approach CATL patent claims
The specific arguments CosMX deployed over 655 days — including any IPR petitions, claim construction positions, or invalidity contentions filed in this action — could represent a roadmap for future defendants. Monitoring the full docket for inter partes review filings linked to these six patents is advisable for any competitor in the cell manufacturing space.
CATL's E.D. Texas venue choice and patent portfolio depth warrant a coordinated IP response
CATL's selection of Judge Gilstrap's court and its deployment of Quinn Emanuel suggests a sophisticated, well-resourced enforcement campaign. Competitors should map their product lines against CATL's full US patent estate — not just the six asserted patents — to identify additional exposure vectors before the next action is filed.
Limited v Zhuhai — key questions answered
CATL (Ningde Amperex Technology Limited) asserted six US patents: US12015118B2, US11769910B2, US11799131B2, US11923498B2, US10964927B2, and US11575148B2. All six relate to lithium-ion battery products and related services.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation filed by both parties. The court accepted the stipulation, directed the clerk to close the case, and ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees. No merits ruling was issued.
No. A dismissal with prejudice by joint stipulation carries no court finding on patent validity or infringement. All six CATL patents remain legally in force and enforceable against other parties. The dismissal only bars CATL from re-asserting these specific claims against CosMX on the same accused products.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00728) and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case ran from 6 September 2024 to 23 June 2026 — a total of 655 days.
CATL was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (multiple offices), Lewis & Llewellyn LLP, and Mann, Tindel & Thompson. CosMX was represented by Jones Day (multiple offices), Gillam & Smith LLP, and Brackett & Ellis PC.
Map your lithium-ion battery products against active CATL patent claims
Six CATL patents emerged from this 655-day dispute without a single validity or infringement ruling. Run a targeted FTO and portfolio-monitoring workflow in PatSnap Eureka to identify exposure before your next product launch.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.