Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
CATL v. CosMX Battery — Lithium-Ion Battery Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
655days
655 days from filing to dismissal — a substantial first-instance run in E.D. Texas
Patents asserted
6
US12015118B2 and 5 further patents asserted — lithium-ion battery technology
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
All claims dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation; each party bears own costs
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Court ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees — no fee award made
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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 →
Case at a glance
CourtTexas Eastern District Court
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledSeptember 6, 2024
ClosedJune 23, 2026
Duration655 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 655 days

655 days from filing to dismissal — a substantial first-instance run in E.D. Texas

Case timeline: Complaint filed SEP 6 2024 — 655 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Ningde Amperex Technology Limited v Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. SEP 6 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 23 2026 Dismissed with Prejudice 655 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US12015118B2 and five further CATL lithium-ion battery patents

Publication No.US12015118B2
Application No.US17/707137
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery cell architecture and construction
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024

Publication No.US11769910B2
Application No.US18/076882
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery electrode and assembly technology
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024

Publication No.US11799131B2
Application No.US17/885920
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery structural and electrochemical design
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024

Publication No.US11923498B2
Application No.US17/746755
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery electrode configuration and performance
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024

Publication No.US10964927B2
Application No.US16/202346
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery electrochemical cell and component technology
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024

Publication No.US11575148B2
Application No.US17/061427
Patent details
ProductLithium-ion battery assembly and electrochemical methods
Cited in actionSeptember 6, 2024
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figure
Representative claim (1 of 3 independent)
1. An electrode, comprising: a current collector; a first layer comprising a first material; and a second layer comprising a second material; wherein the first layer is arranged between the current collector and the second layer, the first layer is formed on a surface of the current collector, and a particle size of 90% accumulative volume of the first material is less than 40 μm; wherein a total compaction density of the first layer and the second layer is greater than 3.2 g/cc.
Technical background
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This is a continuation application of patent application Ser. No. 16/868,966, filed on May 7, 2020, which is a divisional application of patent application Ser. No. 16/000,597, filed on Jun. 5, 2018, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,693,181, assigned to the same assignee, which is based on and claims priority to China Patent Application No. 201810162494.1 filed on Feb. 26, 2018, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein. TECHNICAL FIELD The present application rela…
Patent family
15 family members across 2 jurisdictions (CN, US)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US12015118B2 and the CATL lithium-ion patent family?

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.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiff Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 290.) In the Stipulation, the Parties jointly move to dismiss all claims in this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff and Defendant not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-00728, Texas Eastern District Court

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.

PACER case 2:24-cv-00728 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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-filing
Patent holder outcome

CATL'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 valid
Defendant outcome

CosMX 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 adjudication
Commercial implications

Six 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 risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-00728 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffNingde Amperex Technology LimitedIndividual/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantZhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAbigail ClarkAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrad EstesAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChunmeng YangAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGregory Blake ThompsonAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLance Lin YangAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael Daniel PowellAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselQuincy LuAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRazmig Hagop MesserianAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSable BahledaAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselYunzhi LinAttorneyCounsel for Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmLewis & Llewellyn LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at LawLaw FirmRepresenting Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Redwood)Law FirmRepresenting Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (LA)Law FirmRepresenting Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew Thompson (Tom) GorhamAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBlaney HarperAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEvan Peter TassisAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGasper Joseph LaRosa , IIAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHarry Lee Gillam , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn Charles EvansAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJoseph FarleyAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJoseph Franklin Cleveland , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMelissa Richards SmithAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael Christopher HendershotAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRobert BreetzAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselT. Kaitlin CrowderAttorneyCounsel for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmBrackett & Ellis PC (Fort Worth)Law FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGillam & Smith, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmJones DayLaw FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmJones Day (Cleveland)Law FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmJones Day (Palo Alto)Law FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmJones Day (Washington)Law FirmRepresenting Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

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.

Patent portfolio

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 depth
Technology landscape

Filing 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 trends
Competitor IP posture

CosMX'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 posture
White space

Adjacent 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 space
Related litigation

Similar 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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern District Court case history, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
CATL prior US actionsCosMX litigation historyBattery IP in E.D. TexasChinese battery co. disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper intelligence on CATL's lithium-ion battery patent enforcement strategy in E.D. Texas district court.
IPR petition risk analysisCATL portfolio claim mappingCosMX's invalidity strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Limited v Zhuhai — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.