LithiumHub v. Relion Battery: LiFePO4 Patent Suit Ends in Joint Dismissal
LithiumHub, LLC and LithiumHub Technologies, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Shenzhen-based Relion Battery in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering lithium iron phosphate battery technology across more than 25 accused products. After 306 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
LiFePO4 Battery Patent War Settled Quietly in East Texas
LithiumHub, LLC and LithiumHub Technologies, LLC filed suit on September 13, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, asserting infringement of US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 against Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co. The accused products spanned more than 25 SKUs — including the RB100, RB200, RB300, and affiliated Tracker and Cabela’s-branded lithium iron phosphate batteries distributed through major retail channels.
The case ended on July 16, 2025, when both sides filed a joint motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and 41(c) to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Judge Schroeder granted the motion the same day. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars LithiumHub from re-filing the same infringement claims against Relion on these patents, while the equal cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a clear financial concession at the dismissal stage.
The 306-day resolution — well before any scheduled trial — is consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or commercial settlement reached between the parties, though the public record is silent on specific terms. The breadth of accused products, spanning both Relion’s own branded line and third-party retail SKUs, suggests the dispute touched significant distribution relationships. Whether the resolution included a cross-license, royalty arrangement, or covenant not to sue remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 306 days
306 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Rule 41 joint dismissal with prejudice — a permanent end to these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) and 41(c) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. LithiumHub cannot re-file infringement claims against Relion on US9954207B2 or US9412994B2 for the accused conduct. Both claims and counterclaims were extinguished simultaneously, signalling a clean bilateral resolution rather than a one-sided capitulation.
Res judicata appliesLithiumHub secures a permanent bar — but gives up future claims
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, LithiumHub forfeits the ability to revive these specific patent claims against Relion. This is typically acceptable only when the plaintiff has secured a satisfactory licensing arrangement or commercial resolution behind the scenes. The equal cost-bearing term suggests LithiumHub did not extract a fee award, though any undisclosed royalty or lump-sum payment would not appear in the docket.
Private terms likely existRelion escapes adjudication — but faces a permanent litigation record
Relion Battery avoids an adverse infringement finding, preserving its ability to contest validity of the asserted patents in other forums if needed. However, the with-prejudice dismissal does not constitute a validity ruling, so US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 remain enforceable against other parties. Relion’s extensive product line — including retail-distributed Tracker and Cabela’s SKUs — remains potentially subject to claims by other LiFePO4 patent holders.
No validity ruling madeLiFePO4 patent enforcement remains active in the battery sector
The volume of accused products — spanning multiple voltage classes and retail partnerships — signals that LithiumHub’s patents cover commercially significant design space in the lithium iron phosphate battery market. Other manufacturers of RV, marine, and deep-cycle LiFePO4 batteries should treat US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 as live enforcement risks. The East Texas venue and the breadth of the product list suggest LithiumHub may pursue further enforcement actions against competing battery makers.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LithiumHub, LLC | Company | LiFePO4 battery IP holding entities — asserting US9954207B2 and US9412994B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | LithiumHub Technologies, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co. | Company | Shenzhen-based manufacturer of lithium iron phosphate battery products sold in the USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Geoffrey Patton Culbertson | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Helen Yu Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelly B. Tidwell | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole Sara Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott A Cole | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Arthur Moore | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tim F. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dority & Manning PA | Law Firm | Representing LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP | Law Firm | Representing LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP (Texarkana) | Law Firm | Representing LithiumHub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abelino Reyna | Attorney | Counsel for Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tony V. Pezzano | Attorney | Counsel for Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | A Reyna Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lippes Mathias LLP | Law Firm | Representing Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ agreed language verbatim, granting the joint Rule 41(a)(1) and 41(c) motion in full. The with-prejudice designation carries res judicata effect — LithiumHub’s infringement claims on US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 against Relion’s accused conduct are permanently extinguished. Critically, the order makes no validity finding and no infringement finding; the patents remain enforceable against third parties. The symmetric cost-bearing term is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution and suggests neither side sought to characterise the outcome as a litigation win in the public record.
US9954207B2 & US9412994B2 — Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Technology
US9954207B2 (Application No. 14/657101) and US9412994B2 (Application No. 13/989273) both cover technical aspects of lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery technology — a chemistry widely adopted for deep-cycle, marine, RV, and recreational applications due to its thermal stability and cycle-life advantages over lithium cobalt oxide. The earlier application number of US9412994B2 suggests it may represent foundational claims in the family, with US9954207B2 potentially covering continuation or improvement claims, though the precise claim scope requires file wrapper analysis.
LiFePO4 battery technology is experiencing rapid commercial expansion across marine, recreational vehicle, fish-finder bundle, and off-grid power markets — precisely the categories represented in the accused product list. LithiumHub’s willingness to assert both patents simultaneously across 25+ SKUs, including major retail co-branded products, signals a belief in broad claim coverage. For competitors active in this space, these patents represent material FTO risk, particularly for products sold through US retail channels regardless of manufacturing origin.
Should you run an FTO against US9954207B2 and US9412994B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing lithium iron phosphate batteries in the United States — particularly for marine, RV, deep-cycle, or recreational power applications — should treat these two patents as priority FTO targets. The accused product list in this case included batteries from 12V to 36V and across multiple capacity classes, suggesting the asserted claims may read broadly on standard LiFePO4 form factors. Co-branded retail products and OEM supply relationships are not insulated from direct or contributory infringement exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim language from US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support IPR petitions, and flag prosecution history disclaimers that may limit claim scope. For supply-chain teams, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can track new continuation filings by LithiumHub entities, providing early warning of expanded enforcement risk before litigation is initiated.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9954207B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LiFePO4 and Battery Technology Patent Cases in EDTX
Cases involving lithium iron phosphate and rechargeable battery patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable US district courts.
What this case signals for the lithium iron phosphate battery IP landscape
Two enforced LiFePO4 patents, 25+ accused SKUs, and a confidential resolution — key signals for battery manufacturers and IP teams.
East Texas remains a preferred venue for battery IP enforcement
LithiumHub chose the Eastern District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly venue — to assert its LiFePO4 patents against a Shenzhen-based manufacturer. Companies selling lithium battery products in the US should treat EDTX as a realistic litigation risk, regardless of where manufacturing occurs. Proactive FTO analysis against US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 is advisable for any LiFePO4 product entering the US market.
Retail distribution partners expand the infringement surface area
The accused product list included batteries sold under Tracker and Cabela’s branding — third-party retail channels. This illustrates that patent enforcement can reach OEM supply relationships and co-branded retail products, not just the manufacturer’s own label. Battery brands supplying white-label or co-branded products to major US retailers should audit supply contracts for IP indemnification obligations and FTO clearance requirements.
LithiumHub v Relion — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 means LithiumHub permanently waives the right to re-file the same infringement claims against Relion Battery on US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 for the accused conduct. The order carries res judicata effect. It does not constitute a validity ruling — both patents remain enforceable against other parties.
LithiumHub asserted two patents: US9954207B2 (Application No. 14/657101) and US9412994B2 (Application No. 13/989273), both covering lithium iron phosphate battery technology. The case also named LithiumHub Technologies, LLC as a co-plaintiff, suggesting both entities hold rights in the asserted portfolio.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favourable venue for patent infringement cases, with established local patent rules and experienced patent judges. LithiumHub’s choice of EDTX is consistent with a broader enforcement strategy targeting US sales and distribution of Relion’s LiFePO4 battery products, regardless of the defendant’s Shenzhen manufacturing base.
Over 25 product SKUs were accused, including Relion’s own RB series (RB12, RB52, RB100, RB200, RB300, and variants), as well as third-party retail co-branded products including Tracker Lithium batteries, Cabela’s LiFePO4 batteries, and Garmin fish-finder bundles incorporating Tracker batteries. The accused products span 12V to 36V and multiple capacity classes.
No — the dismissal is bilateral and specific to Relion Battery’s accused products and conduct. US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 remain valid and enforceable patents. Other manufacturers or importers of LiFePO4 batteries sold in the US are not protected by this dismissal and remain subject to potential infringement claims by LithiumHub or LithiumHub Technologies, LLC.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.