P2I Ltd. vs. Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology: Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Coatings Patent Case Due to Procedural Failures
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
Introduction
In a swift and procedurally decisive outcome, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by P2I, Ltd. against Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. in Case No. 25-1865 — not on the merits of the underlying coatings patent dispute, but due to the appellant’s failure to comply with basic court requirements. The case, which closed just 32 days after filing, centers on U.S. Patent No. US11041087B2, covering specialized coating technologies. The dismissal serves as a sharp reminder that even well-founded patent invalidity arguments can be extinguished by procedural missteps. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams monitoring nanotechnology and coatings patent litigation, this case offers critical lessons in appellate procedure, docketing compliance, and litigation readiness that extend far beyond the specific parties involved.
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | P2I, Ltd. v. Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. |
| Case Number | 25-1865 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit |
| Duration | June 2025 – July 2025 32 days |
| Outcome | Appeal Dismissed – Procedural |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Coatings (nanotechnology-based) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Appellant / Plaintiff
UK-based nanotechnology company recognized for its liquid-repellent nano-coating solutions, serving industries ranging from consumer electronics to defense.
🛡️ Appellee / Defendant
Chinese nanotechnology firm specializing in nano-coating products and services, with a growing international commercial presence and an expanding IP portfolio.
The Patent at Issue
The patent at the center of this dispute is U.S. Patent No. US11041087B2 (application number US16/547728), directed to coating technologies. While specific claim language was not disclosed in the procedural record available, the patent falls within the technically sophisticated domain of nanotechnology-based coatings — a highly competitive and commercially valuable space.
- • US11041087B2 — Coating technologies (application no. US16/547728)
The Accused Products
The accused products involve coatings, implicating the applied nanotechnology sector where both parties actively compete. The commercial significance is substantial, as nano-coating technologies underpin product protection solutions across electronics, textiles, automotive, and industrial applications.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff (P2I, Ltd.): Represented by Andrew Bochner of Bochner PLLC
Defendant (Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology): Represented by HanWei Chen and Matthew Cook Bernstein of Bernstein IP Strategy and Paradice & Li LLP
Developing a coating product?
Check if your coating technology might infringe this or related patents.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
| Milestone | Date |
| Notice of Appeal Filed | June 16, 2025 |
| Case Closed / Dismissed | July 18, 2025 |
| Total Duration | 32 days |
The appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the exclusive appellate venue for U.S. patent matters, on June 16, 2025. The underlying dispute involved a patentability/invalidity and cancellation action — a category of proceedings that frequently originates at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or in district court before escalating to the Federal Circuit.
The remarkably short 32-day lifecycle of this appeal reflects no substantive adjudication. Instead, the case was terminated almost immediately upon the court’s identification of two distinct procedural failures by the appellant. The absence of a chief judge designation in the record suggests the dismissal was handled through routine administrative review rather than a merits panel, consistent with Federal Circuit procedures for non-compliant filings.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a dismissal order with the following operative language:
“The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1), and having failed to file the required Entry of Appearance form by an attorney admitted to the bar of this court within the time permitted by the rules, it is ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.”
No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted or denied on the merits. The dismissal was purely procedural.
Verdict Cause Analysis: Dual Procedural Failures
The dismissal rested on two independent grounds, either of which would have been independently fatal to the appeal:
1. Failure to Pay the Docketing Fee (Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1))
Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) requires appellants to pay the docketing fee upon filing a notice of appeal. This is a non-discretionary obligation. Failure to remit this fee signals either administrative oversight or an unrepresented or under-resourced appellant unable to meet basic filing obligations. The Federal Circuit does not routinely grant extensions for docketing fee payment absent extraordinary circumstances.
2. Failure to File Entry of Appearance by Admitted Counsel
Federal Circuit practice mandates that counsel appearing before the court must be admitted to its bar — a separate admission from district court or state bar membership. The failure to file a timely Entry of Appearance by admitted counsel suggests that P2I’s appellate counsel either was not admitted to the Federal Circuit bar or failed to execute the administrative steps necessary to formally enter the case. This is a critical distinction from district court practice that catches unprepared litigants off guard.
Legal Significance
This dismissal, while not precedent-setting on substantive patent law, carries significant procedural precedent value. The Federal Circuit has consistently enforced its administrative rules without leniency, and this case reinforces that principle. For the underlying validity dispute involving US11041087B2, the dismissal leaves any prior adverse ruling against P2I undisturbed — a consequential outcome for the patent’s enforceability status.
Filing a coating patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims for coating technologies that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Industry & Competitive Implications / FTO Analysis
The nano-coatings sector is intensely competitive, with companies like P2I and Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology competing globally for market share in liquid-repellent and protective coating technologies. Patent enforcement in this space has accelerated as applications expand across consumer electronics, medical devices, and defense sectors.
The procedural dismissal of P2I’s appeal — without a merits ruling — leaves strategic ambiguity in the competitive landscape. Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology retains its position without an adverse appellate finding, but the underlying patent (US11041087B2) and its scope remain subject to continued scrutiny. Companies operating in the nano-coatings space should note that invalidity/cancellation actions are a primary defense strategy against coating technology patents, and monitoring PTAB proceedings involving key portfolio patents is essential competitive intelligence practice.
For international IP disputes involving Chinese nanotechnology firms, this case also highlights the importance of coordinating U.S. appellate strategy with counsel experienced in Federal Circuit practice — a specialized bar that requires deliberate preparation separate from general patent litigation competence.
Licensing dynamics in the coatings patent space may also be affected. A failed appeal by a patent holder can signal reduced leverage in licensing negotiations, potentially influencing royalty rate expectations and cross-licensing discussions across the sector.
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the coatings technology space
- See which companies are most active in coatings patents
- Understand procedural compliance pitfalls
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Procedural Pitfalls
Failure to pay docketing fee is fatal
Bar Admission
Federal Circuit bar admission is required
Patent US11041087B2
Underlying status unchanged by dismissal
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) docketing fee payment is mandatory and non-negotiable — build this into your appellate intake checklist.
Search related case law →Federal Circuit bar admission is a separate requirement; verify counsel admission status before filing any notice of appeal.
Explore Federal Circuit rules →Procedural dismissals leave underlying PTAB or district court rulings intact — assess the downstream impact on patent enforceability immediately.
Understand procedural outcomes →Cross-border IP disputes require tightly coordinated U.S. appellate teams with Federal Circuit-specific expertise.
Get expert insights →For R&D & Innovation Teams
Conduct or refresh FTO analyses for nano-coating technologies in light of ongoing validity uncertainty around key patents in this space.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Competitive monitoring of P2I and Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology IP portfolios is advisable for companies developing coating product lines.
Try competitive intelligence tools →Frequently Asked Questions
What patent was involved in P2I Ltd. v. Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology?
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US11041087B2 (application no. US16/547728), covering coating technologies in the nanotechnology domain.
Why was P2I’s appeal dismissed?
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal because P2I failed to pay the required docketing fee under Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and failed to file an Entry of Appearance by counsel admitted to the Federal Circuit bar within the prescribed timeframe.
How does this dismissal affect nano-coating patent litigation?
The dismissal leaves any prior ruling against P2I undisturbed and signals to practitioners the critical importance of Federal Circuit-specific procedural compliance in appellate patent matters.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.