Lithium Manganese Oxide Battery Binder Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2018 peak. Seven families published that year against a single family at the 2022 midpoint, and the most recent year shows no new grants yet in the trend data — a sign the core binder chemistry claim space filled early.
- The corpus is small and concentrated in H01M. All 39 families sit inside battery-cell classification, with C01G (metal-oxide compounds) the only other subclass carrying meaningful weight — this is a tightly bounded niche, not a sprawling field.
- No single assignee shows current-year momentum. Every tracked assignee, including LG Chem, Samsung SDI and GM Global Technology Operations, logs zero filings in the latest tracked year, suggesting the active edge of R&D has moved elsewhere or into unpublished applications.
A narrow, mature claim space around spinel cathode binders
Lithium manganese oxide (LMO, LiMn2O4) spinel cathodes need a binder that survives the material’s elevated-temperature cycling and manganese dissolution problems, and this dataset tracks the patent activity specifically at that intersection — electrode binder formulations claimed against LMO or spinel cathode chemistry, not LMO synthesis or cell design in general. The search string combines cathode-material terms with binder-specific claim language (PVDF binder, aqueous binder, binder for spinel) and restricts to the IPC codes that cover battery electrodes and binder polymer classes. The result is a compact corpus: 39 patent families across roughly a decade of publication.
Filing rose to a peak in 2018 and has not returned to that level since, with the trend's midpoint year showing only a single family. Because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, the most recent year in any such trend understates real activity — but even allowing for that lag, the shape points to a field where the foundational binder claims were staked out early and the pace of new filing has slowed.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 39-family corpus: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the underlying claims.
Peak filing in 2018, no clear recovery since
Filings ran from a single family in 2017 to a peak of 7 in 2018, then eased toward roughly one family a year by the 2022 midpoint. The most recent year shows no published families yet, which the 18-month publication lag partly explains, but the multi-year decline predates that lag.
H01M dominates; C01G is the largest secondary cluster
Every family in the corpus classifies under H01M (batteries, cells and fuel cells), as expected given the search scope. C01G (compounds of other metals, covering manganese oxide chemistry) appears in 14 families, and C01B (non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds) in 7 — both point to binder claims that are argued alongside cathode-material composition rather than in isolation. EV propulsion (B60L) and nanotechnology (B82Y) each appear only twice, and capacitor, crystal-growth and alkali-metal-compound codes appear once each, marking clearly peripheral filing.
Shares are the percentage of the 39 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Lithium Manganese Oxide Battery Binder with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lithium manganese oxide battery binder and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records anchor the field
US20250233195A1 — Lithium-ion cell (Varta Microbattery GmbH, 2025-07-17)
A secondary lithium-ion cell with anode and cathode current collectors each carrying a strip-shaped main region loaded with active material and a free, unloaded edge strip, plus a sheet metal member contacting one of those free edge strips within an electrode-separator assembly.The claim scope centres on current-collector geometry and cell assembly, not on binder chemistry itself — worth noting when assessing freedom to operate on binder formulation claims.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6489060B1 | Rechargeable spinel lithium batteries with greatly improved elevated temperature cycle life | 67 |
| 2 | US5514488A | Electrochemical secondary cell | 63 |
| 3 | US5733681A | Non-aqueous battery with novel lithium manganese oxide cathode | 9 |
| 4 | US20160141602A1 | Surface Modifications for Electrode Compositions and Their Methods of Making | 8 |
| 5 | EP1056143A2 | Rechargeable spinel lithium batteries with improved elevated temperature cycle life | 8 |
| 6 | US20160344028A1 | Nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery | 7 |
| 7 | EP2477258A1 | Cathode active material, cathode and lithium battery including cathode active material, and method of prepari… | 7 |
| 8 | US20180331389A1 | Lithium ion battery | 6 |
| 9 | EP4047689A1 | Positive electrode active material for lithium secondary battery, preparation method therefor, and lithium se… | 5 |
| 10 | WO2017084101A1 | Lithium ion battery | 4 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers say about where this field stands
Three findings define the current state of LMO binder patenting: an early claim peak, a two-cluster classification pattern, and citation weight sitting on foundational, decades-old spinel patents rather than recent binder innovation.
The peak has passed, not arrived
Filing activity crested at 7 families in 2018 and had fallen to roughly 1 per year by the 2022 midpoint. That trajectory, combined with zero latest-year filings across every tracked assignee, indicates the core binder-for-spinel claim space was staked out in the mid-to-late 2010s rather than being an emerging area now.
Binder claims ride alongside cathode chemistry
C01G, covering manganese-oxide and related metal compounds, is the largest secondary classification after H01M itself. That pairing shows binder claims in this corpus are typically argued in combination with cathode-material composition, not as standalone polymer-binder inventions.
Influence sits on 1990s-2000s spinel patents
The two most-cited records in the corpus (67 and 63 citations) both address elevated-temperature cycle life in spinel lithium batteries and predate most binder-specific filing in this set. New entrants should expect their binder claims to be read against this older foundational art, not against each other.
No incumbent is currently active by this measure
LG Chem, Samsung SDI, GM Global Technology Operations, Varta, NEC Mobile Energy and AESC all show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Absence of visible momentum among known incumbents is itself a signal worth checking against unpublished applications given the 18-month lag.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lithium manganese oxide battery binder, with the prior art for and against each one.
A fragmented assignee base with a thin collaboration layer
With 39 families spread across battery makers, an automotive OEM and at least one university foundation, no single assignee dominates this niche. Co-filing is rare and small in scale.
GM Global Technology Operations
GM's presence pairs a corporate assignee with a named individual inventor in one co-assignee filing, consistent with binder work tied to a specific vehicle-battery programme rather than a standalone materials-supply business.
University of Virginia Patent Foundation
The University of Virginia's patent foundation appears twice in the co-assignee data, each time paired with a different named inventor, pointing to binder or electrode-composition research still moving through academic-to-industry licensing rather than direct corporate ownership.
Established cell manufacturers, quiet lately
LG Chem, Samsung SDI, Varta and NEC Mobile Energy all hold historical positions in the corpus but show no filings in the most recent tracked year, matching the broader post-2018 slowdown across the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| LG Chem | 0 | — |
| NEC MOBILE ENERGY CORP | 0 | — |
| Samsung SDI | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| Varta AG | 0 | — |
| Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) | 0 | — |
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 0 | — |
| U.S. NanoCorp, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns here raise three practical follow-up questions for anyone assessing freedom to operate or filing strategy in this space.
Check freedom to operate against foundational art
Because citation weight concentrates on 1990s-2000s spinel cycle-life patents rather than recent binder filings, any new binder composition claim should be checked against those older records first, not just against the most recent filers.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkWatch for filings hidden by the publication lag
The zero latest-year momentum across all six tracked assignees may partly reflect the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication rather than a genuine halt in R&D. Applications filed in the last year or so may not yet be visible.
Explore recent filingsAssess the under-claimed sub-areas before drafting
Aqueous-binder additive chemistry and binder-free spinel architectures show thinner coverage than the core PVDF binder claims, which is where a first-filer advantage is more plausible than in the crowded core.
Map the white spaceCommon questions about LMO battery binder patents
It is a patent claim directed at the polymer or composite material that holds active particles and conductive additive together in an electrode built around lithium manganese oxide (LMO, LiMn2O4) spinel cathode chemistry. These claims typically cover binder composition, such as PVDF-based or aqueous binder systems, formulated to withstand the elevated-temperature cycling and manganese dissolution issues specific to spinel cathodes. They are distinct from patents on LMO synthesis itself or on general cell design; this dataset isolates that binder-specific intersection using both material and IPC classification filters.
The trend data shows filing peaked at 7 families in 2018 and eased toward roughly 1 per year by 2022, with no latest-year filings recorded across any tracked assignee. This pattern is consistent with a field where the foundational binder-for-spinel claims were established in the mid-to-late 2010s, leaving less unclaimed ground for straightforward composition claims. Some of the recent-year dip is also attributable to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, so the true 2025-2026 filing level is likely understated in current records.
The most-cited records in this corpus, including US6489060B1 with 67 citations and US5514488A with 63, address elevated-temperature cycle life in spinel lithium batteries and predate most binder-specific filings tracked here. Among assignees with visible activity, LG Chem, Samsung SDI, GM Global Technology Operations, Varta, NEC Mobile Energy and AESC appear in the historical record, though none shows filings in the latest tracked year. Citation counts favour older, foundational patents over newer binder-specific work, so influence and current market position are not the same thing.
The classification data shows binder claims concentrated in H01M paired with C01G (manganese-oxide compounds), meaning most claims combine binder chemistry with cathode-material composition rather than treating binder formulation as a standalone invention. Sub-areas with thinner coverage include aqueous binder additives targeted specifically at manganese dissolution suppression, binder-free spinel electrode architectures, and binder systems tuned for high-voltage LMO variants. These are plausible filing targets precisely because the core PVDF/aqueous binder claim space is already dense.
No — that Varta filing claims current-collector geometry and cell-assembly structure, specifically strip-shaped loaded regions and a sheet metal member contacting a free edge strip, not binder composition. It is included here as a recent representative filing in the broader LMO cell space rather than as a binder-chemistry blocker. Anyone drafting new binder composition claims should check it for cell-architecture overlap but should look to the highest-cited older spinel patents for binder-adjacent prior art risk instead.
Research Lithium Manganese Oxide Battery Binder in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lithium manganese oxide battery binder corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.