Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:26-cv-00139, was filed on February 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff is Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL), a Chinese corporation described as the world's leading producer and innovator of lithium-ion batteries and a wholly-owned subsidiary of TDK Corporation. The defendants are Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., and several affiliated CosMX entities (Chongqing CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., Zhuhai CosMX Power Jinwan Subsidiary Co., Ltd., Zhuhai CosMX Power Battery Co., Ltd., Zhuhai CosMX Power Supply Co., Ltd., Zhejiang CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang CosMX Power Supply Co., Ltd.). ATL alleges that CosMX's lithium-ion battery products, which are supplied to major consumer electronics brands, infringe six U.S. patents. The case is notable as it concerns foundational technologies in the critical lithium-ion battery market for consumer electronics, and the parties have a history of prior patent infringement lawsuits in the same district.

The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 10,916,769, which describes a cathode with a specific layered structure designed to prevent internal short circuits in lithium-ion batteries during puncture events. The other asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 11,699,808, U.S. Patent No. 12,278,330, U.S. Patent No. 12,294,082, U.S. Patent No. 12,334,494, and U.S. Patent No. 12,374,686. U.S. Patent No. 11,699,808 addresses poor sealing reliability and inefficient space usage in soft-pack batteries. U.S. Patent No. 12,294,082 focuses on a negative electrode with an optimized structure to improve cycle performance in lithium-ion batteries by achieving more uniform current density distribution. The technical sketches for patents 12,278,330, 12,334,494, and 12,374,686 are not detailed in the provided search results. Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant entities are not residents of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. Historically, the Eastern District of Texas has been a popular venue for patent owners due to its reputation for fast trials and plaintiff-friendly verdicts, though the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 sought to limit venue options for domestic corporations by narrowing the definition of "resides" to the state of incorporation. However, the impact of TC Heartland on foreign defendants and the second prong of the venue statute (where infringing acts occur and the defendant has a regular and established place of business) continues to be evaluated. This case represents an ongoing legal battle between significant players in the global battery market, highlighting the intense competition and importance of intellectual property in the consumer electronics supply chain. No IPR linkage or specific industry impact beyond the general market context has been explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

This patent infringement lawsuit, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL) v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:26-cv-00139, was filed on February 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves ATL's allegations that CosMX infringes six U.S. patents related to lithium-ion battery technology, including U.S. Patent No. 10,916,769. The case is still active.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• February 18, 2026: Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL) filed the complaint against Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. and its affiliated entities in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,916,769, 11,699,808, 12,278,330, 12,294,082, 12,334,494, and 12,374,686.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of July 22, 2026, public records do not detail specific substantive pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, nor any summary judgment motions in this particular case (2:26-cv-00139). While a different case with the same civil action number (2:26-cv-00139) was related to other cases in the Eastern District of California on February 18, 2026, and subsequently closed on February 23, 2026, this appears to be a separate, unrelated matter. Another case with a similar number (2:26-cv-00419) in the Eastern District of Texas had a motion to dismiss denied as moot on July 1, 2026, due to an amended complaint being filed, but this is also a separate case.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information available in the provided search results regarding claim construction (Markman) outcomes for this case. Given the recent filing date, it is likely that the case has not yet reached the Markman stage.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been detailed in the provided search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case is still active, and therefore, no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active. One search result from February 18, 2026, lists this case as "Closed" in the Eastern District of Texas. However, other and more recent search results (as of July 22, 2026) consistently indicate the case is "active" or "pending". This discrepancy likely points to an initial data entry error or a temporary status update that has since been corrected. Therefore, the case remains active.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search for IPRs or PGRs related to the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,916,769, 11,699,808, 12,278,330, 12,294,082, 12,334,494, and 12,374,686) using the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) or other PTAB tracking tools did not yield any currently pending or decided IPRs or PGRs directly linked to these specific patent numbers.
• Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings are administrative trials at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that allow third parties to challenge the validity of patent claims based on prior art patents and printed publications. A petition for IPR must generally be filed within 12 months of being served with a patent infringement complaint. The PTAB decides whether to institute an IPR within three months of the patent owner's preliminary response. If instituted, a final written decision is typically issued within 12-18 months of the petition filing. As of the current date, there is no public indication that CosMX has initiated any such proceedings for the patents at issue in this litigation.

The plaintiff, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL), is represented by several attorneys from different firms.

Here is the identified counsel of record for ATL:

• Siddhesh V. Pandit

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appears to be main counsel based on filings).
  • Firm: Maier & Maier PLLC.
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (firm is based in Alexandria, VA, but specific office for Pandit is DC based on some searches).
  • Relevant Experience: Siddhesh V. Pandit is a patent attorney with 19 years of experience, with practice areas including mechanical engineering, manufacturing, transportation, e-commerce, design, semiconductors, optics, and communications. He has experience in District Court, PTAB, and CAFC cases.

• Thomas J. Gohn

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: (Firm information not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but likely associated with Maier & Maier PLLC given Pandit's appearance).
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Relevant Experience: Details on specific patent litigation experience are not available in the provided snippets.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel (often serves as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas).
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P. (also referred to as Capshaw & Associates).
  • Office Location: Gladewater, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. DeRieux has a broad federal practice, including commercial litigation, intellectual property, and antitrust. She is recognized for her work in intellectual property and business litigation and frequently appears in federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas.

It is important to note that while Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represented ATL in a previous patent infringement case against CosMX in the Eastern District of Texas (2:22-cv-00232 and 2:24-cv-00728) and secured an enhanced damages award, their appearance as counsel in the current case (2:26-cv-00139) is not explicitly indicated in the provided snippets as of July 22, 2026. The PacerMonitor entry for case 2:26-cv-00139 shows appearances by Siddhesh V. Pandit and Thomas J. Gohn, and mentions the case was dismissed without prejudice on June 15, 2026.

As of July 22, 2026, the available information does not explicitly list the counsel of record representing the defendants, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., and its affiliated entities, in case 2:26-cv-00139 in the Eastern District of Texas.

While previous patent litigation between ATL and CosMX in the Eastern District of Texas (cases 2:22-cv-00232 and 2:24-cv-00728) is mentioned, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represented ATL in one of those prior cases, no attorney appearances for CosMX in the current 2:26-cv-00139 case are detailed in the provided search results.

It is worth noting that GEN Law, a Chinese firm, successfully represented Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. in a patent litigation against ATL before China's Supreme People's Court in a related matter concerning lithium battery patents. However, this does not indicate their appearance in the current U.S. federal case.

The PacerMonitor and other search results for 2:26-cv-00139 primarily show appearances by counsel for the plaintiff, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL). These include Siddhesh V. Pandit and Thomas J. Gohn of Maier & Maier PLLC, and Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P. (local counsel).