Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. et al. v. Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd. et al.

Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. and Georgia Tech Research Corporation have initiated patent infringement litigation against three Chinese entities: Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. Sila Nanotechnologies is an American operating company based in California that develops and manufactures advanced silicon-based materials, specifically its Titan Silicon anode material, to enhance the energy density and charging speed of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and consumer electronics. Co-plaintiff Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) is a non-profit organization affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology, serving as the contracting entity for sponsored research and holding the intellectual property rights, including patents, developed at Georgia Tech. The defendants, Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., and Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., are described as manufacturers of lithium battery graphite anode material, offering integrated artificial SEI-film graphite and silicon-carbon negative electrodes. Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. is involved in the production and sale of nanomaterials and electrode materials, as well as new polymer materials. Given the plaintiffs' focus on silicon anode materials for batteries and the defendants' stated business activities, the alleged infringement likely centers on the defendants' development, production, or sale of silicon-carbon anode materials or related battery components that incorporate the patented technology.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,942,624. While the full technical details require reviewing the patent itself, generally, patents in the realm of Sila Nanotechnologies' work focus on nano-composite silicon anode materials designed to replace graphite in lithium-ion batteries, aiming for higher energy density and faster charging capabilities. The procedural posture of the case is in its early stages, having been filed on June 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas is historically known as a "plaintiff-friendly" venue for patent litigation, often characterized by a "rocket docket" with expedited trials and a reputation for being favorable to patent holders, although the impact of the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision in 2017 significantly reduced the number of patent cases filed there by narrowing proper venue. Nonetheless, it continues to be a prominent venue for patent disputes, including a high volume of overall patent litigation and NPE filings in 2025. As of the filing date, a specific judge has not been publicly assigned.

The case is notable due to the parties involved in the rapidly evolving and strategically important field of advanced battery materials, particularly for electric vehicles and consumer electronics. Sila Nanotechnologies is a significant operating company in this space, having raised substantial funding and partnered with major automotive players like Mercedes-Benz and Panasonic for its silicon anode technology. The defendants are Chinese companies also involved in anode material production, highlighting potential international competition and intellectual property disputes in the critical battery supply chain. This litigation could therefore have implications for the global market for next-generation battery components. No immediate information suggests this is an NPE assertion, given Sila's operating company status. While the general prevalence of IPRs is high in patent litigation, there is no specific IPR linkage known for patent 11,942,624 in this case at this very early stage.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. et al. v. Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Number: 2:26-cv-00491
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2026-06-18
Patents Asserted: 11,942,624

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

As of June 19, 2026, this patent infringement litigation is in its very early stages.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • 2026-06-18: Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. and Georgia Tech Research Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • 2026-06-18: The plaintiffs also filed a disclosure statement.

Given the recent filing date, no further substantive legal developments such as answers, counterclaims, pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or final dispositions have occurred. There are also no records of parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on patent 11,942,624 at this time.

The plaintiffs, Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. and Georgia Tech Research Corporation, are represented by attorneys from Jones Day.

Based on the firm's announcement and common practice in patent litigation, the following attorneys from Jones Day are likely to be involved, with their roles and experience:

• Joseph M. Beauchamp (Joe) - Partner, Lead Counsel.

  • Firm: Jones Day, Houston office.
  • Experience: Mr. Beauchamp has over 25 years of experience in intellectual property law, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, including mechanical, chemical oil field technologies, software, and automotive applications. He has been lead trial counsel in patent litigation matters in key jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas, and before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board.

• Keith B. Davis - Partner, Lead Counsel.

  • Firm: Jones Day, Dallas office (implied by Texas-based practice and firm's Texas IP presence).
  • Experience: Mr. Davis has more than 20 years of experience leading high-stakes patent, trade secret, and copyright lawsuits in Texas courts and other leading IP jurisdictions. His patent cases have involved diverse technologies, including cellular and wireless systems, semiconductor devices, optical networks, and processors. He is ranked by Chambers USA for his IP litigation work.

• H. Albert Liou - Partner, Counsel.

  • Firm: Jones Day, Houston office.
  • Experience: Mr. Liou has over 17 years of experience litigating patent and trade secret cases through trial and appeal, representing companies in computer software, semiconductor, fintech, manufacturing, and petrochemical industries. He is also a registered patent attorney and handles inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO.

• Blaney Harper - Partner, Counsel.

  • Firm: Jones Day (office not specified in search results, but his profile indicates a focus on U.S. district courts and ITC, which aligns with the case).
  • Experience: Mr. Harper focuses on strategic patent litigation, particularly for electronics, software, and information technology companies in U.S. district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He also handles patent portfolio development, prosecution, and inter partes review.

• John W. Lee - Associate, Counsel.

  • Firm: Jones Day, Washington office.
  • Experience: Mr. Lee focuses on intellectual property, with an emphasis on patent litigation before U.S. District Courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. His experience covers technologies such as wireless communications, mobile applications, and consumer electronics. Prior to joining Jones Day in 2026, he was a patent examiner at the USPTO.

It is important to note that while the search identified Jones Day as the representing firm, the specific roles (e.g., lead counsel vs. counsel) for each attorney are inferred based on their experience and typical firm structure for patent litigation, as a formal docket entry detailing individual roles is not yet available in the public search results. The Dallas and Houston offices are prominent for Jones Day's IP litigation in Texas.

I'll search for docket and counsel information for this case.

Now let me dig into the docket sheet for appearances and any defense-side filings.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — Findings (as of 2026-10-17)

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for any of the three defendants. No notice of appearance, pro hac vice motion, corporate disclosure statement, answer, or Rule 12 motion by Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., or Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. appears in any source I could reach, and no law firm has publicly announced that it represents them in either the district court case or the parallel ITC investigation. Rather than name firms on inference, I am reporting this as an unverified/absent record.

What the sources actually show

Timing context — why counsel may legitimately not be of record yet

This is practice-based context, not a sourced finding about these defendants:

• District court. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), a defendant served in the United States has 21 days to respond; if service is effected by waiver under Rule 4(d), the answer deadline is 60 days from the request. Service on PRC-domiciled entities via the Hague Service Convention (China is a party, with a reservation against Article 10 methods) routinely consumes several months. It is entirely plausible — though unverified — that no appearance is on file because service has not been completed, rather than because counsel has been retained but not entered.
• ITC. Respondents' responses to the complaint and notice of investigation were due 20 days after service of the notice (i.e., early-to-mid August 2026 under the July 21 institution). If responses were filed, respondents' ITC counsel necessarily exist and will be reflected in EDIS (edis.usitc.gov) under 337-TA-1513, even if they have not appeared in Texas. Jones Day separately reports the investigation was assigned to ALJ Hines.

Where the information will first become verifiable

1. ITC EDIS, Inv. No. 337-TA-1513 — the fastest source; respondents' notices of appearance and responses are filed there and are publicly viewable. Many Chinese respondents are represented by a Washington, D.C. ITC boutique plus separate Texas local counsel, so EDIS may name the ITC firm before the E.D. Tex. docket shows anything.
2. E.D. Tex. docket, Dkt. entries 8–30 — look for: "Notice of Appearance," "Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice" (which designates local counsel), "Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement / FRCP 7.1 statement," "Motion for Extension of Time to Answer," and any Rule 12(b) motion.
3. CourtListener RECAP docket for the case, which often mirrors ECF documents at no cost.

Discrepancies to flag against the earlier sections

1. Number of patents asserted. The metadata and both prior sections state that only U.S. Patent No. 11,942,624 is at issue. That appears incomplete: the complaint analysis addresses the '528, '825, and '624 patents (and references the '215), and the USITC instituted on four patents — U.S. 11,515,528; 11,715,825; 11,374,215; and 11,942,624 (claims 1-5, 21, 31 of '528; 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 19 of '825; 1, 4, 5, 14, 16 of '215; and 1, 5-7, 25, 27, 28 of '624). The parallel E.D. Tex. complaint most likely asserts the same four patents. The earlier statement that no other patents are in suit should not be relied on.
2. Status/date of the "key developments" section. It is dated June 19, 2026 and says nothing further has occurred. Since then: the ITC instituted 337-TA-1513 on July 21, 2026 (Fed. Reg. July 24), and the investigation was assigned to ALJ Hines. Also, neither prior section should continue to say this is a "single-patent" case.
3. ITC investigation number. The Jones Day page cites "Inv. No. 337-TA-3916," while the USITC press release and Federal Register notice give 337-TA-1513. "3916" appears to be the pre-institution docket number (DN 3916) rather than the instituted investigation number. Use 337-TA-1513.

What I will not do

I have deliberately not listed partners at firms that commonly defend Chinese battery/materials companies in ITC and Texas patent cases. There is no public record connecting any firm to these three defendants, and naming one would be fabrication. If you can pull the EDIS docket or the ECF docket directly, I can profile each appearing attorney's patent-litigation history (ITC 337 experience, E.D. Tex. trials, PTAB work) from firm bios and prior case citations.