US 10916769

US Patent 10,916,769, titled "Cathode, electrochemical device and electronic device comprising same," was issued to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. The patent lists Xinru Su, Baozhang Li, Yisong Su, and Zhiwen Xiao as the inventors, and it was filed on March 11, 2019, and granted on February 9, 2021.

Abstract:
The patent describes a cathode, an electrochemical device, and an electronic device incorporating it. The cathode features a cathode current collector, a first cathode active material layer, a second cathode active material layer, and an insulating layer. The first active material layer is positioned between the current collector and the second active material layer, covering a first portion of the collector's surface. The insulating layer covers a different, second portion of the current collector's surface. A "first distance" separates the insulating layer and the first active material layer, and a "second distance" separates the insulating layer and the second active material layer in the longitudinal direction of the current collector. Both distances are greater than or equal to 0, with the second distance being less than or equal to the first distance. This design aims to mitigate potential overlapping problems between the active material layers and the insulating layer, thereby improving the electrochemical device's safety performance, particularly in puncture tests, by preventing internal short circuits.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Cathode): This claim defines a cathode structure. It includes a cathode current collector with a first surface. A first cathode active material layer, containing a first cathode active material, is situated between the current collector and a second cathode active material layer, covering a first part of the current collector's surface. A second cathode active material layer contains a second cathode active material. An insulating layer covers a second, distinct part of the current collector's surface. The claim specifies a "first distance" between the insulating layer and the first cathode active material layer, and a "second distance" between the insulating layer and the second cathode active material layer, both measured in the longitudinal direction of the current collector. Both distances must be greater than or equal to 0, and the second distance must be less than or equal to the first distance.

• Claim 10 (Electrochemical Device): This claim describes an electrochemical device, such as a battery. It comprises an anode, a separator, and a cathode. The cathode itself is defined identically to Claim 1, including the two active material layers, the insulating layer, and the specified "first" and "second" distances. Furthermore, the separator is positioned between the anode and the cathode, and these three components (anode, separator, and cathode) are wound together to form an electrode assembly.

• Claim 15 (Electronic Device): This claim broadly covers an electronic device that incorporates the electrochemical device as defined in Claim 10.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:
A search of the USPTO database confirms the patent details as listed above. The information provided in the patent text is consistent with USPTO records.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, a search for US10916769 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the year 2026 did not yield any direct docket entries for this specific patent. The provided patent information does indicate related litigation (case 2:26-cv-00139) filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, which is a U.S. District Court, not the Federal Circuit.

Known litigation involving US patent 10916769:

As of April 26, 2026, the patent text indicates that US patent 10916769 is involved in litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:26-cv-00139
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
• Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text, other than the year 2026.
• Outcome or Current Status: The case has been filed, and it is marked as "Critical" in the patent's legal status timeline.

A search of the CAFC and PACER dockets for US patent 10916769 did not yield additional direct docket entries for this specific patent beyond what was already noted in the patent's own information regarding the Texas Eastern District Court case. PACER is a service that requires registration and may charge fees for detailed document access, and while it provides a nationwide index, real-time filings are best accessed directly from the court where the case was filed. The Federal Circuit (CAFC) primarily hears appeals from district courts and other tribunals, and information for cases filed on or after March 1, 2012, is available through PACER.

Proceedings overview

The patent US10916769 is currently subject to one pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. This indicates that the validity of the patent's claims is being challenged, and the outcome will significantly shape the defensive posture for any entity facing assertion of this patent.

IPR2026-00398 — Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd et al. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-07-21
• Status: Pending. This proceeding was filed yesterday and is in the very early stages of the IPR process.
• Judge panel: The judge panel has not yet been assigned and made public, as the proceeding is newly filed.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation / § 103 for obviousness) are not yet publicly available in detail, given the recency of the filing. These details would be contained within the IPR petition itself.
• Institution decision: An institution decision has not yet been issued. The PTAB typically has three months from the date of the patent owner's preliminary response (or six months from the petition filing date if no preliminary response is filed) to decide whether to institute the IPR.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision has not been issued, as the proceeding is in its initial stages.
• Settlement / termination: There has been no settlement or termination reported for this newly filed proceeding.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As this IPR has just been filed, its immediate defensive value is primarily that of creating uncertainty regarding the patent's validity. If the PTAB institutes the IPR, the challenged claims will undergo a trial, potentially leading to their cancellation. For a defendant, this means monitoring the institution decision closely and, if instituted, understanding which claims are being challenged and on what grounds.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10916769 are still considered patentable as there has been no final decision from the PTAB or Federal Circuit. The patent is subject to a single, very recently filed IPR (IPR2026-00398). Since this IPR was filed on 2026-07-21 and has a "Pending" status, no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB yet. Therefore, all claims remain untested by a final PTAB decision.

The estoppel landscape is not yet relevant as there has been no Final Written Decision (FWD). Once an FWD is issued, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar the petitioner (and its privies) from asserting in future district court or ITC actions that any claim decided to be patentable in the IPR is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that IPR. For other potential defendants, the grounds raised in IPR2026-00398 (once public) could indicate areas of vulnerability, but without an FWD, no estoppel has attached.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed, so it is too early to discern any patterns in petitioner behavior or patent owner response. The petitioner, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd et al., is initiating the first challenge to this patent in the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2026-00398: Closely track the progress of IPR2026-00398. The key upcoming milestone will be the PTAB's institution decision, which is generally due around six months from the filing date of the petition (around January 21, 2027). This decision will indicate which, if any, claims the PTAB has agreed to review based on the petitioner's arguments.
• Obtain the IPR Petition: Once publicly available, review the full IPR petition for IPR2026-00398 to understand the specific claims being challenged, the prior art cited, and the invalidity arguments presented by Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd et al. This will provide early insight into the potential vulnerabilities of the patent.

Inventors

• Xinru Su (Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.)
• Baozhang Li (Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.)
• Yisong Su (Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.)
• Zhiwen Xiao (Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.)

The inventors were employees of Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. at the time of filing. There is no information to suggest they departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. (CATL) is a major global manufacturer and supplier of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage systems. They ship products embodying the claims, as the patent relates to cathodes for electrochemical devices like lithium-ion batteries. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. is an operating company and is currently active.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows the following record for US10916769:

• 2019-03-11 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-11 — Reel 048037/0401
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: LI, BAOZHANG; SU, XINRU; SU, YISONG; XIAO, ZHIWEN
  • Assignee: NINGDE AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BEIJING TIANYULAW FIRM 18th Floor, Building One, N0. A9, Da Tun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the company at the time of filing.

No other assignment records were found for US10916769. This indicates that Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (also referred to as Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. in other parts of the patent) remains the current assignee of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US10916769
    2019 : Filed and assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd
    2021 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent was assigned directly from the inventors to Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, an operating company. No subsequent transfers to shell entities were recorded.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited is a known operating company (CATL) and not identified as a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, handled by BEIJING TIANYULAW FIRM. There is no recurrence of this correspondent in this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent mentions litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:26-cv-00139), there are no recorded assignments around that time to suggest a transfer to enable assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited is an active, publicly-traded company.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of privateering was found. The current assignee is an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently assigned to an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent was assigned from the inventors to Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (CATL) at the time of filing (Reel 048037/0401, recorded 2019-03-11). There are no subsequent assignments recorded, and CATL is a major operating company that manufactures and sells products related to the patented technology.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I'll research the prior art cited for US patent 10916769.

Let me dig deeper into the specific citation lists for this patent.

Let me look for the family-member search reports and the specific citation lists.

Important research-integrity note (read first)

I was unable to retrieve the definitive front-page "(56) References Cited" list for US 10,916,769 with the search tools available in this session. The authoritative fetch of the Google Patents page included in the record is truncated — it contains the bibliographic data, classifications, abstract, description, and claims, but not the "Patent Citations" / "Cited By" tables, which Google Patents renders as separate dynamic sections.

Targeted queries for the citation list returned results for numerically/semantically unrelated patents (e.g., electrolytic-cathode assemblies, surgical devices, and family members of other Ningde applications). Per your strict rule, I am not substituting those for the actual citations of 10916769, and I am not inventing a citation list. Below I separate (a) what is verified, (b) what is grounded in the patent text itself, and (c) what is candidate prior art flagged for verification, with the confidence level stated for each.

1. Verified bibliographic record

Critical date for § 102 purposes: 2018-11-05 (the CN priority date), with a § 102(a)(2) "effectively filed" date of 2019-03-11.

2. The prior art the patent itself identifies (grounded, but not a citation list)

The specification contains an unusual amount of admitted-prior-art description. This is the most reliable prior-art signal actually present in the record, even though these are not necessarily items in the (56) list:

1. The overlapping two-layer cathode design of FIG. 1 — the patent states this configuration ("no gap exists between the insulating layer and the first cathode active material layer in the longitudinal direction… and the insulating layer and the second cathode active material layer overlap") was known and that its drawback was rupture of the second active material during cold pressing due to excessive thickness at the overlap. This is the closest admitted prior art to claim 1.
2. Insulating layers on "uncovered foil regions" of cathode current collectors — described in the Background as known ("by providing an insulating layer on the uncovered foil region, the uncovered foil region… can be effectively protected").
3. Two-layer cathode active material coatings on the covered region — also described as known ("the cathode current collector may be protected by coating a cathode active material layer in a two-layer structure").
4. The four nail-penetration short-circuit modes (active-material-to-active-material, active-material-to-current-collector, collector-to-collector, collector-to-active-material) — recited as the known state of the art.

These admitted teachings are the substantive anchors for any § 102/§ 103 challenge; note that the FIG. 1 design, by itself, does not disclose a first distance > 0 or the "second distance ≤ first distance" limitation, so it cannot anticipate claim 1 as issued.

3. Candidate prior-art references identified (flagged — requires verification against the (56) list)

These surfaced in family-level and related-application prosecution material. I label each with its true relevance status. None of these should be treated as a confirmed citation of US 10,916,769.

Conclusion on this set: the CN/utility-model references above define the technology neighborhood (Ningde's own double-layer + insulating-layer cathode family) but, given the 2018-11-05 priority date, they are almost all § 102 ineligible. They do not anticipate claims 1, 10, or 15 of 10916769. I could not verify which (if any) appear in the patent's own (56) list.

4. § 102 anticipation assessment (as far as the available evidence permits)

If a § 102 challenge is the goal, the productive approach is § 103 (as the previously generated obviousness section already concludes) rather than § 102, because the distinguishing feature — specifying controlled first/second distance gaps with the second ≤ first relationship — appears to be a design choice not squarely disclosed in any single reference located.

5. What must be done to complete this task properly

To produce the citation-by-citation § 102 table you asked for, the definitive list must be pulled from an authoritative source rather than inferred. Recommended, in priority order:

1. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) — open application 16/298,738 and retrieve the "References Cited" (PTO-892 / Notice of References Cited) and the IDS filed by applicant. This is the ground truth for "patent citations for 10916769."
2. USPTO PatentCenter "Supplemental" documents — the examiner's PTO-892 lists exactly the references considered.
3. EP 3648204 A1 European Search Report — same priority family; the EPO's "X/Y/A" categorized citations frequently overlap with the US citations and include the examiner's relevance findings by claim. (Available via EPO Register / Espacenet.)
4. Global Dossier for the CN priority application 201811308841.3 — to see the CN examiner's cited art.
5. The pending IPR2026-00398 petition (Zhuhai CosMX v. Ningde Amperex) — once public, the petition will name the specific prior-art references CosMX asserts against these claims, which is a direct, current indicator of the most material art.

Bottom line: I verified the patent's identity and dates but could not retrieve its actual cited-reference list with the tools available, and I will not fabricate one. The record's own admitted prior art (the overlapping double-layer/insulating-layer design of FIG. 1) is the only reliable prior-art teaching in hand, and it does not anticipate claims 1, 10, or 15. The candidate references I located are almost all post-critical-date Ningde/CosMX family members and therefore are not § 102 art against this patent. The next concrete step is to pull the PTO-892 and the EP 3648204 search report, after which I can complete the itemized citation-to-claim § 102 mapping.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10,916,769 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US Patent 10,916,769, particularly Claims 1, 10, and 15, based on the information provided within the patent itself, which implicitly describes the state of the art and known problems at the priority date of November 5, 2018.

1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

The patent's "Background" and "Detailed Description" sections identify key aspects of the prior art relevant to lithium-ion batteries and their safety. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been aware of:

• Lithium-ion battery components: The fundamental structure of lithium-ion batteries, including cathodes, anodes, separators, electrolytic solutions, and current collectors, was well-known.
• Safety concerns in lithium-ion batteries: The industry recognized safety problems, such as internal short circuits caused by external forces like nail penetration, which could lead to battery failure and explosions. The "cathode current collector-anode active material layer short-circuit event" was identified as particularly dangerous due to the high energy release.
• Protective measures: The concept of protecting the "uncovered foil region" of the cathode current collector with an insulating layer to prevent short circuits was known. Additionally, the use of a "two-layer structure" for the cathode active material layer on the current collector for protection was also known.
• Prior overlapping design and its drawbacks: The patent explicitly describes a prior art cathode design (schematically shown in FIG. 1) where a two-layer active material (a first cathode active material layer and a second cathode active material layer) and an insulating layer are present. In this design, "no gap exists between the insulating layer and the first cathode active material layer... and the insulating layer and the second cathode active material layer overlap in the longitudinal direction." This overlapping was a known issue because "the thickness of the overlapping portion... is excessively large," leading to the second cathode active material rupturing during the cold pressing step, and consequently, "undesirable phenomena such as low battery capacity."

2. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue

The primary distinction of the claimed invention over the described prior art lies in the introduction of specific spatial relationships, or "distances," between the active material layers and the insulating layer:

• Claim 1 defines a cathode with a "first distance" existing between the insulating layer and the first cathode active material layer, and a "second distance" existing between the insulating layer and the second cathode active material layer, both in the longitudinal direction. Crucially, both distances are specified as being "greater than or equal to 0," and the "second distance is less than or equal to the first distance."
• Claim 10 incorporates this cathode into an electrochemical device, where the anode, separator, and cathode are wound to form an electrode assembly.
• Claim 15 covers an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device of Claim 10.

The significant difference from the prior overlapping design (FIG. 1) is the deliberate introduction and control of these gaps to prevent overlap.

3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A PHOSITA in the field of lithium-ion batteries at the time of invention would typically possess a bachelor's or master's degree in a relevant engineering or scientific discipline (e.g., materials science, chemical engineering, electrical engineering) coupled with several years of practical experience in battery research, development, or manufacturing. Such an individual would be proficient in battery component design, materials processing (e.g., coating techniques), and addressing manufacturing defects and safety concerns.

4. Motivation to Combine/Modify Prior Art References

The patent itself provides a clear motivation for a PHOSITA to combine or modify the known prior art elements to arrive at the claimed invention. Faced with the problems detailed in the background, specifically the rupture of active material and reduced battery capacity caused by the overlapping of the second cathode active material layer and the insulating layer due to "fluctuations in processing tolerance" (as depicted in the known configuration of FIG. 1), a PHOSITA would be strongly motivated to eliminate this overlap.

The most straightforward engineering solution to prevent undesirable physical interference or overlapping between adjacent layers during manufacturing, especially when accounting for "processing tolerances," is to introduce a deliberate gap or spacing between them.

• Motivation for a "First Distance": To prevent the insulating layer from overlapping with the first cathode active material layer, a PHOSITA would logically introduce a gap (the "first distance") between them. This directly addresses the potential for interference between these two distinct layers.
• Motivation for a "Second Distance": Given that the second cathode active material layer is coated over the first cathode active material layer and is the primary layer experiencing rupture due to overlap with the insulating layer, a PHOSITA would similarly be motivated to ensure a gap (the "second distance") also exists between the insulating layer and the second cathode active material layer. This directly mitigates the identified problem of active material rupture and low capacity.
• Motivation for "Second Distance ≤ First Distance": This geometric constraint is a logical outcome of designing for no overlap when the second active material layer is disposed upon the first active material layer. The patent states that "an end of the second cathode active material layer... is longer than or equal to an end of the first cathode active material layer... so that the second cathode active material layer completely covers the surface of the first cathode active material layer." If the second layer covers or extends at least as far as the first layer, and both are separated from the insulating layer, then the spatial relationship of the second distance being less than or equal to the first distance naturally results. This design choice ensures that the outer active material layer (the second layer) does not extend past the boundary defined by the first layer and its gap to the insulator, thereby consistently preventing overlap.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, understanding the known problem of overlapping layers causing defects and applying routine engineering principles to prevent such interference, would have been motivated to introduce controlled gaps (first and second distances) between the active material layers and the insulating layer, with the second distance being less than or equal to the first distance, to achieve the desired effect of avoiding overlap and improving battery performance and reliability.

Conclusion of Obviousness

Claims 1, 10, and 15 of US Patent 10,916,769 would likely be considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The patent itself describes the pertinent prior art, including the components of a lithium-ion battery cathode with a two-layer active material structure and an insulating layer, as well as the specific problem of manufacturing-related overlap causing active material rupture and reduced capacity. The claimed solution—introducing specific gaps (first and second distances) between these layers with a defined relationship (second distance ≤ first distance) to prevent this known overlap—is a predictable modification that a PHOSITA would undertake to resolve an identified deficiency in the prior art. The motivation to implement such gaps is directly evident from the problem statement, and the specific geometric relationship is a logical consequence of designing for non-overlapping layers where one layer is disposed over another.