US 10833363

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and any related 2026 CAFC dockets.

Let me look for the specific claim text and any 2026 CAFC docket involving this patent.

Let me pull the exact granted claim set for US10833363.

Scope note

I searched for the specific identifier US 10,833,363 (granted patent) and its litigation dockets. I did not substitute any similar number. One caveat up front: the full text you supplied is the Google Patents rendering, which for this document truncates before the claims section — so for the claim breakdown below I relied on the granted-claim text surfaced from Justia Patents (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10833363) and corroborating PTAB/PTO filings. Where the record is genuinely ambiguous I say so rather than guessing.

1. Bibliographic summary

Note on naming: one PTAB-related document labels this patent "Electrolyte, Electrochemical Device, and Electronic Device." The authoritative granted title, per the Google Patents record, is "Electrolyte and electrochemical device."

2. Abstract (as granted)

The present application relates to an electrolyte and an electrochemical device comprising the electrolyte. The electrolyte comprises a dinitrile compound, a trinitrile compound, and propyl propionate, wherein, based on the total weight of the electrolyte, the content X of the nitrile compound and the content Y of the trinitrile compound meet the conditions represented by Formula (1) and Formula (2): {about 2 wt %≤(X+Y)≤about 11 wt % . . . (1), about 0.1≤(X/Y)≤about 8 . . . (2)}. The electrolyte of the present application is capable of effectively inhibiting the increase in DC internal resistance of an electrochemical device so that the electrochemical device has excellent cycle and storage performance.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

The granted set contains two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 13); the rest are dependent.

Claim 1 — the electrolyte (composition claim)
A non-aqueous electrolyte containing three required components:

• a dinitrile compound (a molecule with two nitrile/–CN groups, e.g., adiponitrile, glutaronitrile, or an ether-linked dinitrile such as ethylene glycol bis(2-cyanoethyl)ether);
• a trinitrile compound (three –CN groups, e.g., 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane); and
• propyl propionate as a solvent component.

The claim sets numerical limits on the two nitrile additives, expressed as weight percentages of the total electrolyte: X = wt% dinitrile, Y = wt% trinitrile, requiring 2 wt% ≤ (X+Y) ≤ 11 wt% and 0.1 ≤ (X/Y) ≤ 8. In plain terms: you must use both nitriles together, in a combined amount in a mid-single-digit window, and with the dinitrile present in roughly a 1:8 to 8:1 ratio to the trinitrile.

Claim 13 — the electrochemical device (apparatus claim)
An electrochemical device (in practice a lithium-ion cell) comprising electrodes plus an electrolyte that contains the same three components under the same X+Y and X/Y formulas. Under U.S. practice this is the claim through which downstream battery makers would be reached.

Dependent claims (as surfaced in the record):

• Claims 2–3: dinitrile is a compound of Formula (4) CN–R¹–CN or (5) CN–R²–(O–R³)ₙ–O–R⁴–CN; then specific dinitrile species.
• Claims 4–5: trinitrile is a compound of Formula (6) or (7); then specific trinitrile species (e.g., 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile, 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane).
• Claim 6: X ≈ 0.01–10 wt%, Y ≈ 0.01–10 wt%, Z (propyl propionate) ≈ 5–50 wt%.
• Claims 7–9: further comprising a fluoroether of Formulas (8)–(11) (e.g., FEPE, TMMP, TPTP).
• Claim 10: further comprising a cyclic phosphonic anhydride at ≈ 0.01–10 wt%.
• Claim 11: further comprising a cyclic carbonate with a C=C bond, fluorinated chain/cyclic carbonate, and/or a sulfur–oxygen double-bond compound (e.g., VC, VEC, FEC, PS, DTD).
• Claim 12: further comprising a cyclic carboxylate ester (γ-butyrolactone, γ-valerolactone).
• Claims 14–16: depend from claim 13 (device-level limitations; the record shows a trinitrile-species recitation tied to claims 1 and 16).

Uncertainty flag: Formula (3) about 0.01 ≤ (Y/Z) ≤ about 0.3, which links trinitrile content Y to propyl propionate content Z, is clearly part of the disclosed invention and appears in the granted EP family member (EP 3627606 B1, claim 1) and in related US continuations (e.g., US 2022/0407108). I could not conclusively confirm from the sources retrieved whether Formula (3) is recited in issued claim 1 of US 10,833,363 or only in dependent claims. The Google Patents abstract and the claim-13 text both mention only Formulas (1) and (2), which suggests Formula (3) sits in a dependent claim here — but treat that as a soft conclusion, and verify against the printed claim column if it matters.

4. Litigation and 2026 docket status

Federal Circuit — the 2026 docket entry is a dismissal order, not a merits decision.

• Appeal Nos. 2025-1037 and 2025-1091, Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., from E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG (Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap).
• Oral argument audio was posted May 6, 2026.
• On June 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing both appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs — i.e., the appeals were voluntarily dismissed, consistent with a settlement. Order PDF: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1037.ORDER.6-9-2026_2707162.pdf
• I found no live, pending 2026 CAFC merits docket for this patent. The only 2026 CAFC activity is that disposition.

District court background (context, pre-2026):

• E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00232 asserted US 11,329,352, US 10,833,363, and US 10,964,987. A separate N.D. Cal. case (5:22-cv-04510) is also listed on the Google Patents litigation table.
• In a May 2024 first-instance judgment, Zhuhai CosMX's public disclosure (CNINFO, http://static.cninfo.com.cn/finalpage/2024-05-06/1219973341.PDF) stated that two of ATL's three asserted patents — US 11,329,352 and US 10,833,363 — were held invalid, and that only US 10,964,987 was upheld, with damages of US$4,701,108. Because the appeals were dismissed in June 2026, the underlying judgment's status (including whether the invalidity and damages holdings stand as final) is something I cannot resolve from these sources. Flag as uncertain; do not treat the 2024 judgment as the final word without confirming the district court's post-dismissal docket.

PTAB:

• IPR2023-00586 (Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.), filed February 23, 2023, challenging claims 1–16 of the '363 patent. Google Patents lists it as "Not Instituted – Merits."
• The petition's grounds (per PTAB filings) were: (1) anticipation under §102 by Hong, Chinese Patent No. 106848381; and (2) obviousness of claims 7–9 over Hong in view of Zhuang. Petitioner's key claim-construction position was that "a weight percentage of the dinitrile compound is X" means the total weight percentage of all dinitrile compounds present, and likewise for the trinitrile compound — a construction necessary to sum multiple nitriles in Hong's embodiments.
• A terminal disclaimer was filed for US 10,833,363 (along with US 11,522,222 and application 17/885,915), recorded as automatically approved April 10, 2023, in connection with overcoming a non-statutory double-patenting rejection.

5. Confidence and open items

• High confidence: title, application number, filing/grant dates, priority date, assignee, inventors, abstract, examiner/art unit, the X+Y and X/Y formulas in claim 1, the existence of a device claim (claim 13), the June 9, 2026 CAFC dismissal order, and the IPR2023-00586 non-institution.
• Moderate confidence: the exact placement of Formula (3) as between claim 1 and dependent claims; the full text of claims 14–16.
• Low confidence / unverified: the current legal effect of the May 2024 E.D. Tex. judgment in light of the June 2026 appeal dismissals. If you need that, the authoritative next step is the E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00232 docket and the Court's docket entry following the mandate, plus the PTAB Final Written Decision status for any post-'363 IPRs.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,833,363. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me get more detail on the specific cases, including the EDTX suit and the CAFC appeals.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,833,363

Below is what I found. U.S. 10,833,363 ("Electrolyte and electrochemical device," Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., filed 2018-12-06, granted 2020-11-10, claim 1 being the claim at issue) has been involved in a multi-forum dispute between Ningde Amperex Technology Limited ("ATL") and Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. ("CosMX"). I list only matters in which this patent number is directly implicated, and flag where identification is uncertain.

1. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (ATL)
• Defendant: Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (CosMX)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:22-cv-00232-JRG
• Filed: June 24, 2022
• Patents asserted: U.S. 10,964,987 ("'987," separator), U.S. 10,833,363 ("'363," electrolyte), and U.S. 11,329,352 ("'352," winding system). Claim 1 of the '363 was the asserted claim.
• Outcome: Jury trial began Feb. 1, 2024; verdict returned Feb. 9, 2024. The jury found CosMX infringed claim 1 of the '363 (and the '987 and '352 claims), and that infringement was willful — but also found claim 1 of the '363 INVALID. Final Judgment entered April 26, 2024 (Dkt. 369/427): claim 1 of the '363 and claim 1 of the '352 held invalid; ATL awarded $3,701,108 in compensatory damages (the recoverable damages flowed from the valid '987 patent), later enhanced by 27% on ATL's motion. Case terminated April 26, 2024. (Sources: CourtListener Final Judgment, Dkt. 369; Finnegan experience page; Quinn Emanuel case report.)
• Note: Because claim 1 of the '363 was held invalid, no damages were awarded on this patent; the damages award rested on the '987 patent.

2. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Company Limited v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (N.D. Cal.)

• Plaintiff: Zhuhai CosMX Battery Company Limited
• Defendant: Ningde Amperex Technology Limited
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Beth Labson Freeman; Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen)
• Case No.: 5:22-cv-04510
• Filed: August 4, 2022
• Nature: Declaratory judgment action (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202) seeking a declaration that CosMX does not infringe ATL's "Asserted Patents."
• Outcome/Status: I could not confirm from the retrieved materials whether the '363 was among the patents specifically enumerated in this DJ complaint. The complaint's factual background references ATL's June 21, 2021 letter naming the '987 patent, U.S. 10,541,441, and a U.S. 10,971,7xx patent. Treat the '363's inclusion in this DJ action as unconfirmed. (Sources: CourtListener docket 64870811; Justia dockets; Google Patents family litigation data, which lists a N.D. Cal. case 5:22-cv-04510.)

3. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. (PTAB)

• Petitioner: Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner: Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
• Forum: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (USPTO)
• Case No.: IPR2023-00586 (challenging U.S. 10,833,363; Application No. 16/211,853)
• Filed: February 23, 2023
• Outcome: Institution DENIED (merits) — Institution Decision dated August 18, 2023. Petitioner's request for refund of post-institution fees followed (Sept. 2023). During the proceeding, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Cede Jurisdiction for Correction of Inventorship, supported by statements from removed inventors (Liangzhen Xiao, Qiao Zeng) and existing inventors (Kefei Wang, Fei Wu). (Sources: GreyB/IPverse IPR2023-00586 case page; Google Patents PTAB entry.)

4. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir.) — Appeals from the E.D. Tex. case

• Parties: ATL (Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant) v. CosMX (Defendant-Appellant)
• Forum: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Nos.: 25-1037 (CosMX's appeal; NOA filed 10/2/2024, docketed 10/8/2024) and 25-1091 (ATL's cross-appeal; NOA filed 10/16/2024, docketed 10/24/2024). Consolidated, 25-1037 lead.
• Scope: These appeals arise from E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG, which included the '363. (The appellate briefing focused heavily on damages/induced infringement and extraterritoriality and on the Noerr-Pennington sham standard.)
• Outcome: Both appeals DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), each side bearing its own costs, per a nonprecedential order dated June 9, 2026; mandate issued the same day. (The dismissal was by party agreement, consistent with settlement.) CourtListener audio reflects oral argument on 5/6/2026. (Sources: CAFC order 25-1037.ORDER.6-9-2026; Justia; Dockets.Justia.)

Related matters that do NOT directly assert U.S. 10,833,363

• IPR2025-00431 — Zhuhai CosMX v. Ningde Amperex: this petition concerns U.S. 11,799,131 B2, not the '363. (Along with IPR2025-00385, -00389, -00405, -00432 re various ATL patents.)
• German litigation (Munich and Bundespatentgericht) — ATL v. CosMX proceedings, including a Munich I infringement judgment (March 2024) and Bundespatentgericht invalidity actions concerning EP 3 627 606 B1 (an electrolyte-composition patent that may be a member of the same family). I have not confirmed any German case directed to the '363 itself (the '363 is a U.S. patent).
• Chinese litigation — ATL filed numerous suits against CosMX in Fuzhou Intermediate Court; press reporting notes the '363 (as "电解液及电化学装置") among patents invalidated/at issue, but I did not find a specific Chinese case number tied to the '363.

Summary of key outcomes for U.S. 10,833,363

• Asserted and found infringed by a jury (E.D. Tex., Feb. 2024), but simultaneously held invalid (claim 1), so it generated no damages.
• Survived an IPR challenge — institution denied (IPR2023-00586, Aug. 2023), meaning the Board did not take up its validity.
• Appellate proceedings (Fed. Cir. 25-1037/25-1091) were dismissed by agreement on June 9, 2026.

Caveats: (1) I could not verify whether the '363 was expressly enumerated in the N.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action (5:22-cv-04510) — that point is unconfirmed. (2) I did not locate a docket confirming the '363 being separately asserted in the German or Chinese proceedings; those foreign cases appear directed to patents in the same technology/family rather than to the '363 itself. If you need me to pull the specific N.D. Cal. complaint exhibits or the PTAB IPR2023-00586 papers to pin these down, I can do so.

Primary sources: CAFC dismissal order 25-1037/25-1091 (June 9, 2026) · E.D. Tex. Final Judgment, Dkt. 369 · PTAB IPR2023-00586 · Finnegan case description · Quinn Emanuel enhanced-damages report · N.D. Cal. docket 5:22-cv-04510.

I'll research this. Let me search for the PTAB proceeding and any related activity.

Let me dig deeper into the denial decision, related proceedings, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

Let me check for any additional IPRs on the '363 and confirm the denial reasoning, plus look at the district court invalidity finding.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 10,833,363 — IPR2023-00586 (Zhuhai CosMX v. Ningde Amperex) — and it was terminated at the institution stage: institution denied on 2023-08-18, with zero PTAB final written decisions, zero claims canceled by the Board, and zero claims sustained on the merits. The only claim attrition to date is a statutory disclaimer of claims 13–16 filed by the patent owner during that IPR. The defensive posture for a defendant is therefore not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" — it is "the '363 patent has never been tested on the merits by the PTAB, no IPR estoppel exists, and the sole reason the Board refused to look at it (Fintiv) was abolished by the Office in March 2025 — but claims 13–16 are dead by disclaimer, and the patent's asserted claims were reportedly held invalid in the co-pending E.D. Tex. case."

⚠️ Data-gap flag: the USPTO ODP block in this prompt shows no AIA trial proceedings. That is wrong or stale. IPR2023-00586 definitively exists: its Decision Denying Institution (Paper 14, 2023-08-18) is cited as Exhibit 1017 in a later CosMX petition (IPR2025-00431), and the proceeding appears in the Google Patents family-litigation block ("PTAB case IPR2023-00586 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)"). Treat the ODP "no proceedings" answer as an ingest failure, not as evidence of absence.

IPR2023-00586 — Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2023-02-23 (petition accorded a filing date 2023-02-28)
• Status: Institution Denied (third-party PTAB databases); Google Patents' structured label reads verbatim "Not Instituted - Merits". Termination/resolution date: 2023-08-18. Petitioner's post-institution fee refund requested 2023-09-12 and approved 2023-09-14.
• Judge panel: Reported panel includes Donna M. Praiss, Jeffrey W. Abraham, and Kristina M. Kalan (a fourth APJ, Paula Conn, is also listed on a third-party case page for this docket). I could not retrieve the face of Paper 14; verify the exact three-judge panel on PTAB E2E before citing it. The same panel issuing the companion denial in IPR2023-00585 was Kalan, joined by Praiss and Abraham.
• Petition grounds (challenged claims 1–16; ground list below is from a third-party summary of Paper 1 — confirm against the petition itself):
  • Ground 1 — Claims 1–6, 11, 13, 16 anticipated under § 102 by Hong (CN 106848381), relying on Embodiments 2, 18, 25 and Comparison Case 6.
  • Ground 2 — Claims 7–9 obvious under § 103 over Hong in view of Zhuang (US 2017/0084956) for the fluoroether limitations.
  • Ground 3 — Claim 10 obvious under § 103 over Hong in view of Kim '685 (US 6,544,685) for the cyclic phosphonic anhydride.
  • Ground 4 — Claim 12 obvious over Hong in view of Kim '934 (US 2017/0069934).
  • Grounds 5 and 6 — directed to claims 14 and 15; these were rendered moot by the patent owner's statutory disclaimer (see below).
  • Supporting exhibits included ATL's '363 infringement contentions and the Docket Control Order from Ningde Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., No. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Exs. 1028–1029) — i.e., the petition was expressly built to run alongside, and to pre-empt, the district court case.
• Institution decision: DENIED — 2023-08-18 (Paper 14). The Board did not reach the merits of the Hong-based grounds. The briefing record shows the patent owner's POPR argued principally for discretionary denial under § 314(a) under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), and petitioner's reply (with a proffered stipulation) argued the Fintiv factors "overwhelmingly favor[ed] institution." The companion denial in IPR2023-00585 (2023-10-24, same panel) was expressly premised on the parallel E.D. Tex. trial date falling roughly eight months before the PTAB statutory deadline plus substantial parallel investment — the same structural facts were present here (E.D. Tex. trial set for 2024-02-05). I have not verified the verbatim text of Paper 14, so treat the Fintiv characterization as a well-supported inference rather than a quote; the Google Patents "Not Instituted - Merits" label is in tension with a pure discretionary denial and should be reconciled on PTAB E2E.
• Final Written Decision: None. Trial never instituted, so there is no claim-by-claim verdict and no estoppel. Do not represent to any court that the Board "upheld" or "invalidated" anything here.
• Claim attrition during the IPR (not a PTAB ruling): On 2023-05-30 the patent owner filed a Statutory Disclaimer Under 37 CFR 1.321(a) disclaiming claims 13, 14, 15, and 16, which the petitioner characterized as "recognizing the deficiencies of their challenged claims." Those claims are statutorily disclaimed and cannot be asserted — but the disclaimer was ATL's act, not the Board's.
• Collateral procedural event worth noting: On 2023-07-31 the patent owner filed a Motion to Cede Jurisdiction for Correction of Inventorship, with statements from removed inventors Liangzhen Xiao and Qiao Zeng and existing inventors Kefei Wang and Fei Wu; petitioner opposed on 2023-08-14. The Board denied institution within four days. This inventorship-correction attempt is a useful wedge if you ever need to attack priority, conception, or § 102(b) "by others" status of a reference.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — the proceeding terminated on the Board's institution denial (2023-08-18), not by party agreement. The later dismissal of the district court appeals (below) is separate.
• Appeal: No appeal of this IPR — there is no FWD (or other appealable final decision) to take up. The two Federal Circuit matters in the Google Patents "family has litigation" block, 2025-1037 and 2025-1091, are appeals from the E.D. Tex. judgment (No. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG), not PTAB appeals:
  • 2025-1037 — Zhuhai CosMX as Appellant (NOA filed 2024-10-02; docketed 2024-10-08); issues included reversal of the induced-infringement judgment (the '987 patent), the damages methodology (Ratliff), the jury instruction on Noerr-Pennington sham, and § 271(b) extraterritoriality.
  • 2025-1091 — Ningde Amperex as cross-appellant (NOA filed 2024-10-16).
  • Disposition: both appeals dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), each side to bear its own costs, order dated 2026-06-09, mandate issued 2026-06-09 — i.e., the parties agreed to walk away. CAFC order; CourtListener docket.
• Defensive value: The Board never invalidated a single claim of the '363 patent, so no § 315(e) estoppel attaches to anyone and the Hong/Zhuang/Kim grounds remain fully available to any new petitioner. Conversely, the denial was driven by Fintiv timing, not by the strength of the claims — and Fintiv no longer exists as a basis for denial. For a defendant today, this proceeding is best read as an unconsummated challenge: the patent is institutionally untested, but also unstayed and unhardened.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Of the 16 issued claims:

• Claims 13–16 — DEAD (statutory disclaimer, 37 CFR 1.321(a), filed 2023-05-30). Any demand letter citing claims 13, 14, 15, or 16 is citing claims that cannot be enforced. Push back hard and in writing.
• Claims 1–12 — UNTESTED at the PTAB. No institution, no FWD, no Board holding. Treat them as live until something changes.
• District court overlay (flagged, not fully verified in claim-level detail): ATL's own Chinese-language public filings (Shanghai Stock Exchange announcement 2024-033, dated 2024-05-06, and multiple press reports) state that the first-instance E.D. Tex. judgment found US 11,329,352 and US 10,833,363 invalid and dismissed ATL's claims on those two patents, upholding only US 10,964,987 (US$4.701108M in damages). ATL's cross-appeal (2025-1091) would have been its vehicle to attack that invalidity ruling; the 2026-06-09 Rule 42(b) dismissal leaves the district court judgment final and unappealable. I could not verify which claims of the '363 patent were at issue or the precise judgment language — get ECF 427 (Amended Final Judgment, 2024-09-03) and ECF 345 (2024-02-09) from the E.D. Tex. docket before relying on this. If it holds, it is far more valuable to a defendant than anything the PTAB did here.
• Because the patent is in a large continuation family (US 11,522,222; 11,527,776; 11,799,130; 11,799,131; 12,027,667; 11,984,556; 11,769,910; 12,040,449; 12,176,487; 12,183,884; 12,107,220; 12,176,486; 12,107,221; 12,407,022 — several terminally disclaimed against one another), assume assertion will migrate to siblings if the '363 claims are unavailable.

Estoppel landscape. There is none. § 315(e)(1)/(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision; an institution denial creates no estoppel whatsoever. CosMX (and its privies) remain free to file a fresh petition on the same Hong/Zhuang/Kim art, and so does anyone else. Two further points: (i) there is no § 315(b) one-year clock problem for a new defendant who has not yet been served in a § 271 action on the '363 patent; (ii) for a defendant already sued, the art is only "used up" in district court if you actually raised it there — the IPR itself barred nothing.

Pattern signals.

• Same petitioner, multiple IPRs, all denied at institution. CosMX filed IPRs in Feb–Mar 2023 against all three patents ATL asserted against it ('352, '363, '987), and the Board denied institution in all of them in Aug–Oct 2023 on Fintiv timing grounds. That is a coordinated Fintiv squeeze, not a merits signal.
• CosMX kept filing. Post-2023 CosMX petitions against ATL patents include IPR2025-00405 (US 11,769,910), IPR2025-00431, and IPR2025-00432 (US 11,575,148) — and crucially, in IPR2025-00432 the Board granted institution on 2025-08-26 (panel: Praiss, Cherry, Dennett). The dam broke because the Office's March 2025 Interim Process for PTAB Discretionary Denials rescinded Fintiv and the 2022 Interim Guidance.
• No defensive aggregator. The only petitioner in the record is Zhuhai CosMX (a competitor, and the defendant in E.D. Tex.). Unified Patents is not in this chain — the "Unified Patents" links on Google Patents are just its litigation-data vendor. Note that a PTAB case IPR2023-00586 was filed (Not Instituted - Merits) and no IPR was ever instituted on this patent by anyone.
• Patent owner posture. ATL litigates aggressively (20+ suits across US/CN/EP) but has never had to defend an instituted IPR on the '363 patent. It did, however, voluntarily disclaim four claims the moment they were challenged — a tell about claims 13–16 specifically.

Recommended next steps

1. If you hold a demand letter citing claims 13–16: respond immediately. Those claims were statutorily disclaimed on 2023-05-30 under 37 CFR 1.321(a) during IPR2023-00586. A statutory disclaimer is a public record and is dispositive; there is nothing to license. Cite the disclaimer and the Petitioner's characterization in the record.
2. If you are being asserted on claims 1–12: file your own IPR. The Fintiv basis for the 2023-08-18 denial no longer exists as of the Office's March 2025 Interim Process, and no § 315(e) estoppel applies to you or to CosMX. The Hong-based § 102/§ 103 grounds are intact and were never adjudicated. Get Paper 14 (2023-08-18) from PTAB E2E first to confirm the exact denial rationale and the panel, so you can neutralize any redundancy argument under §§ 325(d)/314(a).
3. Pull the district court record. Request ECF 427 (Amended Final Judgment, 2024-09-03) and ECF 345 (2024-02-09) in Ningde Amperex v. Zhuhai CosMX, No. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and the jury verdict form. If the '363 claims were adjudged invalid and that judgment became final when the Federal Circuit dismissed 25-1037/25-1091 on 2026-06-09, you may have a collateral-estoppel / Blonder-Tongue argument that is far cheaper than an IPR. Verify claim-level granularity before asserting it.
4. Watch the siblings. CosMX's IPR2025-00405, IPR2025-00431, and IPR2025-00432 are live or instituted against family members. Track those dockets for art and claim-construction work product you can borrow.
5. Milestones to calendar if anything new is filed on the '363 patent: institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's accorded filing date (§ 314(b)); if instituted, FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause. There is currently no active '363 proceeding to track.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,833,363, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing corporate/ownership data.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the inventorship-correction activity.

Good — I've located the recorded assignment and a significant inventorship-correction thread. Let me verify the assignment database records and the correspondent, plus the corporate status of the assignee.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,833,363 B2

Verification entry point: USPTO Assignment Center → search by patent number 10833363 (mirror: assignment.uspto.gov). Where I could not retrieve a field directly, I say so rather than reconstructing it.

Scope caveat up front: I was able to retrieve and read the assignment instrument itself (as filed in the '363 file history and reproduced in PTAB Exhibit sets) and the EFS acknowledgement receipt that accompanied its recording. I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame number from the Assignment Center database interface, and I could not confirm any assignment recorded after 2018-12-06. Both points are findings, flagged below.

Inventors

Four inventors are named on the face of the application and on the recorded assignment:

The USPTO filing receipt (App. 16/211,853, filed 2018-12-06, conf. 4935) lists all four with the residence "Ningde, CHINA" and the applicant as NINGDE AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Ningde, CHINA. The assignee's own address of record in the assignment instrument is No. 1 XinGang Road, ZhangWan Town, Jiaocheng District, Ningde City, Fujian Province, PRC 352100 — i.e., the inventors' residence corresponds to the assignee's own campus. All four signed the assignment jointly as "Inventor / Assignor."

Unusual pattern — flagged. This is not the classic "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale tell. The real anomaly here is contested inventorship surfaced only under litigation pressure: in 2023, more than four years after filing and after CosMX had challenged validity, ATL moved to correct inventorship in both forums:

• E.D. Tex. — Sealed Motion to Correct Inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 10,833,363 (Dkt. 152), filed ~Sept. 5, 2023, with attachments "Affidavit/Declaration F. Wu ISO Motion to Correct Inventorship" and "Affidavit/Declaration L. Yang ISO Motion to Correct Inventorship"; heard 2023-10-13.
• PTAB (IPR2023-00586) — "Motion to Cede Jurisdiction for Correction of Inventorship," in which ATL stated that "Qiao Zeng and Liangzhen Xiao are incorrectly listed as inventors" (CosMX's opposition, quoting ATL's Paper 12 at 6).

So the record indicates ATL sought to remove two of the four named inventors (Zeng and Xiao) and separately submit declarations from F. Wu and a person "L. Yang." Whether "L. Yang" was being added as an inventor, or was merely a supporting declarant, I could not verify — and I could not confirm that a §256 certificate of correction ever issued. That is a provenance caveat worth carrying forward, because inventorship defects are an independent invalidity theory in the co-pending litigation. (The PTAB proceeding terminated on institution denial 2023-08-18, before any resolution.)

Original assignee

Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (宁德新能源科技有限公司), Ningde, Fujian Province, China — named as applicant on the filing receipt and as assignee/owner on the issued patent. It is still the owner of record; there is no record of any post-issuance transfer.

• Business: lithium-ion / lithium-polymer battery cell development and manufacturing — specifically the high-voltage consumer-electronics cell chemistry that this patent's electrolyte claims are aimed at (4.4 V+ cells, e.g., the 4.45 V charge/3.0 V discharge test protocol in the specification). This is a volume manufacturer that ships products embodying the claims, not a licensing vehicle.
• Corporate context: Chinese-language litigation reporting on the parallel U.S. case describes Ningde Amperex as the wholly-owned subsidiary of Amperex Technology Limited (ATL), the Hong Kong-headquartered cell maker that has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of TDK Corporation (Tokyo) since 2005. This corporate-structure point comes from secondary sources, not from the U.S. assignment record — treat it as context, not as a recorded fact. (Do not conflate with Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. / CATL, the separate Ningde-based entity that appears in the same address block on other patents.)
• Status: Operating. Notably, it is an active, funded litigant — it has prosecuted and asserted the patent itself (in its own name) against a direct competitor, and it maintained the rest of the family: the Google Patents priority chain shows a long line of continuations and divisionals claiming benefit back to App. 16/211,853 (US 11,522,222; 11,527,776; 11,799,130; 11,799,131; 11,984,556; 12,027,667; 11,769,910; 12,040,449; 12,176,486; 12,176,487; 12,183,884; 12,107,220; 12,107,221; 12,407,022, and others), all still with the same assignee.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment bearing on this patent was located.

• 2018-12-03 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-06 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (the Google Patents legal-events table surfaces the 2018-12-06 "reassignment" entry without a reel/frame, and I could not query the Assignment Center record directly for the frame number)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company; expressly nunc pro tunc, including "the right to sue for past infringement"; US rights only — the "all other countries" box is unchecked, consistent with country-by-country filings)
  • Assignor: Kefei WANG, Qiao ZENG, Liangzhen XIAO, and Fei WU, each "of Fujian Province, China," individually executed
  • Assignee: Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of China, No.1 XinGang Road, ZhangWan Town, Jiaocheng District, Ningde City, Fujian Province, PRC 352100
  • Correspondent: Juan Carlos A. Marquez, Marquez Intellectual Property Law Office PLLC, 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20006; filer of record "Juan Carlos A. Marquez / Lily Niu"; attorney docket LEEL-0091; EFS ID 34507385; receipt date 06-DEC-2018. Recurrence flag: Marquez (Reg. No. 34072) is listed as affiliated with Ningde Amperex Technology Limited on 52 filings over the past 10 years (PatentBots practitioner record, updated 2025-12-31) — he is a repeat correspondent for the operating-company assignee, which is the opposite of the classic NPE-repeat-lawyer tell.
  • Context: Routine employment/inbound assignment — the founders assigned to their employer on the way in, three days before the U.S. filing; there is no evidence of a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Corroborating ownership evidence (non-assignment records), because they matter for a standing analysis:

• 2023-04-10 — Electronic terminal disclaimer (filed by Timothy J. Maier, Reg. No. 51986, Maier & Maier, PLLC, Alexandria VA; Customer No. 62008) in the continuation family, tied to App. 18/076,882 and disclaiming over 10,833,363 and 11,522,222. The disclaimer includes the standard certification that the patents "shall be enforceable only for and during such period that it and the prior patent are commonly owned" — i.e., ATL self-certified common ownership of the '363 chain as of April 2023.
• 2023-07-31 — "Statement of Assignee Ningde Amperex Technology Limited" filed as an exhibit in IPR2023-00586, a 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(b) ownership statement.

Note on prosecution firms (not a finding, just accuracy): ATL uses multiple outside firms across the family — Marquez IP Law (assignment on the '363; 52 ATL filings), Maier & Maier (terminal disclaimer, Customer No. 62008), and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (e.g., App. 17/746,755 → US 11,923,498). A single appearance by any of these is not an NPE signal.

Finding: There are no post-issuance recorded assignments for US 10,833,363. That is itself the operative result: the patent has never left the original operating-company assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10833363
    2018 : Inventors execute assignment to Ningde Amperex
         : Assignment recorded same day as US filing
    2020 : Patent issued 10 Nov
    2023 : Inventorship correction sought in Texas and at PTAB
         : Terminal disclaimer certifies common family ownership
    2024 : Jury finds claim 1 infringed and invalid
    2026 : CAFC appeals dismissed by agreement

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Ningde Amperex Technology Limited — an operating lithium-ion cell manufacturer in the ATL/TDK group — has been the sole owner of record since the single 2018-12-03/2018-12-06 inventor-to-company assignment, and it self-certified continuing common ownership of the patent and its continuation family in the April 2023 terminal disclaimer. It enforced the patent in its own name against a genuine competitor (Zhuhai CosMX, Shanghai STAR Market 688772.SH) in E.D. Tex. No shell entity, no asserter-branded assignee, no cascading chain, and no pre-suit transfer appears anywhere in the record; the one recurring correspondent (Marquez IP Law, 52 filings for the same assignee) is the opposite of the NPE-repeat-counsel tell. The residual risk in this chain is not NPE-related but inventorship provenance: ATL's 2023 motions to correct inventorship of the '363 in both the district court and the PTAB, and I could not confirm whether a §256 certificate of correction ever issued.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number 10833363) — specifically to capture the reel/frame for the 2018-12-06 recording and to confirm that no additional conveyance exists that I was unable to surface.

I'll pull the cited prior art for US 10,833,363 from authoritative sources. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me pull the "References Cited" (citations) section directly from the patent record.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,833,363 B2

⚠️ Two flags before the substance

1. A date contradiction with the prior sections. The current task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." But the previously generated Litigation section relies on a June 9, 2026 Federal Circuit dismissal order and May 6, 2026 oral argument — both after the date stated in this task. I have carried those forward as-is (they were treated as authoritative), but the two dates cannot both be right. Flagging rather than silently reconciling.

2. A correction to the earlier claim map. The earlier scope note said "two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 13)." The IPR2023-00586 claim chart (Paper 1) quotes claim 16 with its own preamble — "An electronic device, comprising … an electrochemical device that includes electrodes and an electrolyte comprising …" — i.e., claim 16 reads as a third independent claim, not a dependent one. The same record also confirms something the earlier section flagged as moderate-confidence: Formula (3) 0.01 ≤ (Y/Z) ≤ 0.3 IS recited in issued claim 1 (limitation [1.f]). Both points should be corrected upward in confidence.

What I could not retrieve (stated plainly, not papered over)

I was unable to obtain the front-page "References Cited" list of US 10,833,363 itself — the applicant/Examiner citations printed at column 1 of the granted patent. The Google Patents rendering supplied to me truncates before the citation and claims sections, and my searches surfaced citation lists belonging to other documents (e.g., CN 111740158 B and a sibling, US 11,888,120), which are not the '363's citations. I am not going to relabel those as the '363's references.

What I can give you, with source grounding, is stronger than a front-page list: the complete prior-art exhibit set and ground-by-ground mapping from IPR2023-00586 (Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.), which is the most rigorous prior-art analysis on this patent anywhere on the record, plus the applicant-cited Hong translation appearing in the family's IDS.

The prior art, reference by reference

The '363 is post-AIA (effective filing date Sept. 21, 2018 priority; filed Dec. 6, 2018), so AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Each reference below published well before that date.

Exhibit list (Ex. 1004–1009): PTACTS, IPR2023-00586 Petition exhibits.

1. Hong — CN 106848381 A — the only § 102 reference

• Full citation: Chinese Patent Publication No. 106848381 A (Hong et al.), published June 13, 2017 (12-page certified English translation at Ex. 1005). Corroborating date: the IDS of family member US 12,107,220 lists "English Translation of CN106848381A, Hong et al., Jun. 13, 2017, 12 pages" (US12107220).
• Description: discloses non-aqueous electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries containing (i) a dinitrile (e.g., adiponitrile ADN, succinonitrile SN, and the ether-linked dinitrile DENE — ethylene glycol bis(propionitrile) ether), (ii) a trinitrile (e.g., 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (HTCN), tricyanophosphates), and (iii) propyl propionate (PP) as a co-solvent, plus optional additives (FEC, PS, DTD, VC/VEC).
• Claims it potentially anticipates under § 102: claims 1–6, 11, 13 and 16. Petitioner relied on Hong's Embodiments 2, 18, 25 and Comparison Case 6, supplying arithmetic showing the summed nitrile content and ratios fall inside Formulas (1), (2) and (3) of claim 1, and that Hong's additives/device elements meet the dependents. See the ground summary at Ex Parte AI Lab, IPR2023-00586 and the claim-by-claim chart at PTACTS.
• Critical construction point: Petitioner construed "a weight percentage of the dinitrile compound is X" as the total wt% of all dinitriles present (and likewise for Y). Anticipation of the claimed ranges from Hong's multiple nitrile species depends entirely on that construction; if X and Y mean per-species, the Hong mapping collapses. That is the fault line for this reference.
• Outcome caveat: The Board denied institution on Aug. 18, 2023 (GreyB/IPverse docket). Google Patents styles this "Not Instituted – Merits," but the papers show § 314(a)/Fintiv discretion was heavily litigated (see Petitioner's Reply), so I do not treat the denial as a merits rejection of Hong. Hong's § 102 theory is therefore asserted but never adjudicated. Separately, in the parallel E.D. Tex. case the jury found claim 1 infringed and invalid (verdict Feb. 9, 2024; judgment Apr. 26, 2024), but the trial record's specific invalidity references are not in my retrieved sources — do not assume they were Hong.

2. Zhuang — U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0084956 A1 — § 103 only, no § 102

• Citation/date: U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0084956 A1, published 2017 (Ex. 1006). Exact day not verified from retrieved sources.
• Description: fluoroether additives for non-aqueous Li-ion electrolytes to improve high-temperature storage and cycle life. Petitioner identified Zhuang's compounds B1, B2, B3 as meeting claim 9's fluoroether formula — including B2 = (CF₃)₂CFCF(CF₂CF₃)(OCH₃) (a TMMP-type ether).
• § 102? No. Zhuang was never mapped as anticipating any claim. It is a § 103 reference, combined with Hong for claims 7–9, with motivation supplied by the shared problem of high-temperature performance and Zhuang's own disclosure of propyl propionate + DENE-type dinitriles.

3. Kim '685 — U.S. Patent No. 6,544,685 — § 103 only

• Citation/date: U.S. Patent No. 6,544,685 (issued 2003; Ex. 1007). Exact issue date not verified here.
• Description: teaches a cyclic phosphonic anhydride at 0.1–10 wt% in carbonate-based electrolytes to inhibit gassing and reduce high-temperature cell expansion.
• § 102? No. Used in § 103 for claim 10, motivated by Hong's own examples showing expansion.

4. Kim '934 — U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0069934 A1 — § 103 only

• Citation/date: U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0069934 A1, published 2017 (Ex. 1008).
• Description: teaches adding a cyclic carboxylate ester (γ-butyrolactone / γ-valerolactone class) to stabilize the SEI.
• § 102? No. § 103 for claim 12 with Hong.

5. Fujikawa — U.S. Pat. Pub. 2007/0172736 A1 — role unconfirmed

• Citation/date: U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0172736 A1, published 2007 (Ex. 1009).
• Description: I could not verify its technical content from retrieved sources; it appears in the exhibit list but not in the anticipation ground.
• § 102? Not asserted in the anticipation ground (Ground 1). Most likely it fed Grounds 5 and/or 6 (directed to claims 13–16), but that is an inference, not a verified mapping — treat as unknown.

Non-citations you should not confuse with the '363's prior art

• CN 111740158 B and US 11,888,120 carry their own "Patent Citations" lists (e.g., KR 101195931 B1; CN 103633371 A; CN 103779607 A; CN 104505535 A; CN 103633371 MT). Those belong to family members' prosecution, not to the '363. (CN111740158B · Justia US11888120)
• German BPatG decision, 3 Ni 23/23 (EP), July 15, 2025 (EP 3 627 606 B1) shows CosMX arguing the priority-application publication (CN 201811108529.X / CN 109301326) was novelty-destroying, plus references "NK5, NK6, NK7." The BPatG held priority validly claimed, excluding the priority publication. This is the EP counterpart, not a US-'363 citation. (BPatG PDF)

Bottom line

Hong (CN 106848381 A, pub. June 13, 2017) is the single most relevant prior art to US 10,833,363 — it is the only reference ever mapped as § 102-anticipatory, aimed at claims 1–6, 11, 13 and 16, and it depends on the "total wt% of all dinitriles/trinitriles" claim construction. Zhuang, Kim '685 and Kim '934 are § 103-only supporting references for claims 7–9, 10 and 12 respectively. Fujikawa's role is unverified.

Recommended authoritative next step (which I could not complete here): the "References Cited" front page of the granted patent PDF at USPTO Patent Center for application 16/211,853, or the IPR2023-00586 Decision Denying Institution (Paper 14, Aug. 18, 2023) to see the Board's stated basis for denial — that paper will resolve both the denial ground and the construction question in one document.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art record rather than working from memory. Let me pull the cited references and the IPR grounds.

Let me pull the specific prior-art references cited on the '363's face and the IPR denial rationale.

Let me confirm the denial basis and the face-of-patent citations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,833,363

35 U.S.C. § 103 | Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. | "Electrolyte and electrochemical device"

0. A necessary caveat about "the Prior Art section of this page"

The authoritative text supplied for this analysis is the Google Patents rendering of US 10,833,363. That rendering contains a "Prior art keywords" block — electrolyte, och, compound, formula, group — but no prior-art citation table, no "References Cited" list, and no front-page U.S./foreign patent documents. The Google Patents scrape for this document also truncates before the claims column (a defect already flagged in the earlier Patent Summary section).

Accordingly, I am not able to chart the '363's Examiner-cited art from the page itself. Instead, I reconstructed the operative prior-art record from the litigation and PTAB record that the same page links to, plus the prosecution/exhibit documents surfaced in search. Every reference below is identified by its literal number as it appears in those sources; where a source is second-hand (an aggregated case page rather than a primary paper), I say so. If the front-page citation list matters to your conclusion, it must be pulled from the printed patent or USPTO PatentCenter — I could not verify it.

The prior-art references actually in the record

⚠️ Provenance flag. The Office Action excerpt applying Hong + Ohashi (+Zhang) and listing Li as not-relied-upon appears inside an exhibit filed in a later CosMX IPR, and its claim numbering (claims 1–12 and 14–20) does not match the '363's 16 claims. It therefore likely describes prosecution of a 20-claim sibling/continuation, not the '363 itself. Its technology mapping is directly transferable, but do not cite it as the '363's own prosecution history without confirming the application number.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A person of ordinary skill would have: (a) a master's or Ph.D. in chemistry, materials science, or chemical engineering, or a bachelor's degree plus 2–5 years of lithium-ion battery electrolyte development experience; and (b) working knowledge of non-aqueous electrolyte formulation — carbonate/carboxylate solvent blending, nitrile film-forming additives, lithium-salt selection, and standard electrochemical test methods (DCIR, cycle retention, storage/thickness expansion). This is the level implied by the '363 spec itself, which assumes the reader understands "SEI film," "compaction density," and "4.45 V" testing without explanation.

The critical-priority-date prior art window: the earliest priority is CN 201811108529.X, filed 21 September 2018. All references above published 2017 or earlier, so all qualify as §102(a)(2)/§102(b) art. Hong (2017-06-13) alone is more than a year before the priority date.

2. Decomposition of claim 1 into limitations

Claim 1 (per the abstract and the earlier claim breakdown) requires, in a non-aqueous electrolyte:

The entire inventive weight sits on L1–L5 — a three-component combination plus two numeric windows. That is the classic posture for a §103 attack under KSR and the In re Aller / In re Boesch line on optimizing "result-effective variables."

3. Combination A — Hong alone (§102 anticipation) or Hong + routine optimization (§103)

Hong is the single most dangerous reference because, as mapped by both the Examiner (in the sibling prosecution) and CosMX (in the IPR), it teaches all five of L1–L5 in one document:

• Hong teaches an electrolyte comprising a dinitrile compound, a trinitrile compound, and propyl propionate, at ratios in which 2 wt% ≤ (X+Y) ≤ 11 wt% and 0.1 ≤ (X/Y) ≤ 8.
• Hong's example embodiments (EMB 2, 18, 25) were specifically cited as falling within these windows ([0034]–[0035]).
• Hong further teaches specific species that read on the dependent claims — adiponitrile (dinitrile) and 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (trinitrile).

If Hong's examples literally fall in both windows, claim 1 is anticipated under §102 and obstruction ends there. Even if one accepts ATL's argument that Hong's numbers must be computed with "assumptions" and therefore do not literally fall in the ranges (a point ATL pressed hard in the POPR — attacking Dr. Anderman's "assumptions," "quantities, states of matter, physical properties, and chemical behaviors"), the fallback is §103: choosing the specific nitrile loading within Hong's disclosed genus, to hit a 2–11 wt% combined window, is the optimization of a result-effective variable achieved by routine experimentation. In re Aller (CCPA); In re Boesch (CCPA).

Motivation to combine (if treated as a combination rather than anticipation): Hong's own stated object — forming a film on both electrodes, complexing metal ions, stabilizing the cathode structure, and improving SEI, cycle performance, and high-temperature performance — is the same problem the '363 addresses (inhibiting solvent decomposition/DCIR rise at high voltage). Where a single reference states the problem the applicant solved, no cross-reference motivation is needed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

4. Combination B — Hong + Ohashi (electrode compaction density)

Targets: the dependent claims reciting a single-sided vs. double-sided coating with 0.8 ≤ D1/D2 ≤ 1.2 (and the cathode D2 = 3.5–4.3 g/cm³ / anode D2 = 1.2–1.8 g/cm³ sub-ranges).

• Hong provides the electrolyte side but "does not explicitly disclose one side is coated only and the cathode electrode has a density of 4.2 g/cm³ and an anode electrode has a density of 1.3 g/cm³" (Office Action text).
• Ohashi (US 2017/0324116 A1) discloses exactly that: one-side-coated current collectors ([0181], [0214], [0217], [0218]) with a cathode density of 4.2 g/cm³ and an anode density of 1.3 g/cm³ — squarely inside the claimed ranges, and inside the claimed 0.8–1.2 D1/D2 band.

Motivation to combine: The Examiner's stated rationale is succinct and KSR-compliant: "Ohashi and Hong et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery electrolytes," and it "would have been obvious … to incorporate the cathode and anode of Hong et al. as having the coating and density disclosed by Ohashi to enhance battery capacity and overall performance" ([0027], [0214]–[0218] of Ohashi). Same field of endeavor → analogous art → predictable mechanical/design parameter (pressing density) → obvious. The '363 spec itself concedes compaction density is a routine tradeoff knob ("a lower compaction density makes the porosity higher … a too high compaction density may cause difficulty in infiltrability"), which is an admission against criticality.

5. Combination C — Hong + Ohashi + Zhang (cyclic phosphonic anhydride)

Targets: the claim reciting a cyclic phosphonic anhydride at ≈0.01–10 wt%.

• Hong does not "explicitly disclose a cyclic phosphonic anhydride at 0.01–10 wt%" (Office Action text).
• Zhang (US 2017/0317385 A1) supplies it.
• Motivation: Hong's functional-compound concept (a small-molecule film former/complexing agent added at low wt% to improve cycle and high-temperature performance) is the same genus into which a cyclic phosphonic anhydride fits; the art is crowded with low-wt% electrolyte additives used for exactly this purpose, so a POSITA would reach for a known film-former to supplement Hong's system with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR "known technique, known solution."

6. Combination D — Hong + Zhuang (fluoroether) — claims 7–9

Targets: the dependent claims requiring a fluoroether of Formulas [8]–[11] (FEPE, TMMP, TPTP, etc.) at ≈0.01–10 wt%.

Petitioner's theory (IPR2023-00586, Ground 2):

1. Hong teaches the base electrolyte of claim 1 — propyl propionate and a dinitrile with an ether bond (DENE).
2. Zhuang (US 2017/0084956 A1) teaches adding specific fluoroether compounds (mapped to the claims 7–9 structures) to electrolytes to improve high-temperature performance.

Motivation to combine (as Petitioner framed it), and why it is strong:

• Both references address the same technical problem — improving battery high-temperature and cycle performance.
• Zhuang specifically teaches combining fluoroethers with electrolytes containing components also found in Hong (propyl propionate and ether-bond dinitriles). That is an express lead in the art, satisfying the KSR "consciousness of the art" / "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale.
• Reasonable expectation of success: the components are chemically compatible; both are the same class of non-aqueous Li-ion electrolyte; the underlying electrolyte systems are similar. The '363 spec itself says a fluoroether "can form a better protective film with the trinitrile compound" — i.e., the benefit is described as an additive interaction, not an unpredictable new mechanism.

7. Combination E — Hong + a known film-former/VSE additive (VC, VEC, FEC, PS, DTD)

Targets: the dependent claim reciting a cyclic carbonate with a C=C bond, a fluorinated chain/cyclic carbonate, and/or a sulfur–oxygen double-bond compound.

This is the weakest point for the '363, because the specification concedes the known-ness of the mechanism: "the addition of the film-forming additives VC, VEC, FEC, PS, DTD can further improve the stability of the solid electrolytic interface (SEI) film." A POSITA would combine such an additive with Hong's electrolyte as a matter of routine optimization of a known SEI-stabilizing additive, with a reasonable expectation of improved cycle life. A claim that adds a named, known additive class to a reference electrolyte, with no recited quantitative departure, is presumptively obvious (KSR; In re Kao on result-effective variables). The '363's own data even record that high additive loading degrades performance ("when the cyclic carboxylate ester content is close to 40 wt%, the intermittent cycle performance deteriorates") — i.e., the operative claim ranges are the routine useful window.

8. Combination F — Hong + Li (dinitrile + propyl propionate solvent systems)

Li (US 2015/0140446 A1) discloses a battery (Fig. 1) with an electrolyte comprising a mix of organic compounds including dinitriles and propyl propionate in distinct ratios within the electrolyte ([0025]–[0027]).

The Examiner listed Li as "made of record and not relied upon … considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure." The obviousness significance is that Li independently confirms that dinitrile + propyl propionate solvent/liquid systems — two of the three required components of claim 1 — were known, and that their ratios were already a variable the art varied. Combined with any trinitrile-teaching reference (Hong or Kim), claim 1 is a prima facie combination of known elements with a predictable ratio optimization.

9. Combination G — Kim + Hong, and the Fujikawa/Zhuang discrepancy

Kim (US 2017/0288268 A1): CosMX's E.D. Tex. counterclaim expressly pleads that "U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0288268 to Kim or Chinese Patent Publication CN106848381 to Hong, alone or in combination, completely anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of claim 1 of the '363 patent, exactly as recited in the claim" (¶67). So Kim was pleaded as a parallel standalone anticipation/obviousness reference for claim 1 — a second, independent path to invalidity if Hong is distinguished.

⚠️ Discrepancy to resolve before relying on the IPR art set. Two secondary summaries of IPR2023-00586 differ on the secondary reference:

• One case-page summary describes Ground 2 as "claims 7–9 obvious over Hong in view of Zhuang."
• A second summary (Ex. 1009) states the "primary prior art references relied upon in the petition, Hong and Fujikawa, were never considered by the examiner."

Both cannot be the complete picture. The likely resolution is that the petition ran Hong as the primary reference against claims 1–6/11 and used Zhuang and Fujikawa in different grounds/subsets — but I cannot confirm this from the aggregated pages, and I have not recovered a publication number for Fujikawa. Treat "Fujikawa" as an unverified identifier and do not cite its number. The primary petition and the Denying Institution decision should be pulled from PTAB P-TACTS to settle this.

10. The overarching motivation-to-combine case (and why it is unusually strong)

1. Common field / common problem. Every reference sits in non-aqueous Li-ion electrolyte formulation. The '363's stated problem — cathode oxidation at >4.4 V, electrolyte decomposition, capacity fade — is the same problem Hong, Kim, Zhuang, Zhang, and Ohashi all address. KSR: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."
2. The combination is a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions." Three-component electrolyte + two ratio windows is not an unpredictable field; it is combinatorial formulation.
3. The numeric limits are result-effective variables, not criticalities. The claim gives broad windows (2–11 wt%; X/Y = 0.1–8) — a factor-of-5.5 and factor-of-80 spread respectively. Broad ranges that merely "optimize" a disclosed variable are presumptively obvious absent proof of a critical boundary. The '363 spec offers no data showing a sharp cliff at 2 wt%, 11 wt%, 0.1, or 8.
4. The specification is an admission against the applicant. It states the nitrile mixture "can form a firm protective film which is not easily decomposed," and that the fluoroether "can form a better protective film with the trinitrile compound." That describes a predictable additive interaction, not an unpredictable result.

11. Anticipated rebuttal evidence (and how it would be met)

12. Bottom line

• Strongest §103 path: Hong (CN 106848381 A) as the primary reference, alone (In re §102 anticipation if its EMB 2/18/25 fall in the windows) or in combination with routine optimization; + Ohashi (US 2017/0324116) for compaction density; + Zhang (US 2017/0317385) for the cyclic phosphonic anhydride; + Zhuang (US 2017/0084956) for the fluoroether; + a known SEI additive (VC/FEC/PS/DTD).
• Independent alternative: Kim (US 2017/0288268 A1), pleaded in the district court as anticipating/rendering obvious claim 1 alone or with Hong.
• Secondary confirmation: Li (US 2015/0140446 A1) shows dinitrile + propyl propionate ratio systems were known.
• Claim 1's broad numeric windows, its result-effective-variable character, the specification's own admissions, and the absence of an adequate unexpected-results showing (the only comparator is a single no-additive comparative) all point toward obviousness over Hong-plus-adjuncts.

13. Residual uncertainty — things I could NOT verify

1. The '363's own front-page "References Cited" list — not in the supplied text; must come from the printed patent/PatentCenter. My reference set is reconstructed from the litigation and IPR record, not the Examiner's citation list.
2. The Fujikawa identifier and the Fujikawa-vs-Zhuang conflict in IPR2023-00586 — two secondary summaries disagree; no publication number recovered.
3. Whether Formula (3) (0.01 ≤ Y/Z ≤ 0.3) is in issued claim 1 or only a dependent claim — flagged as unresolved in the earlier Patent Summary; it matters because if it is in claim 1, Hong's Y/Z values must also be shown to fall in-window.
4. The basis for the IPR2023-00586 denial — merits vs. §314(a)/Fintiv; the Google Patents page ("Not Instituted – Merits") and the case-page summaries conflict; Paper 14 (Aug. 18, 2023) is authoritative.
5. Provenance of the Office Action applying Hong+Ohashi(+Zhang) — its claim numbering (1–12, 14–20) suggests a 20-claim sibling, not the 16-claim '363. Confirm the application number before citing it as the '363's prosecution history.
6. Current legal effect of the April 2024 E.D. Tex. Final Judgment after the June 9, 2026 Federal Circuit Rule 42(b) dismissals — requires the district court's post-mandate docket.

Primary sources: PTAB P-TACTS exhibits (EX1002) quoting the Office Action applying Hong + Ohashi (+Zhang) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557556/download-documents?artifactId=jhHDs1OuBcI8EC8xNH2l06Qj4AluylNTjMrpBfidNaIxPePNFnE3-ao · CosMX counterclaim/Dec. Judgment of Invalidity ¶¶63–68 — https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.215535/gov.uscourts.txed.215535.94.0.pdf · IPR2023-00586 case page (Ground 2 / Hong + Zhuang) — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00586/zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd-v-ningde-amperex-technology-ltd · IPR2023-00586 Ex. 1009 summary (Hong + Fujikawa) — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00586/doc/1009 · IPR2023-00586 institution data — https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00586 · CN 106848381 A bibliographic/abstract — Guangzhou Tinci Materials Technology Co., publ. 2017-06-13 · CAFC dismissal order 25-1037/25-1091 (June 9, 2026) — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1037.ORDER.6-9-2026_2707162.pdf.