US 10971706

I'll search for authoritative litigation and docket information on this specific patent number.

US 10,971,706 B2 — "Electrode assembly"

Scope note up front: I could not run a direct live query against USPTO PatentCenter or CM/ECF. The bibliographic and claim data below comes from the full grant text of US 10,971,706 B2 (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO document, fetched 2026‑09‑29) plus open‑web docket reporting. Where I am inferring rather than quoting, I say so.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"The present application relates to an electrode assembly and a secondary battery. The electrode assembly includes a cell and a protective layer. The cell includes a cell body and an electrode tab protruding from a top surface of the cell body. In a length direction of the cell, at least one end of the protective layer extends beyond the height at which the anode electrode in the cell body protrudes at the end, and the extended dimension is no more than 3 mm. As such, the burr of the anode electrode of the cell body is wrapped by the protective layer, which alleviates the phenomenon that the burr on the anode electrode pierces the package bag and chemically reacts with the aluminum layer of the package bag, thereby reducing the risk of leakage of the package bag."

(Terminological note: the abstract says "length direction," while the specification and claims define the same axis as the "height direction of the cell," i.e. the direction in which the electrode tab protrudes — direction Y in FIG. 1. The "width direction" (X) is perpendicular to the tab-protrusion direction.)

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Electrode assembly (the core claim)
A battery electrode assembly made of two things: (a) a cell comprising a cell body plus an electrode tab that protrudes from the cell body; and (b) a protective layer. Two limitations do the work:

1. Overshoot limitation: measured along the height direction of the cell (the tab-protrusion axis), at least one end of the protective layer must extend past the anode electrode, and that overshoot must be no more than 3 mm. The claimed purpose is to shroud the anode's die-cut burrs and the sharp corners created when the (thinned) current collector is pressed, so they cannot pierce the aluminum-plastic pouch.
2. Laminate limitation: the protective layer must be a laminate of a first binding sub-layer and an isolation sub-layer, and the protective layer must be bound to the cell through the first binding sub-layer (i.e. an adhesive side facing the cell; the isolation sub-layer faces the pouch).

Note that claim 1 does not itself specify where around the cell perimeter the layer sits in the width direction — that is supplied by dependents.

Claim 13 — Secondary battery
The same subject matter recast at the device level: a secondary battery comprising a package bag (pouch) containing at least one electrode assembly, where that assembly repeats claim 1's two core limitations verbatim — the ≤3 mm overshoot of the anode electrode in the height direction, and the first-binding-sub-layer/isolation-sub-layer laminate bound to the cell through the first binding sub-layer.

Dependent claims (context, not independent scope):

• 2 — protective layer on both sides in the width direction, both ends overshooting the anode electrode.
• 3 — split/segmented layer: first portion covers the top portion, second portion covers the bottom portion, with a gap between them.
• 4 — layer covers the outermost surface of the cell body (layer placed after cell formation).
• 5 — wound cell body: body portion containing active material + an empty foil region at the finishing end, with the protective layer placed in the empty foil region of the first layer from outside.
• 6 — adds a second binding sub-layer on the far side of the isolation sub-layer.
• 7 — chemistry: isolation sub-layer from polyolefin / polyacrylonitrile / polyol ester / polyamide / polyurethane (and composites); binding sub-layers from polyolefin / polyurethane / polyacrylate / silicone / rubber (and composites).
• 8 — protective layer thickness 3 µm to 40 µm; 9–12 repeat that same thickness limitation appended to claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively (a drafting pattern worth noting — four dependent claims exist solely to add the thickness range to four different parents).
• 14–15 — mirror claim 2's full-perimeter overshoot and claim 3's split-portion structure into the battery claim.

Litigation status (the reason this patent matters)

• E.D. Tex. 2:22‑cv‑00232‑JRG (Ningde Amperex Technology Limited v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.), Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall Division. Filed 2022‑06‑24. Per Cogman/Jucha (Cognex) public filing (Chinese-language disclosure) and the case dockets, US 10,971,706 B2 and US 11,329,352 B2 were the two patents in the original complaint; the amended complaint (Dkt. 8, 2022‑08‑04) added US 10,833,363 and US 10,964,987.
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A22-cv-00232
  • https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63442870/345/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd/
• Jury verdict (2024‑02‑09, Dkt. 345) and Final Judgment (2024‑04‑26, Dkt. 369) address only the '987, '363 and '352 patents. The jury found infringement of claims 1 and 17 of the '987 patent, claim 1 of the '363 patent and claim 1 of the '352 patent; the '363 and '352 claims were held invalid, the '987 claims not invalid; willfulness found; $3,701,108 in compensatory damages, then enhanced 27% (≈$4,701,108), plus supplemental damages/prejudgment interest of $459,127 bringing the amended judgment to $5,160,234 (Dkt. 387, 2024‑05‑24).
  • https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[215535](/patent/215535)/gov.uscourts.txed.215535.369.0.pdf
• Important caveat / uncertainty: on the record I retrieved, US 10,971,706 does not appear in the verdict form, final judgment, or the reported trial-patent list. The contemporaneous Chinese disclosure states that of "3 disputed patents" tried, only US 10,964,987 was upheld. I therefore cannot confirm from authoritative sources whether the '706 patent was voluntarily dropped, stayed, severed, or resolved by the 2024‑07‑28 dismissal — I lack a docket entry that says so. Treat "the '706 patent was not tried" as a supported negative observation, but not as a documented explanation.
• Federal Circuit 2026: searches of CAFC materials returned appeals 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), which were dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 2026‑06‑09, mandate issued, each side bearing its own costs: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1037.ORDER.6-9-2026_2707162.pdf
  I found no 2026 CAFC docket or opinion addressing US 10,971,706 itself. Those appeals were directed at the district court judgment on the '363/'352 (and '987) patents.
• Also found but not about this patent: PTAB IPR2026‑00401, filed 2026‑07‑22 by Zhuhai CosMX against Ningde Amperex on U.S. Patent No. 12,294,082 — a different patent.
• Google Patents flags the Darts‑IP family record as "First worldwide family litigation filed" for family ID 62761622: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=62761622

Confidence / uncertainty ledger

• High confidence: all bibliographic data, abstract text, and the full claim set — taken from the authoritative grant text supplied and corroborated by the family/priority tables.
• High confidence: the trial patents were the '987, '363 and '352 patents; the '706 patent was in the original 2022 complaint.
• Low confidence / unresolved: the disposition of the '706 patent within 2:22‑cv‑00232. I found no order, stipulation or judgment resolving it, and I would not assert a reason.
• No evidence found: any CAFC 2026 appeal, PTAB proceeding, or inter partes challenge directed specifically at US 10,971,706. Absence of search hits is not proof of absence, but nothing surfaced.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10971706. Let me search multiple sources.

Found key leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific case and any PTAB/IPR proceedings.

Let me verify a few key details: the outcome on the '706 patent specifically, any N.D. Cal. declaratory judgment case, and any PTAB challenges.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,971,706

Bottom line: I identified one confirmed U.S. district court case in which U.S. Patent No. 10,971,706 was affirmatively asserted, plus its Federal Circuit appeal. I found no PTAB inter partes review petition directed at the '706 patent itself. Details below, with the limits of what I could verify clearly flagged.

1. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. et al. (the '706 case)

Outcome / current status: The case was tried to a jury in February 2024. Per CosMX's own public disclosures (Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. securities filings) and Finnegan's case description, of the three patents in dispute at judgment ('352, '363, '987), two ATL patents ('352 and '363) were held invalid, and only '987 was found infringed, with a damages award. Reported damages figures are inconsistent across sources — one Chinese report states ~$4,701,108 (and a companion report states ~$3,701,108, described as approximately 370万美元); the stock-exchange filing discloses a claim amount of $4,701,108 (470.1108万美元). An Amended Final Judgment was entered August 20, 2024 adding $459,127 in supplemental damages and prejudgment interest (jointly stipulated). ATL also filed a sealed motion for an ongoing royalty (May 3, 2024).

Important caveat on the '706 patent specifically: The '706 patent is not one of the three patents that went to the February 2024 verdict. The record therefore indicates ATL's '706 claims were dropped or otherwise resolved short of trial, but I could not locate a document that expressly records the disposition of the '706 claims (e.g., a dismissal, covenant, or summary judgment ruling). Treat the "dropped before trial" inference as unconfirmed.

Sources: Google Patents litigation links for US10971706 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10971706/en); Unified Patents case link for 2:22-cv-00232; CourtListener docket 63442870 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63442870/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd/); E.D. Tex. docket header for 2:22-cv-00232-JRG; AO 120 form (Doc. 370) listing 10,971,706; ATL P.R. 3-1 disclosures; Finnegan case note (https://www.finnegan.com/en/work/experience/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd-222-cv-00232-ed-tex.html); Chinese-language coverage (http://www.fs12330.cn/zsbhzx/xxgg/xwdt/content/post_845623.html).

2. Federal Circuit appeals (same case)

The E.D. Tex. docket reflects the USCA mandate (June 11, 2026) and a subsequent order on a miscellaneous motion (June 18, 2026).

Caveat: These appeals arise from the same civil action in which '706 was asserted, but the appeal was resolved by voluntary dismissal, and no Federal Circuit merits ruling on the '706 patent is reflected.

Sources: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1037.ORDER.6-9-2026_2707162.pdf ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/25-1037/25-1037-2026-06-09.html

3. Related declaratory-judgment action brought by CosMX (partially verified)

CosMX filed a declaratory-judgment action against ATL (a complaint appears at N.D. Cal. docket No. 3:22-cv-…/gov.uscourts.cand.398922) seeking declarations of non-infringement of ATL patents ATL had accused it of infringing. That complaint expressly recites that ATL's June 2021 letter accused CosMX products of infringing "the '987 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,541,441, and U.S. Patent No. 10,971,706," and that ATL's June 21, 2022 letter alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,971,706 and 11,329,352. The complaint's Count I as excerpted is directed to the '363 patent; I could not confirm from the retrieved excerpts whether a specific count was pleaded against the '706 patent, so I flag this as unverified rather than asserting '706 was a pleaded DJ count. Venue/transfer litigation in that action (a § 1404(a) dispute over transfer to N.D. Cal. and a personal-jurisdiction holding) is reflected in the filings retrieved.

Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.398922/gov.uscourts.cand.398922.1.0_1.pdf

4. Other proceedings — status of verification

• PTAB (IPRs): I found no inter partes review petition challenging U.S. 10,971,706. Chinese-language coverage indicates CosMX filed IPR petitions against '352, '363, and '987 (not '706), and that institution was denied (e.g., IPR2023-00586, decision denying institution). If an IPR against '706 exists, I did not find it, and I am not asserting one does not exist.
• Later E.D. Tex. action: A docket citation to No. 2:24-cv-00728-JRG (E.D. Tex., Sept. 2024) appears in PTAB papers, indicating further ATL/CosMX litigation. I could not verify whether U.S. 10,971,706 is asserted in that case.
• Foreign counterpart proceedings: ATL and CosMX have litigated extensively in China (including against the '706 Chinese family member, utility model CN207602628U, and Chinese patents ZL201210405678.9 and ZL201620821929.5 referenced in ATL's pre-IPO notice letters), and a German court reportedly enjoined certain CosMX products. These concern counterparts/other patents, not U.S. 10,971,706 itself, so I list them only as context.

Caveats

1. This is an analyst summary, not legal advice. Docket status should be re-verified directly in PACER/PatentCenter before being relied upon.
2. Where my prior knowledge conflicted with web results, I have followed the web results per your instruction.
3. The single-largest gap in the public record is the specific disposition of the '706 claims in 2:22-cv-00232 — the sources show the '706 patent was pleaded and had claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 13 asserted, but the verdict covered only '352, '363, and '987. I have not fabricated a disposition for the '706 claims and explicitly mark that question as unresolved.

I'll verify the "no PTAB proceedings on file" default against live sources before reporting.

The first pass found no '706 proceeding. Let me run targeted checks on PTAB dockets and the related CosMX campaigns.

Let me run direct searches on the '706 patent against PTAB case databases.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 10,971,706 B2 ("Electrode assembly")

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,971,706: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method proceeding naming this patent, and my independent searches of PTAB dockets, PTAB decision aggregators (Patexia, GreyB/IPVerse, UniCourt), and Federal Circuit materials surfaced none either — no institution decision, no denial, no final written decision, no settlement termination, no appeal. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom line for a defendant is the opposite of the comfortable one: this patent is "IPR-virgin." All 15 claims stand exactly as they issued on 2021‑04‑06, with no narrowing amendment, no Board claim construction, no invalidity record, and — critically — no estoppel attaching to anyone. There is no FWD to point to, and no canceled claim to use as a shield.

No proceedings to report

I want to be explicit that this is a supported negative, not a gap in my searching:

Caveat, stated honestly: absence of search hits is not proof of absence, and I could not query the PTAB E2E system directly from this session. My confidence that no AIA trial was instituted on the '706 patent is high (an instituted trial leaves an FWD or termination order that is well indexed). My confidence that no petition was ever filed and denied/withdrawn is moderate-to-high — pre-institution denials on this patent did not surface in any of the aggregators that captured the 2023 denials on its sibling patents, which suggests there is nothing to find.

Cross-patent context — the CosMX v. ATL PTAB campaign (these are NOT proceedings on the '706 patent)

This matters strategically, so it belongs in the report even though none of it is a proceeding on US 10,971,706. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. is a serial petitioner against this patent family, and its pattern of target selection is itself informative.

Sources: Banner Witcoff summary of IPR2023‑00585; Patexia docket, IPR2023‑00585; Jones Day / Lexology on the IPR2023‑00587 Fintiv denial; CourtListener, 2:22‑cv‑00232.

Two observations about this table. First, the 2023 petitions were filed within roughly a month of each other, which is the signature of a coordinated campaign in which the petitioner identified its best printed-publication art against each patent it intended to attack. Second, the '706 patent — the very first patent ATL asserted on 2022‑06‑24 — is conspicuously absent from that set, even though CosMX's own § 315(b) window on it closed in mid‑2023. I do not have a document explaining that choice; treat the following only as inference: the '706 patent's prosecution record carries a single examiner-cited reference (US 2011/0159344 A1, Sanyo Electric), and its claims are built on physical product structure (a laminated protective layer, an ≤3 mm overshoot) rather than on compositional or parametric ranges that are easy to attack with Chinese and Japanese publications. Product-structure claims with a numeric overshoot limit are difficult IPR targets. Any defendant should test that inference against the art rather than assume it.

⚠️ Terminology flag. Do not confuse "Unified Patents" as a petitioner here. Unified Patents appears in the record only as the source of the litigation-data link cited on the Google Patents page (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/...). There is no defensive-aggregator challenge to this patent.

⚠️ Contradiction flag against the earlier-generated sections. The earlier section reports a 2024‑07‑28 dismissal resolving the '706 patent's status in 2:22‑cv‑00232. However, the AO 120 form captioned "Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) at termination of case" was filed 2024‑04‑26 (Dkt. 370), and that form lists both 10,971,706 and 11,329,352 as patents included in the action — while the verdict and judgments addressed only the '987, '363 and '352 patents. A further Amended Final Judgment appears at ECF 427 with a 2024‑09‑03 date in one PTAB exhibit description. I cannot reconcile these dates from the material available, and I am not asserting a reason for the '706 patent's absence from the verdict form. The only safe statement is that the '706's disposition in the district court remains undocumented on my record.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,971,706 — independent claim 1, independent claim 13, or any of dependent claims 2–12 and 14–15 — has been canceled, narrowed, or even construed by the Board, because no AIA trial ever reached a merits decision. Note this is not the same as saying the claims were "sustained." A patent that has never been challenged at the PTAB is not a validated patent; it is an untested one. ATL asserted claims 1, 5, 8, 12 and 13 against the CosMX CA3862E1 cell in its P.R. 3‑1 infringement contentions (reproduced in the PTAB record), which tells you the practical assertion set: the two independents, the 3–40 µm thickness claim (8), the empty-foil-region claim (5), and the thickness-limited battery claim (12). Those same five claims are the ones a new defendant should expect to see charted.

Estoppel landscape: nothing is barred, and nothing is protected. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision. Because the 2023 CosMX petitions on the sibling patents were denied institution, no estoppel arose from them at all — not against CosMX, and certainly not against anyone else. For the '706 patent specifically, no petitioner has ever been estopped, so a fresh petitioner retains the full universe of § 102/§ 103 printed-publication grounds. The one constraint is the § 315(b) clock, which runs per petitioner from service of a complaint alleging infringement of that patent: CosMX and Mainland Zhuhai Guanyu were served on/around 2022‑06‑24 and have been time-barred on the '706 since roughly mid‑2023. If your client was served with a complaint asserting the '706, your own one-year window is the operative deadline — and it is a hard one, since the Board follows Click‑to‑Call and does not forgive a complaint that was later dismissed.

Pattern signals. CosMX is an eight-plus-petition serial filer against ATL across 2023, 2025 and 2026 — but it has never petitioned on the '706 patent, nor, as far as my searches show, on the continuation US 11,664,501 B2. ATL's PTAB posture is defensive and effective: it won four consecutive institution denials (2023) on Fintiv grounds, and it litigates discretionary denial aggressively, including two Director Review requests in 2025. ATL also used statutory disclaimer offensively (claims 13–16 of the '363 patent) to strip grounds out of a petition before institution — a tactic worth anticipating in the other direction. There is no aggregator, no joinder, and no IPR estoppel in the '706's history.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant now facing assertion of the '706 patent:

1. Do not expect a ready-made invalidity record. There is none. The absence of PTAB activity means you will be building invalidity (and claim construction) from zero, and you cannot rely on any Board construction of "extends beyond an anode electrode," "the extended dimension is no more than 3 mm," or "empty foil region of the first layer from outside." Those terms have never been construed by any tribunal. Your first substantive task is a § 112 indefiniteness analysis of the 3 mm overshoot limitation, which is measured from an unclaimed reference point ("the anode electrode") and is the kind of numeric limit that invites a Nautilus challenge.
2. Check your § 315(b) clock before anything else. Confirm the date you were served with a complaint asserting the '706. If that date is more than one year before today (2026‑09‑29), an IPR is unavailable to you; your only validity vehicle is district court or ITC. If you are within the window, the statutory trial deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) is one year from institution, and your institution decision is due within six months of the petition's filing date.
3. Note the design-around pressure point. Claim 1's only structural boundary that a competitor actually "chooses" is the ≤3 mm overshoot, and dependent claim 8 adds 3–40 µm. Independent claim 13 is a near-verbatim recast of claim 1 in apparatus form, so a design-around must clear both. This is a patent that rewards engineering analysis more than prior-art archaeology.
4. Consider discretionary-denial strategy in reverse. ATL has demonstrated it will litigate Fintiv / § 314(a) hard and will take denial fights to Director Review. If you file an IPR, assume a discretionary-denial brief and a well-developed parallel-litigation-investment record.
5. Verify the '706's docket status yourself before relying on any narrative about it. As flagged above, the disposition of the '706 patent in 2:22‑cv‑00232 is unresolved on my record — the AO 120 termination form lists it, the verdict and judgments do not address it, and the reported dismissal date conflicts with the form's filing date. Pull the docket directly rather than accepting any summary (including this one).

If you are evaluating the patent portfolio: the '706 patent is the least litigated and least tested member of the ATL battery family. That cuts both ways — no cancellation risk has been realized, but also no validity has been confirmed by a tribunal. Anyone representing it as "survived IPRs" would be wrong; anyone representing it as "invalidated" would be equally wrong.

If you want to confirm this negative independently: pull the file in USPTO PTAB Center (PTACTS) at https://ptacts.uspto.gov and in the PTAB E2E system, and cross-check against https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63442870/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd/ for the parallel docket. If a pre-institution petition was filed and dismissed before any decision was indexed, that is the one place it would still be visible.

I'll attempt to pull the recorded assignment data for this patent from the sources available.

Let me try the assignment-record mirrors directly.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 10,971,706 B2

Sourcing caveat, stated plainly up front: I could not open an interactive session against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov in this run. The assignment data below is taken from the USPTO assignment record as mirrored in the grant text's legal-events table (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO document, fetched 2026-09-29), which exposes execution date, recording date, conveyance type, reel/frame and both parties — but not the correspondent-of-record field. Where I could not retrieve a field, I say so rather than filling it in. Anything not sourced to a reel/frame or a citable document is labelled as inference.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No anomaly. Both inventors assigned to their employer before the application's US filing date (2018-10-31), which is the ordinary inventor-to-company employment assignment. The effective date of 2018-10-23 precedes filing by 8 days.
• No inventor-departure signal. There is no evidence of either inventor leaving within 12 months of filing; to the contrary, Kefei Wang recurs as a named inventor across the assignee's later US filings (e.g. he is the first-named inventor of US 11,799,131, assigned to Ningde Amperex and recorded at Reel 060786/0449), and he is named on later Ningde Amperex electrolyte/electrochemical-device families. A fire-sale usually follows inventor attrition; the record here shows the opposite.
• A continuation (US 17/195,508 → US 11,664,501 B2, filed 2021-03-08) was prosecuted out of the same family by the same original assignee — a strong tell against abandonment or sale.

Original assignee

Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (Chinese name 宁德新能源科技有限公司, trading as ATL), No. 1 Xingang Road, Zhangwan Town, Jiaocheng District, Ningde City, Fujian 352100, China.

• Original and current assignee — identical. No post-issuance transfer appears on the record.
• Primary line of business: high-volume manufacturer of lithium-ion / lithium-polymer cells and battery packs, principally for consumer electronics (smartphones, wearables, notebook, drones). This is a product company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Corporate context: ATL is part of the TDK Corporation group. It is historically related to (but distinct from) Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL); the two share a corporate lineage from the same founder but are separate operating groups. Do not conflate the two — the family here is ATL/Ningde Amperex, evidence in the record being the "No. 1 Xingang Road" address, whereas CATL uses "No. 2 Xin'gang Road."
• Status: operating, active, solvent. USPTO legal events show a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-09-18 as a LARGE ENTITY — i.e., the patent is being actively maintained by an entity that self-identifies as large. No bankruptcy, receivership or insolvency filing surfaced.
• Products embodying the claims: yes, in the practical sense. The claim is directed to a wound/stacked electrode assembly with a split binding/isolation protective tape overhanging the anode by ≤3 mm — that is a manufacturing-level feature of the assignee's pouch cells. In litigation, Ningde Amperex asserted the patent against a direct competitor's cell (the CosMX "CA3862E1" battery cell), per the claim chart at Dkt. 1, Attachment 7 — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63442870/1/7/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd/

Assignment timeline

Plain finding first: exactly ONE assignment exists on the record I could retrieve. There is no post-issuance assignment chain, no LLC in the chain, and therefore no "chain" to reconstruct beyond the founding assignment.

• 2018-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-01 — Reel 047375/0651

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: JIANG, JING; WANG, KEFEI (the two named inventors)
  • Assignee: NINGDE AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (Ningde City, Fujian, CN)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVABLE in this run — the legal-events mirror supplied the reel/frame and party data but not the recording correspondent. The USPTO electronic record (Form PTO/SB/… docketed via the Assignment Center) is the only authoritative source for this field; on the same assignee's other US families the attorney of record is Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Palo Alto, CA), but I explicitly flag that this is prosecution correspondence for different patents and is not evidence of who recorded this assignment. Do not treat it as the correspondent here.
  • Context: ordinary foundational inventor-to-employer assignment, executed pre-filing. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

• (PROSECUTION, NOT AN ASSIGNMENT) 2021-03-08 — continuation application US 17/195,508 filed by the same assignee; issued 2023-05-30 as US 11,664,501 B2. No change of owner. Any assignment recorded against that child would presumably be another inventor→Ningde Amperex instrument, but I could not retrieve that record; treat it as unverified.

If the Assignment Center returns additional entries not surfaced here (e.g. a security agreement, a domestic-issue recordation, or a 2021 chain-of-title declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(c)), they were not exposed by the sources I could reach. I found no such records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10971706
    2017 : CN priority application filed
    2018 : Inventors assign rights to Ningde Amperex
         : US application filed
    2019 : Pre-grant publication
    2021 : Patent issued to Ningde Amperex
         : Continuation filed by same owner
    2022 : Ningde Amperex sues CosMX
    2024 : Trial judgment on other family patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Contradiction / clarification check against the prior section: the earlier summary stated that US 10,971,706 "does not appear in the verdict form, final judgment, or the reported trial-patent list." My searches are consistent with that and add one nuance worth recording: the AO 120 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form, Dkt. 370 (filed 2024-04-26) still lists 10,971,706 alongside 11,329,352 as patents in the case — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63442870/370/ningde-amperex-technology-limited-v-zhuhai-cosmx-battery-co-ltd/ . The AO 120 is an administrative form, so this does not contradict the verdict record; and the CosMX IPO/stock-exchange disclosure independently states that at trial only 3 patents were in dispute (US 10,964,987, US 11,329,352, US 10,833,363), of which only the '987 was upheld. On that record, the '706 patent was in the original complaint and on the AO 120, but was not among the three patents tried. I still cannot state why (drop, sever, stay, or settlement) — no order to that effect surfaced. That remains unresolved.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a single foundational assignment, inventors Jing Jiang and Kefei Wang → Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, executed 2018-10-23, recorded 2018-11-01 at Reel 047375/0651 — and the current owner is that same operating battery manufacturer, still paying maintenance fees as a large entity. Ningde Amperex ships lithium-ion cells that practice the claimed electrode-assembly structure and sued a direct competitor (Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.) in E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00232-JRG on 2022-06-24, asserting the patent in its own name against a competing product rather than handing it to a licensing vehicle. Not one of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively present; the single unresolved item is the unretrieved correspondent field on Reel 047375/0651, which is a verification gap, not a finding.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10971706) — or the indexed mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. In the Assignment Center, the specific artifact to pull is the cover sheet for Reel 047375 / Frame 0651 to capture the correspondent-of-record that the sources available to me did not expose.

I'll verify the patent's citation record against live sources before analyzing prior art.

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 10,971,706 B2 (“Electrode assembly”)

Scope / method note (read first). I could not open a USPTO PatentCenter or PatentsView record in this session; the authoritative text I worked from is the full grant document supplied above (Google Patents' mirror of the USPTO grant, fetched 2026‑09‑29), which includes the front‑page reference tables. I did not retrieve the application's file wrapper (IFW) or any examiner's Form PTO‑892/PTOL‑326. Consequently, everything below about which references sit on the face of the '706 patent comes from that grant text, and I cannot show which citation was made by the examiner versus submitted in an IDS. I state where that distinction matters. Dates are as printed in the reference tables; I flag the ones I could not independently verify.

1. The literal citation record for US 10,971,706

The grant text contains exactly one patent‑citation entry:

Statutory framework. The '706 application was filed 2018‑10‑31 claiming priority to CN 201721631032.7 U filed 2017‑11‑29 — both after 16 March 2013 — so AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. The critical date is therefore the effective filing date of 29 November 2017. References publicly available before that date are § 102(a)(1) art; U.S. patents/applications “effectively filed” before it are § 102(a)(2) art.

Claims at issue. All fifteen claims hang off two independents, claim 1 and claim 13, which share the identical three limitations: (i) a cell with a cell body and a protruding electrode tab; (ii) in the height direction (tab‑protrusion axis, direction Y), at least one end of the protective layer extends beyond an anode electrode, by no more than 3 mm; and (iii) the protective layer is a laminate of a first binding sub‑layer and an isolation sub‑layer, bound to the cell through the first binding sub‑layer. Note (as flagged in the earlier section) that “anode” in this specification means the negative electrode — the copper‑foil current collector whose die‑cut burrs the patent is trying to shroud. Limitation (iii) and the “anode” identity of limitation (ii) are the two that do the discriminating work against the cited art.

2. Reference A — the citation of record

2.1 US 2011/0159344 A1 — Kobayashi et al., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0159344 A1, Non‑aqueous electrolyte secondary cell, Kobayashi et al., assigned to Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (Osaka, JP).
• Filing date: 23 December 2010 (U.S. App. No. 12/977,934, per the JP 2011‑138632 A5 cross‑reference table).
• Publication date: 30 June 2011. Earliest priority 25 December 2009 (JP).
• Family: JP 2011‑138632 A (published 14 July 2011); CN 102110845 A; KR 10‑2011‑0074702 A. The JP publication is cited in at least one third‑party search report as the family representative: “… JP 2011‑138632 A (Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.), 14 July 2011, & US 2011/0159344 A1 & CN 102110845 A & KR 10‑2011‑0074702 A.”
  • https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110159344A1/
  • https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20110159344
• Status as art: § 102(a)(1) (published 2011‑06‑30, well before 2017‑11‑29) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. application effectively filed 2010‑12‑23).
• Brief description: A cylindrical non‑aqueous (lithium‑ion) secondary cell in which an insulation adhesive tape is applied on the positive electrode, covering the positive‑electrode current‑collector tab and spanning the boundary between the core‑exposed portion and the positive active‑material layer, to prevent burrs on the (die‑cut) aluminium core from piercing the separator and micro‑shorting. The tape is expressly a laminate: a base material plus a glue material containing an adhesive main agent. The invention's point is a glue chemistry criterion (peak intensity ratio I(C=O)/I(C−H) ≤ 0.01 by IR) that suppresses a side reaction in which glue carbonyl groups generate an organic acid that elutes transition metal from the cathode. Tape 1 was a polyimide base with a butyl‑rubber main agent; Example 1's tape was stated to be “2.7 mm higher and 2.5 mm wider than the core exposed portion 3b,” with a 25 µm base material. The reference also states the relevant background: “[S]ince a severe reaction may occur due to short circuit at the area where the core exposed portion of the positive electrode faces the negative electrode active material layer via the separator, an insulation adhesive tape is sometimes applied on the positive electrode in the above area,” and that “it has been performed that an insulation adhesive tape is applied on the positive electrode collector tab to cover the burr.”

§ 102 anticipation mapping (claim 1 / claim 13):

Conclusion for Reference A. Kobayashi is not § 102 anticipating art for claim 1 or claim 13 — or, a fortiori, for any dependent claim — because every dependent claim incorporates an unanticipated claim 1. The failure is narrow and specific: the tape is placed on the cathode (aluminium), whereas the '706 claims require overshoot relative to the anode (the copper‑foil negative electrode the patent identifies as the burr source). Everything else in claim 1 — the laminate architecture, the adhesive face against the electrode, the bound‑to‑cell relationship, and even a 2.5–2.7 mm overshoot that sits squarely inside the “no more than 3 mm” window — is disclosed. Kobayashi is therefore the most relevant § 103 reference on the '706 record, and the obviousness question would reduce to whether moving/duplicating the same tape onto the negative electrode (or wrapping the jelly‑roll with it) was obvious — an argument made easier by the fact that Kobayashi itself notes the tape and burr problem is generic to the die‑cut electrode edge, and by claim 1's own breadth (claim 1 does not even require the layer to be on the cell's outer surface — only dependents 4 and 5 add placement).

3. References B — family‑level citations (not confirmed against the '706)

These six appear under “Family Cites Families (6).” I analyse each for completeness, but each must be treated as lower‑tier than Reference A: I have no record showing any of them was cited against US 10,971,706 or applied in its prosecution.

B1. US 2012/0171535 A1 — Fuyuan Ma

• Citation: U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0171535 A1, Nickel‑zinc battery and manufacturing method thereof, Fuyuan Ma.
• Dates: published 5 July 2012; priority 31 December 2010.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as to the 2017‑11‑29 critical date.
• Description: Nickel‑zinc secondary battery chemistry and manufacturing; concerns electrode/separator stack construction and dendrite/electrolyte management, not pouch‑piercing by anode burrs.
• § 102 relevance: None for claims 1/13. It does not disclose a two‑sub‑layer protective laminate bound to a cell through a binding sub‑layer, nor a ≤3 mm overshoot beyond an anode electrode in the height direction. Wrong chemistry and wrong problem; at most background art under § 102(a)(1).

B2. CN 203218387 U — Dongguan Amperex Technology Ltd (“ATL”)

• Citation: CN 203218387 U, A lithium‑ion battery structure (一种锂离子电池结构), Dongguan Amperex Technology Ltd.
• Dates: filed 22 March 2013; published 25 September 2013.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a)(1) — Chinese utility‑model publication, publicly available before 2017‑11‑29. (A CN utility model is not § 102(a)(2) art because § 102(a)(2) reaches only U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and PCT applications designating the U.S.)
• Description: A lithium‑ion battery structure from the applicant's own affiliate — the family table indicates it concerns cell/battery structural packaging.
• § 102 relevance: I could not retrieve the full text, so I will not assert a limitation‑by‑limitation mapping. On the descriptive metadata alone it is generic battery‑structure art; absent a disclosure of a laminated binding/isolation protective layer overshooting an anode by ≤3 mm, it is not anticipatory. Worth noting only because it is common‑ownership/self‑citation material (ATL‑affiliated), which is a § 103(c)/attribution consideration rather than a § 102 one. Flagging this as unverified.

B3. CN 203733893 U — Ningde Amperex Technology Limited (the applicant itself)

• Citation: CN 203733893 U, Lithium ion secondary battery, Ningde Amperex Technology Limited.
• Dates: filed 6 January 2014; published 23 July 2014.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a)(1).
• Description: The patent owner's own earlier utility model on lithium‑ion cell construction. This is the most likely candidate among the family citations for containing the conceptual germ of the '706 (electrode assembly, insulating/wrapping member).
• § 102 relevance: Cannot be assessed without the text. I did not retrieve it in this session and will not fabricate a claim mapping. Its significance is principally that self‑citation of a 2014 utility model by the same assignee raises the possibility of the '706 claims being an obvious refinement of the applicant's own prior work — a § 103 posture, not a § 102 one. Unverified.

B4. KR 101465164 B1 — LG Chem

• Citation: KR 101465164 B1, Cable‑Type Secondary Battery, LG Chem.
• Dates: filed 7 May 2013; granted 25 November 2014.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a)(1) (Korean patent publication).
• Description: Cable‑type (linear, non‑pouch) secondary battery — a coated/wrapped elongate cell. It places a polymer covering over the electrode assembly, but for form‑factor reasons rather than burr/pouch‑piercing reasons.
• § 102 relevance: None as anticipation. No pouch, no anode‑burr rationale, no ≤3 mm height‑direction overshoot parameter. Background art at most.

B5. CN 105355956 B — Guangdong Zhuguang New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

• Citation: CN 105355956 B, Electrochemical cell and preparation method thereof, Guangdong Zhuguang New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
• Dates: filed 16 October 2015; B‑publication 19 January 2018.
• § 102 basis: Questionable — this is the one entry with a date problem. The grant publication date (2018‑01‑19) falls after the '706 effective filing date (2017‑11‑29), so it is not § 102(a)(1) art as published. Because it is a Chinese national document, it also cannot be § 102(a)(2) art. Its only hope of being prior art is the earlier A‑publication of the same application (typically ~18 months from the 2015‑10‑16 filing, i.e. mid‑2016, which would pre‑date 2017‑11‑29), or a U.S./PCT counterpart designating the U.S. I have not verified either. Treat its prior‑art status as unresolved and needing a family‑lookup check before it is relied on.
• Description / § 102 relevance: electrochemical cell plus method of making it. No mapping attempted; not anticipatory on the metadata.

B6. CN 205488388 U — Dongguan Amperex Technology Ltd (“ATL”)

• Citation: CN 205488388 U, Lithium ion battery cell, Dongguan Amperex Technology Ltd.
• Dates: filed 18 March 2016; published 17 August 2016.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a)(1). This is the closest‑dated family citation: ~15 months before the '706 critical date, and from the same corporate group as the applicant.
• Description: A “lithium ion battery cell” utility model — cell‑level structural subject matter, the class of document most likely to show an insulating tape/film applied to a jelly‑roll.
• § 102 relevance: Not verifiable from what I retrieved. I flag it as the highest‑priority document to pull if one wants to test the '706 claims against the applicant's own pre‑2017 work. As with B3, the likely theory is § 103 (obvious refinement of the applicant's own cell construction), not § 102. Unverified — do not cite as anticipating without reading it.

4. Art used against related family members (context; NOT in the '706 record)

This is not part of the '706 citation record and I do not assert it was ever cited against the '706 — but it is the art CosMX actually deployed against the sibling patents from the same 2022 complaint, and it overlaps the '706's technical problem almost exactly. It is therefore useful for a diligence/validity‑risk view.

• Kobayashi (US 2011/0159344) again — in CosMX's IPR papers it appears as Ex. 1006, relied on for the proposition that “to solve the problem of a burr puncturing a separator, ‘it has been performed that an insulation adhesive tape is applied on the positive electrode collector tab to cover the burr’” and that “since a severe reaction may occur due to short circuit at the area where the core exposed portion of the positive electrode faces the negative electrode active material layer via the separator, an insulation adhesive tape is sometimes applied on the positive electrode in the above area.” This confirms that the single reference on the '706 face is treated by adverse counsel as the key teaching in this family's field.
• CN 202839841 U (Zhou) — listed in CosMX's exhibit list as Ex. 1013; described in CosMX's briefing as disclosing “forming a notch in the edge of an electrode plate to remove electrode burrs on the current collector.” That is the same failure mode the '706 addresses by shrouding rather than notching. CosMX's stipulation in the related IPR expressly named Deng, Zhou, Kobayashi, and Hasegawa as the ground set it would not pursue in district court if review were instituted. I did not retrieve citations for “Deng” or “Hasegawa” (other than the name), so I cannot analyse them.
• Caveat: These documents are directed at US 11,329,352 and/or US 10,833,363 and related patents, not at US 10,971,706. I also could not confirm that any IPR petition was ever filed against the '706 or its continuation US 11,664,501. Do not represent Zhou/Deng/Hasegawa as citations on the '706.

5. Bottom line on § 102

1. No reference on the record of US 10,971,706 anticipates any claim. Claim 1 is the analytic gate, and no cited reference discloses all three of: (a) cell body + protruding tab; (b) protective layer overshooting an anode electrode by ≤ 3 mm in the height direction; and (c) the binding‑sub‑layer/isolation‑sub‑layer laminate bound to the cell via the binding sub‑layer. Since every dependent claim (2–12) and battery claims 14–15 incorporate claim 1's limitations, none is anticipated either.
2. The single examiner‑cited reference, Kobayashi (US 2011/0159344 A1, pub. 2011‑06‑30), is the most relevant prior art and is very close. It discloses the laminated adhesive tape (polyimide base + butyl‑rubber glue, adhesive face against the electrode), a 2.5–2.7 mm overshoot that is inside the claimed ≤3 mm range, and the identical burr‑punctures‑the‑separator rationale. Anticipation fails only because the tape is on the positive electrode rather than the anode/negative electrode — a one‑element gap that is a § 103 question, not a § 102 one.
3. The family‑level citations (US 2012/0171535 A1; CN 203218387 U; KR 101464164 B1 — read literally as KR 101465164 B1; CN 203733893 U; CN 105355956 B; CN 205488388 U) do not anticipate on the material I could verify, and I was unable to retrieve full texts for the CN/KR utility models in this session. Two of them (CN 203733893 U and CN 205488388 U) are the applicant's own pre‑2017 documents and are the most valuable to read for § 103 exposure. CN 105355956 B has a date problem — its B‑publication (2018‑01‑19) post‑dates the '706 priority date, and its status depends on an unverified A‑publication or U.S./PCT counterpart.
4. § 102(a)(2) note: none of the Chinese or Korean documents can be § 102(a)(2) art; they operate only as § 102(a)(1) printed publications, and only if their publication predates 2017‑11‑29.

Confidence ledger: High confidence on the identity of the sole citation of record (US 2011/0159344 A1) and on Kobayashi's disclosure and dates (corroborated across Google Patents, Patents‑Encyclopedia, a third‑party search report, and CosMX's IPR exhibits). High confidence on the § 102 framework and the claim‑1 limitation set. Low confidence / explicitly unverified: the full texts and therefore the claim‑by‑claim relevance of the six family‑cited CN/KR references (B2–B6); whether any of them was cited against the '706 rather than a family member; the prior‑art status of CN 105355956 B; and any IPR filing directed at the '706 itself. I did not obtain the '706 file wrapper, so I cannot confirm examiner‑versus‑applicant provenance for the single citation.

I'll research the prior-art references listed on this patent's page before building the § 103 analysis.

Good material on the examiner-cited Sanyo reference and two Chinese references. Let me pull the remaining prior-art-section references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,971,706 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note: This section builds on the earlier claim/bibliography summary and does not repeat it. All claim language is quoted from the grant text. Prior-art content is drawn from the Prior Art section of the US 10,971,706 Google Patents page (i.e., Patents Cited, Family Cites Families, Similar Documents, Cited By), supplemented where the search returned substantive text. Where I could not retrieve or verify a reference's content or date within the search budget, I say so rather than characterizing it.

A. Threshold issues that control the whole analysis

A.1 Applicable law. The application was filed 2018‑10‑31 with a 2017‑11‑29 Chinese priority, i.e. entirely post‑AIA. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 103 (as amended) govern. Any reference published before 2017‑11‑29, or an application published/effective-filed before that date, is available as prior art.

A.2 Claim construction choices that matter for art mapping.

1. "anode electrode" = the negative electrode. The specification is explicit that the defect at issue is on the anode current collector: "the thinned collector current is prone to become a sharp corner…" and "there is a burr on the die-cut surface of the anode current collector… the anode copper foil is in contact with the aluminum layer…." Copper foil identifies the anode as the negative electrode (Chinese usage). Claim 1's overshoot is therefore measured against the negative electrode, not the positive.
2. "height direction of the cell" = the tab‑protrusion axis (direction Y); "width direction" (direction X) is perpendicular to it. As flagged in the earlier summary, the Abstract calls this axis the "length direction" — a drafting inconsistency that, under the broadest reasonable reading, does not change the geometric mapping, only confirms the axis is the tab axis.
3. Claim 1 is location‑silent. Claim 1 does not require the layer to sit on a width‑direction side, nor on the outermost surface, nor on both sides. Those are added only by claims 2–5, 14–15. Claim 1 therefore requires only: (i) cell = body + tab; (ii) a protective layer whose at least one end overshoots the anode by >0 and ≤3 mm along the tab axis; and (iii) that layer is a two‑sublayer laminate (binding + isolation) adhered to the cell via the binding sublayer.

That third element is the narrowest structural hook in claim 1, and — as shown below — it is squarely met by the examiner's own cited reference.

B. The prior-art universe on this page, dated

Documents that are NOT prior art — do not use: the Cited By entry US 12,633,486 B2 (Milwaukee Electric Tool, 2026); all seven Families Citing this family entries (CN 118588948 A, CN 111211279 A, CN 210040423 U, EP 4131541 A4, CN 116368657 B, WO 2023/216223 A1, CN 119650881 A); and the post‑2017 Similar Documents (US 12,255,290 B2, US 2022/0263110 A1, US 2020/0028127 A1, EP 4243177 B1, KR 2023‑0085534 A, EP 4411909 A1, US 2023/0116555 A1, CN 113924674 B, US 2024/0429563 A1). Critically, US 11,664,501 B2 — the continuation of this very family — appears in the Similar Documents list but cannot be prior art: it shares the 2017‑11‑29 priority and the same inventors/assignee. A challenger who cites the '501 patent against the '706 patent fails on § 102(b)(2)(C)/common ownership.

C. Claim 1 — element mapping

Result: claim 1 reads on US 2011/0159344 A1 except for the anode (negative‑electrode) orientation and the precision of the ≤3 mm overshoot relative to the anode. Both are bridgeable and are the crux of the § 103 case.

D. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — US 2011/0159344 A1 alone (or with Official Notice)

Why it nearly anticipates, and how § 103 completes it. The reference's own claim 1 recites the physical laminate ("tape composed of a base material and a glue material") and its application to the electrode (¶[0015]); its inventive contribution is confined to an IR absorbance ratio (I(C=O)/I(C‑H) ≤ 0.01) for the glue. That means the structural subject matter of '706 claim 1 is admitted art within the four corners of the reference, and the examiner's citation of it strongly suggests a rejection premised on exactly this reading. The gap — the tape being on the positive electrode rather than the anode — is closed by:

• the reference's own acknowledgement that the very same problem (burr‑driven internal short) is a die‑cut/edge phenomenon regardless of polarity: ¶[0023] ("when the positive electrode collector tab is covered with the insulation adhesive tape, it is possible to prevent the occurrence of internal short circuit due to a burr"); and
• the reference's statement that the glue‑side‑reaction problem "does not occur when the insulating adhesive tape is applied on the negative electrode current collector tab or the outermost of the spiral electrode assembly in order to prevent an unwinding." The reference thus contemplates and approves adhesion of the same tape to the negative‑electrode side.

Net: applying a base/adhesive laminate tape to the negative electrode of a wound cell, sized to overhang the electrode edge by ≲3 mm, is taught or at minimum suggested, with a reasonable expectation of success. This is a classic KSR "known element, known function, predictable result" predicate.

Ground 2 — US 2011/0159344 A1 in view of CN 203218387 U (primary obviousness combination)

Proposed rejection. Combine the Sanyo adhesive laminate tape (Ground 1) with CN 203218387 U's teaching that the burrs are concentrated in a narrow edge band of 1.5–3 mm running along the electrode cutting edges, and that a protective structure should be dimensioned to cover that band.

Why a POSITA would combine them.

• Same field, same problem. Both are lithium‑ion cell edge‑protection disclosures aimed at burr‑induced internal short/self‑discharge (CN 203218387 U's stated purpose: "可以有效减少毛刺刺穿隔离膜的风险，降低电芯由于毛刺引起的自放电现象").
• Complementary teachings. Sanyo supplies the protective layer structure (base + adhesive); CN 203218387 U supplies the quantitative insight that the burr field occupies the outer 1.5–3 mm at the cut edge — exactly the ≤3 mm overshoot claimed.
• Reasonable expectation of success. Both disclosures report the same desired outcome (suppression of edge burr shorting) with no unpredictable interaction between an adhesive tape and an edge band.
• Design incentive / obvious to try. KSR: a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; here the band width is literally disclosed as 1.5–3 mm, and the claimed limit "no more than 3 mm" merely caps the disclosed band.

This combination is the strongest single ground against claim 1 because it independently supplies the ≤3 mm figure and the "cover the cut edge" rationale.

Ground 3 — Ground 2 further in view of US 2006/0154138 A1 and/or CN 203733893 U (laminate architecture and thickness)

• US 2006/0154138 A1 (surfaced in the same search as the cited Sanyo line; publication date and assignee not fully verified by me) discloses insulating tape having "a thermally activated adhesive layer that develops adhesiveness at a predetermined temperature or more … on the face of the base material … opposite to the face on which the adhesive layer is provided" — i.e., a two‑adhesive‑layer tape — and states "the thickness of the adhesive layer … is 10 µm or less and … the total thickness of the insulating tape is 15 µm or more and 30 µm or less." Both are directly on point.
• This is the natural secondary reference for claim 6 (second binding sub‑layer on the side of the isolation sub‑layer remote from the first binding sub‑layer) and for claim 8 (protective layer 3–40 µm).

Motivation. Double‑sided adhesive tapes are ubiquitous; US 2006/0154138 A1 supplies the express mechanism (a second adhesive face to anchor the layer, here to the opposing turn/pouch). The 3–40 µm claim is a range optimization over an expressly disclosed 15–30 µm tape thickness — In re Aller / In re Wertheim: a range overlapping and encompassing a disclosed sub‑range, directed to the result‑effective variable of space/insulation, with no unexpected result asserted in the specification. The patent's own text confirms the thickness is chosen for a mundane reason — "in order to reduce the space occupied by the protective layer" — which is prima facie obviousness.

CN 203733893 U supplies the alternative for claims 6/13: bonding the assembly's outer surface to the pouch inner surface via an adhesive layer (claim 1; thickness 0.1–1000 µm, dependent claim 2: 1–100 µm). This is the reference to pair with the primary for the "second binding sub‑layer binds the pouch" embodiment described in the '706 specification.

Ground 4 — Ground 2 in view of US 2013/0052510 A1 (Sanyo) and/or US 2009/0246637 A1 (Sanyo) — placement on the width‑direction sides with height overshoot (claims 2, 4, 5, 14)

• US 2013/0052510 A1 (Sanyo, published 2013; assignee/labels consistent with the Sanyo line) discloses tape pieces at four edges of a laminated electrode assembly, each "extend[ing] from the top layer, across the end face, and reach[ing] the bottom layer," with a base material (SBR/styrene/butadiene rubber, 20 µm) and an acrylate ester copolymer adhesive layer (10 µm). That is structurally the "protective layer on both sides in the width direction, both ends extending beyond the anode" of claim 2 and the "covers the outermost surface" of claim 4, and it supplies chemistry for claim 7.
• US 2009/0246637 A1 (Sanyo) discloses insulating tapes (22A/22B) affixed to both end portions of the positive electrode plate, with base materials from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, nylon, PVC, PTFE, polyimide, PPS, and acrylic/silicone/rubber adhesives — again feeding claim 7's chemistries.

Motivation. These are the same assignee's own teachings about where on the electrode assembly to adhere protective tape to suppress burr shorting at the cut edges/end faces; combining them with Sanyo's tape chemistry and CN 203218387 U's edge dimension is a straightforward substitution of known tape placements with predictable results.

Ground 5 — Grounds 1–4 in view of US 2012/0028091 A1 (Samsung SDI; pub. 2012‑02‑02) — outermost coverage and post‑winding placement

US 2012/0028091 A1 discloses a protection tape covering a seam of a wound electrode assembly, the base of the tabs, and the bottom and side surfaces, expressly to "suppress[] and/or compensat[e] for … burr[s]" after pressing the jelly roll, and teaches adherence "through adhesion or through heat contraction." This supports:

• claim 4 ("covers the outermost surface of the cell body") and the specification's stated advantage that the layer may be applied after the cell is processed ("the former arrangement is simpler");
• claim 3's split‑portion variant (a first portion at the tab/top side and a third portion at the bottom, with the middle left free), which is a design choice once the tape is understood to be needed only where burrs and corners concentrate.

Ground 6 — Claims 13–15 (secondary battery): add a pouch/laminate‑film reference

Claim 13 is claim 1's subject matter plus "a package bag." Reference the pouch‑cell disclosures in the page's Similar Documents list — KR 101446150 B1 ("Pouch secondary battery and method for manufacturing the same"), KR 2014‑0032710 A ("Method for preparing pouch‑type secondary battery"), KR 101308242 B1 ("Pouch type secondary battery") — all pre‑2017 filings. Caveat: I did not retrieve their texts, so I list them as candidates to be verified and do not assert specific disclosures. The multi‑layer aluminum‑plastic pouch itself is conventional and is described in the '706 specification as routine ("the package bag 3 is usually of a multi‑layer structure"). Claims 14 and 15 are mere mirrors of claims 2 and 3 in the battery context and fall with them.

E. Dependent claims

F. Why the combination is motivated — the KSR/MPEP 2143 argument in one place

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. All primary and secondary references address suppressing internal short circuits, micro‑short/self‑discharge, and (in the '706 framing) pouch puncture, arising from burrs/sharp corners at electrode die‑cut edges of a wound or stacked non‑aqueous lithium‑ion cell. MPEP 2144.01.
2. Known technique, known function, predictable result. Adhesive polymer tape bonded to an electrode assembly is ancient (Sanyo's own ¶¶[0009]–[0012] describe it as admitted prior art). Adding an insulating polymer layer interposed between a cell and a pouch is a mechanical isolation function with no chemical coupling to the cell's electrochemistry — precisely the KSR "predictable variation."
3. Express numerical direction. Sanyo's 2.7 mm overhang and CN 203218387 U's 1.5–3 mm edge band point directly to the claimed "no more than 3 mm." A claimed range that encompasses a disclosed value/range raises a presumption of obviousness absent criticality (In re Peterson, In re Woodruff).
4. "Obvious to try" / finite solutions. Once the layer is placed along a cut electrode edge, its overhang must exceed the burr field; the only design variables are (a) where the layer sits and (b) how far it overshoots. The references supply the answer for both.
5. Applicant's own admissions. The Background admits thinned collectors create sharp corners that pierce the aluminum‑plastic film and that anode burrs corrode against the aluminum layer. The specification admits the thickness‑direction sides need no protection because hot‑pressing flattens those burrs, and that the top/bottom gaps are large. These admissions define the problem and narrow the notional contribution to the side/edge placement that the art already teaches.

G. The patent owner's best non‑obviousness arguments, and the counter

1. "The art tapes the positive electrode; the claim requires the anode." This is the patentee's strongest point if claim 1 is read to require the layer to bear on the anode specifically. Counter: Sanyo ¶[0023] ties the burr‑short rationale to the tape generically, and Sanyo expressly notes the negative‑electrode/outermost application is unproblematic; the mechanical burr phenomenon is polarity‑independent, so relocating the tape is a predictable substitution of a known element.
2. "The references increase separator thickness; they don't add an extra layer to the pouch side." Counter: CN 203733893 U adds a discrete adhesive layer between cell and pouch; US 2012/0028091 A1 adds discrete protection tapes on the assembly's outer surfaces.
3. "The ≤3 mm limit is critical." Counter: no criticality data appear in the specification; the upper bound is a space/burr‑coverage optimization, and 1.5–3 mm is disclosed. Note, however, that "no more than 3 mm" with no lower bound is broad, and the patent does not explain why 3 mm as opposed to 4 mm is the boundary — a challenger can press that the limit is a result‑effective variable.
4. Teaching away. Sanyo does teach away from putting its glue material on the positive active material (side reactions, ¶¶[0013]–[0017]). That teaching away is polarity‑ and chemistry‑specific and does not reach a base/isolation layer placed on the anode, nor the anode‑facing layer of the '706 claims. Expect this to be litigated but not decisive.
5. Secondary considerations. The '706 specification reports no comparative data, no unexpected results, and no commercial‑success evidence. Given the earlier-noted litigation, a patentee might argue commercial success, but nexus would have to be proven to the claimed layer dimensions — and the earlier summary records that the '706 patent was not among the patents carried to verdict, so it has not been adjudicated on the merits.

H. Confidence ledger for this section

• High confidence: the identity and dates of the examiner citation (US 2011/0159344 A1) and its disclosed base‑material + glue‑material tape, burr rationale (¶[0023]) and 2.7 mm/2.5 mm overhang (¶[0056]); the disclosure content of CN 203218387 U (edge bands 1.5–3 mm, 5–10 µm thicker, burr‑concealment purpose) and CN 203733893 U (adhesive layer cell‑to‑pouch, 0.1–1000 µm; claim 2: 1–100 µm); that US 11,664,501 B2 is same‑family and thus unavailable as art.
• Moderate confidence: the substance of the supplementary Sanyo/Samsung references (US 2013/0052510 A1, US 2009/0246637 A1, US 2012/0028091 A1), whose text I retrieved but whose exact publication dates/assignees I could not all independently verify.
• Low confidence / unverified: US 2006/0154138 A1's assignee and precise publication date (its two‑adhesive‑layer and 15–30 µm thickness teachings are quoted from retrieved text); US 2012/0171535 A1, KR 101465164 B1, CN 105355956 B, CN 205488388 U, and the majority of the pre‑2017 Similar Documents (KR 101446150 B1, KR 2014‑0032710 A, KR 101308242 B1, KR 101619422 B1, etc.). These are candidate references only — I found no text for them and I would not assert what they disclose. The exact publication dates of several Similar Documents shown in the page's tables are as displayed there; I did not independently confirm each.
• Explicit negative: nothing in the page's prior-art section anticipates claim 1 outright; the analysis is a § 103 case built on the ≤3 mm overshoot and the anode orientation as the bridgeable gaps.