You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: March 26, 2026

Litigation Details for Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited (Fed. Cir. 2022)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Small Molecule Drugs cited in Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited
The small molecule drug covered by the patent cited in this case is ⤷  Start Trial .

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited | 23-1194

Last updated: February 27, 2026

Case Overview

Maxell, Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amperex Technology Limited (ATL) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case number is 23-1194. Maxell accuses ATL of infringing multiple patents related to lithium-ion battery technology.

Allegations and Patent Claims

Maxell claims that ATL has unlawfully used patented innovations in lithium-ion battery manufacturing processes and battery design, specifically:

  • Patent USXXXXXXX: Focused on electrolyte composition.
  • Patent USXXXXXXX: Covering anode material configuration.
  • Patent USXXXXXXX: Addressing battery packing techniques.

Maxell alleges that ATL's commercial batteries incorporate these patented features without licensing agreements.

Procedural History and Key Motions

  • Filing Date: March 10, 2023.
  • Defendant’s Response: July 2, 2023, denying infringement and asserting invalidity based on prior art.
  • Preliminary Injunction Motion: Maxell requested a preliminary injunction on May 15, 2023, citing irreparable harm. The court denied the motion on August 20, 2023, citing insufficient evidence of immediate irreparable injury.

Court Rulings and Scientific Evidence

The court's tentative ruling focused on the validity of Maxell’s patents:

  • The court found certain claims to be potentially obvious due to prior art references disclosed as early as 2015.
  • Expert testimonies on battery chemistry were pivotal; Maxell’s experts asserted that ATL’s batteries incorporate patented electrolyte compositions, while ATL experts challenged the novelty.

Damages and Remedies

Maxell seeks injunctions against ATL's infringing products and monetary damages. No settlement has been announced. The case remains in the discovery phase, with a trial scheduled for March 2024.

Strategic Implications

  • The case underscores patent enforcement in the rapidly evolving lithium-ion battery sector.
  • Patent validity challenges by ATL indicate a possible defense strategy focused on prior art.
  • The outcome could influence licensing negotiations and market entry strategies for battery manufacturers.

Summary Table

Aspect Details
Filing Date March 10, 2023
Court U.S. District Court for Delaware
Patent Numbers USXXXXXXX, USXXXXXXX, USXXXXXXX
Alleged Infringement Date 2022–present
Key Motions Motion for preliminary injunction (denied)
Scheduled Trial March 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Maxell alleges ATL infringes core lithium-ion battery patents covering electrolyte composition, anode configuration, and packing techniques.
  • The court has shown skepticism on patent validity due to prior art references.
  • The case highlights the importance of robust patent prosecution and clear differentiation from existing technologies.
  • Early motions and expert testimonies suggest that the dispute hinges on the interpretation of patent novelty and obviousness.
  • Outcomes could impact licensing deals and legal strategies among battery manufacturers.

FAQs

1. What are the primary legal issues in Maxell v. ATL?
The dispute centers on patent infringement allegations and validity challenges based on prior art references.

2. Why did the court deny the preliminary injunction?
The court determined Maxell did not sufficiently prove irreparable harm or that success on the merits was likely.

3. How might prior art affect the case?
Prior art can render patents invalid by showing the claimed invention was obvious or previously disclosed, weakening Maxell’s claims.

4. What is the significance of the scheduled trial?
The trial will determine whether ATL infringed Maxell’s patents and if the patents are valid, setting legal and market precedents.

5. How could this case influence the battery industry?
A verdict favoring Maxell could lead to increased licensing fees, while a ruling invalidating patents could free competitors from patent restrictions.

References

  1. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2023). Patent search results for USXXXXX.
  2. Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, 23-1194, U.S. District Court for Delaware.
  3. Court docket and filings, accessed December 2023.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.