Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Patent Battle Heats Up For Lithium Iron Phosphate Batteries

In the world of batteries, Lithium-ion batteries are dominant in laptops, cell phones, and other mobile devices because of their ability to store lots of energy in a small, light package. However, if the batteries are damaged or or experience an internal short, the unstable materials in the battery release oxygen, oxidizing other materials in the battery, which in turn produces more heat. The cycle continues in a process called "thermal runaway," which in some cases can lead to a violent explosion. This is theorized to be the reason for the recent battery recalls for laptop computers.

In the new lithium-ion phosphate batteries, cobalt oxide is replaced with iron phosphate, which is considered to be a much more stable material. Manufacturers of lithium-ion phosphate batteries have even released videos showing batteries getting nails rammed into them without any sort of explosion.

Not surprisingly, these new batteries have started to appear in many industrial applications, and are odds-on favorites as a battery of choice for electric and hybrid vehicles (they're already being used in the Segway). It's estimated that the market for these types of batteries will approach billions in the years to come.

One company that manufactures these and other similar batteries is A123 Systems Inc., which has already released lithium phosphate batteries for use in Black & Decker's new line of DeWalt 36-volt power tools. In the meantime, the Board of Regents of the University of Texas, which owns U.S. Patents 5,910,382 and 6,514,640 (both titled "Cathode materials for secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries") joined Hydro-Quebec, who is the exclusive licensee, in suing A123 Systems, Black & Decker and China BAK Battery, Inc. for allegedly infringing the two patents. The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

There are reports that A123 Systems has already started an offensive of their own on a newly issued patent, but this has not been verified by the 271 Patent Blog.

In the complaint, the Board of Regents claims to have invented the core technology for lithium iron phosphate batteries through the research of Dr. John Goodenough and others within UT's Material Science and Engineering Department. Claim 1 of the '382 patent reads as follows:

Claim 1. A cathode material for a rechargeable electrochemical cell, said cell also comprising an anode and an electrolyte, the cathode comprising a compound having the formula LiMPO4, where M is at least one first-row transition-metal cation.
The Board of Regents is seeking a preliminary injunction, along with unspecified damages. You can view the complaint here.

See MIT article on A123 System's battery technology here.

See patent mapping of A123 System's technology here (January 2006), courtesy of

4 Comentários:

Anonymous said...

Leave it to the patent hoards that patent basic ideas and try to snipe royalties from anyone that makes a real breakthrough!

Anonymous said...

Is this in addition to the claim Hydro Quebec & UT brought against Nippon, Valence Technology,

Has there been any progress in this suit?

The link to the complaint doesnt seem to work - is it still available? Thanks,
BTW - great site.

Anonymous said...

his is straight out of Valences's 10Q...

On January 31, 2007, Valence filed a lawsuit against Phostech Lithium Inc. in the Federal Court in Canada (Valence Technology, Inc. v. Phostech Lithium Inc. Court File No. T-219-07) alleging infringement of Valence Canadian Patent 2,395,115. Subsequently, on April 2, 2007, Valence filed an amended claim alleging infringement of its recently granted Canadian Patents 2,483,918 and 2,466,366. The action is in the initial pleading state. The Company is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for the acts of Phostech in manufacturing, using and selling phosphate cathode material that infringes the asserted Valence Canadian Patents.

On February 14, 2006, Hydro-Quebec filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Hydro-Quebec v. Valence Technology, Civil Action No. A06CA111). In its amended complaint filed April 13, 2006, Hydro-Quebec alleges that Saphion ® Technology, the technology utilized in all of our commercial products, infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,910,382 and 6,514,640 exclusively licensed to Hydro-Quebec. Hydro-Quebec’s complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. The action is in the initial pleading state and we have filed a response denying the allegations in the amended complaint. The action has been stayed by the Court until a final determination by the USPTO in either of the reexaminations of the two University of Texas patents asserted in the case. The USPTO has stated in declaring the two reexaminations that there are serious questions as to the patentability of the two patents.

Anonymous said...

Neither Hydro-Quebec nor the UT Board of Regents will sell me small LiFePO4 batteries. If the function of the patent system is to keep new technology out of the hands of consumers, it's doing a great job!


This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.