UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE
`BATTERIES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1421
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`SUPPLEMENT ITS NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`
`Ground Rule 5.1 Certification: Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`certifies that it has made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the subject matter
`
`of this motion. On February 5th, Complainants 1 submitted their demonstrative
`
`exhibits to use at the February 6th Markman hearing. The demonstratives disclosed
`
`for the first time Complainants’ reliance on a technical datasheet from Texas
`
`Instruments. On Monday, February 10th, Staff contacted counsel for Complainants
`
`and Respondents2 whether they opposed a motion for leave for Staff to supplement
`
`
`1 As used herein, “Complainants” collectively refers to Complainants Lithium Hub
`LLC, Lithium Hub Technologies, LLC, and Martin Koebler.
`2 As used herein, “Respondents” collectively refers to Respondents Bass Pro Outdoor
`World LLC, Cabela's LLC, Navico Group Americas, LLC, Dragonfly Energy Corp.,
`Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., Renogy New Energy Co., Ltd., RNG
`International Inc., Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd, Shenzhen LiTime Technology
`Co., Ltd, Clean Republic SODO LLC, and MillerTech Energy Solutions LLC.
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE
`BATTERIES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1421
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`SUPPLEMENT ITS NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`
`Ground Rule 5.1 Certification: Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`certifies that it has made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the subject matter
`
`of this motion. On February 5th, Complainants 1 submitted their demonstrative
`
`exhibits to use at the February 6th Markman hearing. The demonstratives disclosed
`
`for the first time Complainants’ reliance on a technical datasheet from Texas
`
`Instruments. On Monday, February 10th, Staff contacted counsel for Complainants
`
`and Respondents2 whether they opposed a motion for leave for Staff to supplement
`
`
`1 As used herein, “Complainants” collectively refers to Complainants Lithium Hub
`LLC, Lithium Hub Technologies, LLC, and Martin Koebler.
`2 As used herein, “Respondents” collectively refers to Respondents Bass Pro Outdoor
`World LLC, Cabela's LLC, Navico Group Americas, LLC, Dragonfly Energy Corp.,
`Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., Renogy New Energy Co., Ltd., RNG
`International Inc., Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd, Shenzhen LiTime Technology
`Co., Ltd, Clean Republic SODO LLC, and MillerTech Energy Solutions LLC.
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`its Notice of Prior Art to include the technical datasheet and one related application
`
`report. That day, counsel for Respondents indicated that they do not oppose Staff’s
`
`motion. On Tuesday, February 11th, the parties met and conferred on the issues but
`
`were unable to reach a resolution. On Wednesday, February 12th, counsel for
`
`Complainants indicated that they intend to oppose Staff’s motion.
`
`* * *
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.15, 210.27(f), Ground Rule 8 (Order No. 2), and
`
`the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 6), Staff hereby moves for leave to supplement
`
`its Notice of Prior Art to identify two additional references: (1) the technical datasheet
`
`for Texas Instruments part number bq76PL536 (“TI Datasheet”), which was
`
`identified for the first time and affirmatively relied upon by Complainants at the
`
`Markman hearing and (2) a related application report (“Application Report”), which
`
`explains how to implement the bq76PL536 part described in the TI Datasheet in a
`
`multi-cell lithium-ion battery management system.3
`
`Staff should not have been forced to bring this motion over Complainants’
`
`opposition. First, in Staff’s view, supplementation of its Notice of Prior Art is
`
`unnecessary,4 as the TI Datasheet is already part of the record. It was submitted to
`
`the Court and discussed by the parties at the Markman hearing. As the document is
`
`already part of the record, Staff believes all parties should be permitted to rely on it
`
`
`3 Staff’s proposed Supplemental Notice of Prior Art is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`4 Staff believes this motion is, nonetheless, appropriate to forestall later disputes
`over the parties’ reliance on the references and to ensure a complete record.
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`in connection with their disclosed claims and defenses. During discussions with the
`
`private parties, however, if became clear to the Staff that despite this prior use there
`
`might be later opposition if the Staff or another party sought to rely on this document.
`
`Second, Complainants have no basis to cry foul, as it was Complainants who first
`
`identified the TI Datasheet and chose to affirmatively rely upon it in connection with
`
`claim construction issues. Complainants should not be permitted to have it both
`
`ways.
`
`As explained in detail below, good cause exists to grant this motion. Staff was
`
`diligent in locating and identifying prior art. Further, any alleged prejudice has been
`
`allayed by Complainants’ affirmative reliance on the document.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Deadline for Filing Notice of Prior Art
`On September 12, 2025, Complainants filed a Complaint alleging violations of
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. EDIS ID No.
`
`832145. Complainants allege that Respondents’ accused products infringe one or
`
`more claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,412,994 and U.S. Patent No. 9,954,207 (collectively,
`
`the “Asserted Patents”). See id.
`
`On November 6, 2024, the parties submitted a Joint Proposed Procedural
`
`Schedule with two disputed issues, one being the deadline for filing the notice of prior
`
`art. See EDIS ID No. 836498 at 3-6. Complainants and Staff jointly proposed an
`
`earlier date in order to ensure adequate notice but contemplated the need for
`
`supplementation as the factual record developed. Indeed, Complainants represented:
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`[A]n earlier deadline is not likely to result in unnecessary motions
`practice regarding amendment of the Notice of Prior Art. If
`Respondents identify prior art during discovery that could not
`have been known by Respondents or identified at the deadline,
`Respondents would have the requisite good cause, and any such
`motion would appropriately be unopposed.
`Id. at 4. Ultimately, the Court required the parties to file their notice of prior art on
`
`January 15, 2025 – a date in between that proposed by (1) Complainants and Staff
`
`and (2) Respondents. See Order No. 6 at 2.
`
`B. Respondents’ Identification and Production of Prior Art
`Respondents have identified and produced a significant amount of prior art in
`
`this investigation. To Staff’s knowledge, Respondents’ production of prior art spans
`
`six volumes totaling over 10,000 pages.
`
`Among Respondents’ prior art production is a thesis by Heidi Fisk & Johan
`
`Leijgard, entitled, “A Battery Management Unit” (June 2010) (Masters Thesis,
`
`Chalmers University of Technology) (“Fisk Article”), which Respondents produced as
`
`RESP1421_00002675-2734. The Fisk Article, in turn, references the Texas
`
`Instrument component described in the TI Datasheet. RESP1421_00002675 at 2714.
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 6), Respondents filed their
`
`notice of prior art on January 15th, identifying, inter alia, the Fisk Article.
`
`Respondents’ notice of prior art, however, did not identify the TI Datasheet.
`
`C. Staff’s Identification and Production of Prior Art
`Since the institution of this Investigation, Staff has diligently investigated,
`
`identified, and produced relevant and non-duplicative prior art. On December 13,
`
`2024, Staff made its first production of prior art, producing an excerpt from a textbook
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosing the back-to-back FET configuration claimed by the Asserted Patents. See
`
`Ex. 2 at 1. On January 15, 2025, Staff made a second production of prior art,
`
`producing six additional references that disclosed various aspects of battery
`
`management systems known in the prior art. See Ex. 3 at 1.
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 6), Staff filed its notice of prior
`
`art on January 15th, identifying, inter alia, the foregoing produced documents and
`
`incorporating Respondents’ production and identification of prior art by reference.
`
`D. Complainants’ Identification of and Reliance on the TI Datasheet
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 7.3, Complainants produced its demonstrative
`
`exhibits they intended to present at the Markman hearing on February 5th. EDIS ID
`
`No. 842700. Slide eleven of Complainants’ presentation relied on the TI Datasheet
`
`that Staff seeks to add to its Notice of Prior Art:
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`5
`
`
`
`See id. at slide 11. At the Markman hearing, counsel for Complainants presented
`
`this slide and specifically relied on the TI Datasheet for purportedly demonstrating
`
`that off-the-shelf components capable of performing the claims cell balancing and
`
`cutoff function were known in the art.
`
`E. Staff’s Proposed Supplemental Notice of Prior Art
`Through this motion, Staff seeks leave to supplement its Notice of Prior Art to
`
`identify two additional references: (1) the TI Datasheet, discussed above, and (2) a
`
`related Application Report, which, as mentioned, explains how to implement the part
`
`described in the TI Datasheet in a multi-cell lithium-ion battery management system.
`
`Staff first became aware of the TI Datasheet in connection with the Markman
`
`hearing, when Complainants included it in their slide presentation. Staff located the
`
`Application Report for the first time on Monday, February 12th, in connection with its
`
`investigation of the Fisk Article and the TI Datasheet.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Notices of prior art are governed by Ground Rule 8, which, inter alia, requires
`
`parties to provide formal notice of alleged prior art references and precludes a party
`
`from introducing into evidence at the hearing any prior art reference not identified
`
`in its notice, absent a showing of good cause. See Order No. 2 at 14-15. “The harm
`
`from late disclosure of [a new] theory is self-evident as it deprives [the opposing party]
`
`of an ability to develop contrary evidence and argument at the proper point in the
`
`investigation.” Certain Mobile Devices with Multifunction Emulators, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-1170, Order No. 13, at 2 (May 6, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Good cause exists to grant this motion. In this Investigation, Staff has been
`
`diligent in investigating, identifying, and producing relevant and non-duplicative
`
`prior art. Staff’s investigation of relevant and non-duplicative prior art resulted in
`
`the identification and production of seven references beyond the voluminous
`
`productions of Respondents. See Exs. 2-3. Staff’s investigation also included
`
`numerous hours reviewing the parties’ respective productions, including
`
`Respondents’ production of prior art. Despite its diligence, Staff was unaware of TI
`
`Datasheet prior to Complainants’ submission of its demonstrative exhibits.
`
`Moreover, Complainants cannot (and to date have not) identified any alleged
`
`prejudice by Staff’s addition of these two discrete and related prior art references.
`
`For example, Complainants cannot allege insufficient notice. Respondents included
`
`the Fisk Article in their notice or prior art. While Respondents did not specifically
`
`identify the TI Datasheet, Complainants obviously have become aware of it and its
`
`relevancy, as Complainants themselves put the TI Datasheet at play, by affirmatively
`
`relying on and highlighting the relevancy of the TI Datasheet during the Markman
`
`hearing. Thus, any alleged prejudice has been allayed by Complainants’ affirmative
`
`reliance on the TI Datasheet. Indeed, Complainants’ reliance on the TI Datasheet
`
`was in rebuttal to Respondents’ allegations that the claims of the Asserted Patents
`
`are
`
`indefinite—a significant and patent-invalidating
`
`issue.
`
` Accordingly,
`
`Complainants were afforded the opportunity to develop contrary evidence and did in
`
`fact make contrary arguments concerning the TI Datasheet. C.f., Certain Mobile
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Devices with Multifunction Emulators, Inv. No. 337-TA-1170, Order No. 13, at 2 (May
`
`6, 2020) (Late disclosed theories present harm where “it deprives [the opposing party]
`
`of an ability to develop contrary evidence and argument at the proper point in the
`
`investigation.”).
`
`The highly relevant nature of the TI Datasheet (and the related Application
`
`Report) cannot be questioned. Respondents properly identified the Fisk Article in its
`
`notice of prior art; Complainants raised the underlying TI Datasheet the day prior to
`
`the Markman hearing; and the Court identified the significance of the TI Datasheet
`
`at the Markman hearing. Indeed, the Court itself questioned at the Markman
`
`hearing whether it could decide the claim construction issues presented without the
`
`benefit of an evidentiary record that addressed the TI Datasheet. While Staff stands
`
`by its position that the claim construction disputes can be resolved without a more
`
`complete evidentiary record on the TI Datasheet, there can be no doubt the datasheet
`
`is relevant to the claim construction disputes presented by the parties. Moreover, the
`
`two references implicated by Staff’s motion are relevant for purposes of invalidity,
`
`particularly in light of Complainants’ admissions at the claim construction hearing
`
`regarding what the TI Datasheet discloses. For example, Complainants’ counsel
`
`argued that the TI Datasheet evidenced that balancing boards with cutoff functions—
`
`elements of the Asserted Patents—were known in the art as off-the-shelf components.
`
`At bottom, there is ripe dispute as to whether the TI Datasheet is properly in
`
`the record for purposes of invalidity. Staff respectfully submits that this dispute
`
`should be resolved now at least for purposes of judicial efficiency to forestall later
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`disputes over the parties’ reliance on the references, before the parties have more
`
`significantly relied on the references, for example, through expert opinions.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, for good cause shown, Staff respectfully requests that the ALJ
`
`grant it leave to supplement its Notice of Prior Art as presented in Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 13, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan A. Schmid
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`Anne Goalwin, Supervisory Attorney
`Ryan A. Schmid, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Email: Ryan.Schmid@usitc.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE RE NOPA
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1421
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Complainants LithiumHub,
`LLC, Lithiumhub Technologies, LLC, and
`Martin Koebler
`
`Paul M. Bartkowski
`Thomas R. Burns, Jr.
`BARTKOWSKI PLLC
`6803 Whittier Ave., Suite 200A
`McLean, VA 22101
`
`Timothy F. Williams
`Scott A. Cole
`Mark H. Johnson
`DORITY & MANNING LLP
`Two Liberty Square
`75 Beattie Place, Suite 1100
`Greenville, SC 29601
`
`Nicole S. Cunningham
`Steven A. Moore
`Helen Zhang
`DORITY & MANNING LLP
`2869 Historic Decatur Road
`San Diego, CA 92106
`
`Counsel for Respondents Dragonfly
`Energy Corp. and Dragonfly Energy
`Holdings Corp.
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on February 13, 2025, as
`indicated, on the following:
`
`
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Email
`LithiumHub-337@bartkowskipllc.com
`LITH-ITC@dority-manning.com
`
`
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Elizabeth A. DiMarco
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`John S. Harmon
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Counsel for Respondent Navico Group
`Americas, LLC
`
`Matthew J. Hertko
`JONES DAY
`110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Counsel for Respondents Bass Pro
`Outdoor World LLC and Cabela’s LLC
`
`William D. Cramer
`Clark Hill PLC
`901 Main Street, Suite 6000
`Dallas, TX 75202
`
`Peter J. Chassman
`REED SMITH LLP
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`Christopher J. Pulido
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Counsel for Respondents Renogy New
`Energy Co., LTD and RNG International
`Inc.
`
`Brian R. Nester
`Jessica C. Hill
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`
`
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Electronic Mail
`WGS-Dragonfly-
`ITC1421@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Email
`NavicoITC1421@jonesday.com
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Email
`BassCabela-ITC@reedsmith.com
`ITC1421@ClarkHill.com
`
`
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Email
`JHill@cov.com;
`COV-ITC-Renogy@cov.com
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:1407) First Class Mail
`(cid:1407) Hand Delivery
`(cid:1407) Overnight Delivery
`(cid:1407) EDIS
`(cid:1409) USITC Box
`(cid:1409) Email
`LIPPES-ITC-1421@lippes.com
`
`
`
`Thomas E. Garten
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`Salesforce Tower
`415 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
`
`Ruixue Ran
`Sheng Huang
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`2301 Tower C Yintai
`Centre 2 Jianguomenwai Avenue
`Chaoyang Dist., Beijing 100022
`
`Counsel for Respondents Shenzhen Fbtech
`Electronics LTD.; Shenzhen LiTime
`Technology Co., LTD; MillerTech Energy
`Solutions LLC; Clean Republic SODO
`LLC; and Relion Battery (Shenzhen)
`Technology Co.
`
`Tony V. Pezzano, Esq.
`Jude A. Fry, Esq.
`Tod M. Melgar, Esq.
`Scott A. McCollister, Esq.
`John S. Zanghi, Esq.
`Chintan A. Desai, Esq.
`Mark D. Klinko, Esq.
`LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
`420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2005
`New York, New York 10170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan A. Schmid
`Ryan A. Schmid, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Email: Ryan.Schmid@usitc.gov
`
`iii
`
`
`Dated: February 13, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1421
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S
`[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 6) entered in this Investigation, the
`
`Commission Investigative Staff hereby gives notice that, for purposes of this Investigation, it
`
`may rely upon prior art: (i) identified in the attached Supplemental Exhibit A; (ii) contained
`
`within the prosecution histories of the asserted patents; (iii) contained within the prosecution
`
`histories of patents or patent applications related to the asserted patents; (iv) identified by one or
`
`more of the private parties during this investigation; (v) offered by one or more of the private
`
`parties into evidence at the hearing; or (vi) identified during the remainder of discovery,
`
`including expert discovery.
`
`[DATE]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`Anne Goalwin, Supervisory Attorney
`Ryan A. Schmid, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Email: Ryan.Schmid@usitc.gov
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`STAFF’S SUPP. NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`SUPP. EX. A TO STAFF’S SUPP. NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`
`
`
`Entire Disclosure
`
`LEE, Myung-Jun
`
`08/06/2010
`
`KO, Jong-Kyung
`KIM, Ju-Young
`LEE, Tae-Joong
`Entire Disclosure
`PARK, Jae-Dong
`Portion(s)
`Patentee/Inventors Relevant
`
`
`
`02/03/2011
`Date
`Priority/Filing
`
`KR
`SM TR
`SI SK
`RS SE
`PT RO
`NO PL
`MT NL
`MC MK
`LU LV
`LI LT
`IE IS IT
`HR HU
`GB GR
`FI FR
`EE ES
`DE DK
`CY CZ
`BG CH
`AT BE
`EP: AL
`10/24/2018
`Date
`Country Issue/Pub.
`
`
`
`Pack
`the Battery
`Controlling
`Method for
`Pack and
`A Battery
`
`0075986
`KR 10-2010-
`
`Battery
`Secondary
`Managing
`for
`
`EP 3 339 001 A1 Apparatus
`or Publ. Number Title
`Prior Art/Patent
`
`Prior Art Patents and Patent Publications
`
`A.
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`SUPP. EX. A TO STAFF’S SUPP. NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`
`Entire Disclosure
`
`Tatsumi Yamauchi
`Mutsumi Kikuchi;
`Youhei Kawahara;
`Kenji Kubo;
`Akihiko Kudo;
`Akihiko Emori;
`Kei Sakabe;
`
`09/25/2008
`
`09/08/2015
`
`US
`
`Entire Disclosure
`
`Entire Disclosure
`
`LEE, Myung-Jun
`Kenji Kubo
`Akihiko Kudo;
`Tatsumi Yamauchi;
`Mutsumi Kikuchi;
`Kei Sakabe;
`Youhei Kawahara;
`Akihiko Emori;
`
`06/13/2011
`08/06/2010 /
`
`05/19/2015
`
`US
`
`09/25/2008
`
`07/03/2012
`
`US
`
`Entire Disclosure
`
`CHOI, Won-Suk
`
`11/29/2007
`
`03/13/2012
`
`US
`
`System
`Supply
`Power
`and Vehicle
`Battery Cell
`Controlling
`Circuit for
`Integrated
`
`the Same
`Controlling
`for
`and Method
`Battery Pack
`
`US 9,130,379
`
`US 9,035,618 B2
`
`Device
`Supply
`Power
`US 8,212,571 B2 Vehicle
`Thereof
`Method
`Driving
`System and
`Management
`Battery
`
`US 8,134,338 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`SUPP. EX. A TO STAFF’S SUPP. NOTICE OF PRIOR ART
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1421
`
`
`
`1-11
`
`December 2010
`
`Daniel Torres
`Texas Instruments /
`
`1-5, 8-11, 13-32, 39-51,
`13-15; 460-462
`Relevant Page Numbers
`
`July 2010
`1994
`Date
`
`Texas Instruments
`Delton T. Horn
`Author
`
`bq76PL536”
`System Using MSP430F5529 and
`Cell Li-Ion Battery Management
`Application Report SLAA478: “Multi-
`HEV Applications”
`Secondary Protection IC for EV and
`Lithium-Ion Battery Monitor and
`bq76PL536: “3 to 6 Series Cell
`Technical Datasheet for Part No.
`Basic Electronics Theory (4th Ed.)
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Art Printed Publications
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Schmid, Ryan
`"Thomas Burns"; "Elizabeth DiMarco"; "NavicoITC1421"; "BassCabela-ITC@reedsmith.com"; "ITC1421"; "COV-
`ITC-Renogy@cov.com"; "WGS-Dragonfly-ITC1421@WolfGreenfield.com"; "lippes-itc-1421@lippes.com"; "LITH-
`ITC@dority-manning.com"; "LithiumHub-337"; "JHill@cov.com"
`337-TA-1421: Staff"s Document Production
`Friday, December 13, 2024 1:22:00 PM
`Staff_0001-0009 - Basic Electronics Theory.pdf
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached please find a document produced by Staff bearing Bates Numbers Staff_0001 –
`Staff_0009. I will also upload this document to Box for service.
`
`Regards,
`
`Ryan A. Schmid
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`(202) 993-4033
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 3
`Exhibit 3
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Schmid, Ryan
`Thomas Burns; Elizabeth DiMarco; NavicoITC1421; BassCabela-ITC@reedsmith.com; ITC1421; COV-ITC-
`Renogy@cov.com; WGS-Dragonfly-ITC1421@WolfGreenfield.com; lippes-itc-1421@lippes.com; LITH-ITC@dority-
`manning.com; LithiumHub-337; JHill@cov.com
`RE: 337-TA-1421: Staff"s Document Production
`Wednesday, January 15, 2025 5:18:00 PM
`Staff_0010.pdf
`Staff_0024.pdf
`Staff_0036.pdf
`Staff_0052.pdf
`Staff_0111.pdf
`Staff_0122.pdf
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached please find a document production bearing Bates Numbers Staff_0010 – Staff_0187. I
`have also upload these documents to Box for service.
`
`Regards,
`
`Ryan A. Schmid
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`(202) 993-4033
`
`From: Schmid, Ryan
`Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 1:23 PM
`To: 'Thomas Burns' <tburns@bartkowskipllc.com>; 'Elizabeth DiMarco'
`<Elizabeth.DiMarco@WolfGreenfield.com>; 'NavicoITC1421' <NavicoITC1421@jonesday.com>;
`'BassCabela-ITC@reedsmith.com' <BassCabela-ITC@reedsmith.com>; 'ITC1421'
`<ITC1421@ClarkHill.com>; 'COV-ITC-Renogy@cov.com' <COV-ITC-Renogy@cov.com>; 'WGS-
`Dragonfly-ITC1421@WolfGreenfield.com' <WGS-Dragonfly-ITC1421@WolfGreenfield.com>; 'lippes-
`itc-1421@lippes.com' <lippes-itc-1421@lippes.com>; 'LITH-ITC@dority-manning.com' <LITH-
`ITC@dority-manning.com>; 'LithiumHub-337' <LithiumHub-337@bartkowskipllc.com>;
`'JHill@cov.com' <JHill@cov.com>
`Subject: 337-TA-1421: Staff's Document Production
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached please find a document produced by Staff bearing Bates Numbers Staff_0001 –
`Staff_0009. I will also upload this document to Box for service.
`
`Regards,
`
`Ryan A. Schmid
`Investigative Attorney
`
`
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`(202) 993-4033
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
