Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, No. 23-2285 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2025)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-2285
Decided
January 15, 2025
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

MAXELL, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,

Appellee

2023-2285

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-01442.

JUDGMENT

JEFFREY TA-HWA HAN, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by CORBIN CESSNA, HILARY L. PRESTON, ERIK SHALLMAN; ERIC JOSEPH KLEIN, PAIGE HOLLAND WRIGHT, Dallas, TX. KIRK T. BRADLEY, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER TIMOTHY LAWN DOUGLAS, NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER MARAIS; BRADY COX, Dallas, TX.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

January 15, 2025

Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, No. 23-2285 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-23-2285-20250115
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-2285-20250115

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error