Previews – Lithium-ion Battery Cathode Innovation & Patent Deep Dives

• Deep Dive – Recent Patents & Innovations in Ni-based Cathode Materials

  15 pages, addendum with patent summaries: 68 pages, version: 2024-12-26
• Introduction
  
  Recent innovations in nickel-based cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries reflect a product development community wrestling with multiple competing priorities: higher energy density, improved longevity, reduced raw material and process costs, and enhanced sustainability. This review analyzes patent filings and public disclosures from 2023 onwards to identify emerging patterns in how leading battery manufacturers, materials companies, and startups are addressing these challenges, in several cases in collaboration with academic research groups.
  
  The analysis reveals 14 key concepts shaping the evolution of cathode materials (Figure A-1).
  
  Figure A-1: technology decision tree – 14 commercially relevant concepts related to Ni-based active materials for positive Li-ion battery electrodes, identified in patent families published since 2023 (publication date of first patent family member, 2 additional earlier patent families and 2 commercialization efforts identified in public reports other than patents are included in Figures D-2 to D-15 that cover each of the 14 concepts)
  
  
• The sections below are included in the full version.
• The Future Market Acceptance of Nickel-based Cathode Materials Depends on which Electrolyte will Predominate – Liquid Carbonate-based, Semi-solid or All-solid
• A Detailed Look at Product & Process Development Concepts
  • Figure A-2: technology decision tree – multi-element doping approaches for NMC
  • Figure A-3: technology decision tree – mid-nickel NMC-based active materials
  • Figure A-4: technology decision tree – gradient or core-shell particle architectures
  • Figure A-5: technology decision tree – cobalt-free materials
  • Figure A-6: technology decision tree – LRLO (lithium-rich layered oxides)
  • Figure A-7: technology decision tree – Ni-Mn spinels
  • Figure A-8: technology decision tree – single-crystal synthesis
  • Figure A-9: technology decision tree – coating of high-nickel materials
  • Figure A-10: technology decision tree – cobalt surface enrichment
  • Figure A-11: technology decision tree – novel synthetic processes
  • Figure A-12: technology decision tree – blends of different active material classes
  • Figure A-13: technology decision tree – optimized synthesis incorporating recycled materials
  • Figure A-14: technology decision tree – dry or almost dry electrode manufacturing
  • Figure A-15: technology decision tree – active materials for solid-state Li-ion batteries
• Outlook
  • Cells with Liquid Carbonate-based Electrolytes
    - High-energy
    - Low-cost
  • Cells with Semi-solid Electrolytes
    - High-energy
    - Low-cost
  • Cells with All-solid Electrolytes
    - High-energy
    - Low-cost
• Addendum (with links to sections above)
  • Patent Summaries Added During Preparation of This Deep Dive
  • Triweekly Patent Updates – Lithium-ion Batteries – Positive Electrode – Nickel-based Active Materials – 2023-01-10 until 2024-12-03

Get a quote

• Deep Dive – Recent Patents & Innovations in Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP) Cathode Materials

  11 pages, addendum with patent summaries: 41 pages, version: 2025-01-03
• Introduction
  
  LMFP (lithium manganese iron phosphate) has emerged as a promising cathode active material for lithium-ion batteries, combining advantages of both LFP (lithium iron phosphate, low raw material costs, favorable inherent safety profile) and manganese-rich chemistries (higher voltage than LFP, resulting in 15-20% higher energy density). This deep dive covers key LMFP-related product development decisions through an analysis of newly published patents (since 2023) and publicly disclosed information from key commercial players.
  
  LMFP product & process definition efforts involve the following aspects (Figure B-1):
  • Optimization of manganese / iron ratio to balance performance and stability (Figure B-2)
  • Various doping strategies using elements like titanium, niobium, and boron (Figure B-3)
  • Surface modifications (Figure B-4) and core-shell / gradient architectures (Figure B-5)
  • Particle size distribution and morphology control (Figure B-6)
  • Choice of manufacturing process steps (Figure B-7)
  • Positive electrodes based on active material blends (Figure B-8)
• The sections below are included in the full version.
• Perspectives for LMFP – Academic Viewpoint
  • LMP (Lithium Manganese Phosphate)
  • LMFP (Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate)
  • Sustainability
• State of LMFP Commercialization
  • Table B-1: Summary of Key LMFP Commercialization Efforts (full version: 15 entries)
    
    
    
• Product Development Decisions
  • Figure B-1: Technology Decision Tree – Product Development Decisions (Overview)
  • Figure B-2: Technology Decision Tree – Choice of Mn / Fe Molar Ratio
    
    As shown in Figure B-2, key commercial players have explored Mn / Fe molar ratios ranging from 99% Mn (CATL) to 10% Mn (Mitra Future Technologies). Other active materials exhibit Mn / Fe ratios in between (most common Mn ratios: 60-80%, AESC, BYD, 2nd patent, CATL: 2nd, 3rd, 4th patents, Dynanonic, Dynanonic / Qujing Defang, Easpring, Eve Energy, Guoxuan / Gotion, 2nd patent, HCM, Integrals Power, Livium / VSPC, Panasonic, Ronbay, 2nd patent, Tianjin Rongbai Sikelande – Rongbai subsidiary, 2nd, 3rd patents, SVOLT, 2nd patent, Taiheiyo Cement, Wanxiang 123).
    Links above point to patent summaries in addendum.
    
    
  • Figure B-3: Technology Decision Tree – Doping
  • Figure B-4: Technology Decision Tree – Core-shell / Gradient Architectures
  • Figure B-5: Technology Decision Tree – Surface Modifications
  • Figure B-6: Technology Decision Tree – Particle Morphology & Size Control
  • Figure B-7: Technology Decision Tree – Synthesis Methods (Core)
  • Figure B-8: Technology Decision Tree – Blends
• Outlook
• Addendum (with links to sections above)
  • Patent Summaries Added During Preparation of This Deep Dive
  • Triweekly Patent Updates – Lithium-ion Batteries – Positive Electrode – LMFP – 2023-02-08 until 2024-12-23

Get a quote

• Preview – Deep Dive – Catholyte Options & Selection

  12 pages, version: 2024-06-17
• Introduction
  
  One of the main advantages of all-solid and semi-solid electrolyte cell designs is that a differentiation between the electrolytes that can migrate to the interface of the positive and the negative electrode is possible, allowing for the separate definition of anolytes (electrolytes in the vicinity of anode) and catholytes (electrolytes in the vicinity of cathode, Figure C-1).
  
  Figure C-1: cell in which liquid transfer from 'catholyte' to 'anolyte' regions is blocked or substantially slowed down by a solid or semi-solid electrolyte layer
  
  
  The most important implication of this differentiation between anolytes and catholytes is that no simultaneous stability at low potentials (0 V vs. Li⁺/Li) and high potentials (≥4 V vs. Li⁺/Li) is necessary for anolyte and catholyte components, as compared to fully liquid electrolytes that simultaneously have to be stable at the anode and the cathode, or form a stable SEI layer.
  
  Promising electrolyte components that thus far were not frequently used in commercial cells because of insufficient stability at the negative electrode therefore stand the chance of gaining prominence in future commercial catholytes.
  
  Prevention of parasitic shuttling (such as by leaked transition metal ions) between electrodes is a major advantage of all-solid and semi-solid cells that eliminates cell aging and failure mechanisms that have tended to slow down the move to higher energy / power and lower cost active materials in both electrodes.
  
  In case of semi-solid or partially porous solid electrolyte layers, the rate of migration of catholyte and anolyte components has to be checked and needs to be sufficiently mitigated as not to cause parasitic reactions that reduce longevity or safety.
• The sections below are included in the full version.
• All-solid vs. Semi-solid vs. Liquid Catholytes and Anolytes – General Considerations
  • Why Liquid Catholytes Should Not Be Forfeited Prematurely
  • Is Transition Metal-dissolution in Catholytes a Problem?
  • Arguments for All-solid and Semi-solid Catholytes
• Summary – Catholyte Component Options and Trade-offs
  
  Table C-1 (full version: 21 entries): Catholyte component selection trade-offs (listed in black in left column: components that were clearly identified as having been used as catholyte components according to patent applications, listed in gray in left column: components used as electrolyte components according to patent applications, explicit use as catholyte component was not identified in the patent literature during preparation of this chapter)
  
  
  

• Estimate of Current State of the Art
  • Liquid Catholyte Components
  • Solid Catholyte Components
• Under-explored Materials & Chemicals
  • Liquid Catholyte Components
  • Solid Catholyte Components

Get a quote

• About the Author

• Pirmin Ulmann obtained a diploma in chemistry from ETH Zurich (Switzerland) in 2004 and a PhD from Northwestern University (USA) in 2009. Thereafter, he was a JSPS Foreign Fellow in an ERATO academic-industrial project at the University of Tokyo (Japan). From 2010 to 2016, while working at a major battery materials manufacturer in Switzerland, he was a co-inventor of 7 patent families related to lithium-ion batteries. He was also in charge of a collaboration with the Paul Scherrer Institute, evaluated outside technologies for corporate strategy, and made customer visits to battery manufacturers in East Asia, North America & Europe. He holds the credential Stanford Certified Project Manager (SCPM) and has co-authored scientific articles with more than 2,000 citations.