To state the conclusion first, on August 21, 2026, an all-solid-state battery international standard project proposed by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) was formally adopted. It is the world’s first international standard for all-solid-state batteries, and it proceeds with experts from France, Japan, and Korea participating. A standard itself is not a document that determines which technology is superior, but the moment a specific company’s patent becomes entangled in the standard document as a ‘standard-essential patent (SEP),’ the picture changes entirely. This is because whoever designs the standard sets the baseline for test methods and evaluation items, creating a structure in which latecomers must redesign their technology to fit that baseline.
The industry has, until now, read all-solid-state batteries purely as a competition over ‘who mass-produces first, and in what year.’ CATL and BYD have set targets for small-scale pilot production in 2027, while the three major Korean companies have laid out targets for mass production between 2027 and 2029. This IEC project approval, however, has thrown a different kind of question at the industry — not ‘who makes it first,’ but ‘who defines how it’s made.’ This is because whoever documents the test items and evaluation conditions first stands to gain an advantageous position in the subsequent certification, export, and procurement processes. This article sums up how standardization actually affects patent strategy, and what domestic companies and IP personnel should be checking right now.
① What’s the Story
On August 21, SAMR announced that an international standard project titled “Secondary Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicle Propulsion — Guidelines, Test Items, and Conditions for Solid-state Batteries” had been formally launched at the IEC. It is being introduced as the world’s first international standard project in the all-solid-state battery field, with China leading the project and experts from France, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere participating in developing the standard.
Around the same time, cell makers were also busy. On August 7, BYD unveiled six new patents centered on a ‘dual electrolyte’ structure combining halide-based and sulfide-based electrolytes, reconfirming its plan for small-scale pilot production in 2027. CATL likewise reaffirmed its target of small-scale all-solid-state battery production in 2027 at its first-half earnings announcement in late July. The standardization discussion and the cell mass-production roadmap ended up overlapping within the same month, and the full picture only comes together when these two trends are read together rather than separately.
② Basic Principle
International standards and patents may seem unrelated at first glance, but they are actually often intertwined. To use an analogy, a standard is the “exam questions” and a patent is the “solution formula.” If whoever designs the exam questions writes them so that the answer comes out cleanly only when a specific solution formula is used, then whoever holds that formula (the patent holder) is positioned to collect royalties from everyone who takes the exam. This kind of patent is called a standard-essential patent, commonly abbreviated SEP.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from the SAMR announcement of August 21, 2026
The project approved this time is a document setting out ‘guidelines, test items, and test conditions’ — that is, a standard concerning test methodology. It needs to be made clear that this is not a standard that mandates the battery’s chemical composition itself. However, if the test conditions (for example, evaluation items under specific temperature, pressure, or cycling conditions) are designed to favor a particular cell structure or interface treatment technology, there is a possibility that companies holding technology optimized for those conditions could gain an indirect advantage in saving time and cost during certification and export. Since Korean experts are also participating in the standard-setting process, ensuring that the test conditions do not tilt one-sidedly in favor of a particular camp becomes a practical concern for the domestic industry.
③ Comparison
The all-solid-state battery roadmaps and patent activity of the major camps are summarized below. The energy density figures are each company’s publicly stated targets, and please treat them as reference only, keeping in mind that they may differ from actual mass-production cell performance.
| Company/Camp | Electrolyte Type | Target Energy Density | Mass/Pilot Production Target Year | Recent Patent/Standard Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CATL (China) | Sulfide-based | Approx. 500Wh/kg (publicly stated target) | Small-scale pilot production in 2027 | Published a patent family of 42+ applications since 2022, including a cathode coating patent (WO2026045268A1) |
| BYD (China) | Halide + sulfide dual electrolyte | Not disclosed | Small-scale pilot production in 2027 | Published 6 new patents in August 2026 (centered on interface-contact stabilization) |
| Samsung SDI / LG Energy Solution (Korea) | Sulfide-based (dual-track in parallel) | Not disclosed | Mass production 2027–2029 | Ranked #1 and #2 worldwide in average annual growth rate of all-solid-state patent filings over the past 3 years (51.7% and 50.8%, respectively) |
| Toyota (Japan) | Sulfide-based | Not disclosed | Announced start of mass production of all-solid-state-powered vehicles in 2026 | Holds numerous interface coating patents (ranked among the leaders in cathode coating, alongside Samsung SDI) |
Source: compiled by the editorial team from company announcements, press reports and WO2026045268A1 (Google Patents); energy densities are published company targets
What This Table Tells Us: The Chinese camp is using a dual strategy of pinning down 2027 as its ‘pilot production timing’ first while also trying to seize the initiative in standardization, while the Korean camp appears somewhat behind on pilot production timing but is building a dense defensive line of technology, ranking #1 and #2 worldwide in patent-filing growth rate. This is a picture of two different strategies colliding along two different axes — speed and density.
④ Patent Perspective
Since the standardization project itself is still at the test-methodology stage, it is premature at this point to say that a specific SEP has been finalized. That said, there is a claim-scope issue that IP personnel clearly need to watch.
The possibility cannot be ruled out that an interface-stabilization patent such as WO2026045268A1 — published by CATL in March 2026 (a technology that coats a fluorine-based lithium salt onto the surface of the positive electrode active material to suppress high-temperature side reactions with the sulfide electrolyte, filed by Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Ltd, with a priority date of August 30, 2024) — could be cited as a reference technology in the design of future test conditions.
This is because the moment a specific company’s patent is listed in a standard document’s reference list, a structure is created in which a latecomer trying to follow that standard effectively finds it difficult to avoid that patent’s claim scope.
Design-Around Scenario (Counterargument): That said, a counterargument to this concern also holds. First, the IEC standard adoption process typically takes several years, and a test-methodology standard is closer to a procedural norm defining ‘how to measure’ rather than a performance target, so it often does not mandate a specific chemical composition or material combination. Second, even if a specific interface treatment technology is referenced, room remains for a non-infringing design if the specific claim elements differ (for example, whether the coating location is the cathode or the anode, or whether the coating material is a fluorine-based lithium salt or a different compound).
For instance, while the CATL patent focuses on coating the cathode surface, Rivian’s U.S. patent US12424625B2 (a technology applying lithium metal sulfide to the interface layer between the solid electrolyte and the anode, granted in September 2025, expiring in 2043) addresses the anode-side interface, so the claims do not overlap. Since the claim scope is thus divided by which electrode is treated and with what material at the interface, an approach that follows the standard while precisely designing around a specific company’s claim elements remains valid.
⑤ Limitations and Outlook
An optimistic outlook (from China’s perspective) suggests that if China holds the initiative in standardization, it could gain an advantageous position in the global certification and procurement process. But an opposing scenario also needs to be considered. An IEC standard is a process completed through multinational expert consensus, and as long as Korean, Japanese, and French experts are involved in designing the test conditions, it is unlikely that provisions unilaterally favoring one particular camp would pass through as is. Rather, the standard-setting process itself could function as an official window through which companies from each country can look into the technology roadmap and patent portfolio of the opposing camp, which could ultimately shift the situation toward one in which the thickness of a patent portfolio, rather than the technology gap, determines negotiating leverage.
As a strategic alternative, one option to consider is preemptively organizing and disclosing domestic companies’ patent portfolios — through the channel of Korean experts participating in the standard-setting process — so that Korean companies’ interface treatment and coating patents can be candidates for citation from the test-condition design stage onward. Since Korea already ranks #1 and #2 worldwide in patent-filing growth rate, converting that quantitative advantage into standardization negotiating leverage looks like the next step.
Reader Action: Planning and IP personnel are advised to check the participant list and meeting schedule of the domestic response committee for this IEC project (under the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards or a related academic society), and to begin, within this quarter, the work of separately listing any of your company’s interface coating or electrolyte patents that could potentially be referenced in the standard’s test conditions.
This content is an interpretation based on publicly available press releases and patent publications, and any forecasts regarding standard adoption or patent grant/litigation outcomes are analyses at the level of possibility only. Specific matters require separate review.