On July 2, 2024, a patent was quietly registered. U.S. Patent US12027661B2 was granted with no fanfare or press release, but it holds a scope of rights that could potentially cover a substantial portion of the commercial process for coating high-nickel cathode material (80% nickel content or higher) by atomic layer deposition (ALD). The rights holder is materials-and-equipment company Forge Nano Inc (co-held with affiliate TBP Investments LLC).
High-nickel cathode material is central to the energy-density race, but it carries a persistent weakness: surface degradation. The standard remedy for suppressing this is ALD/MLD nanocoating, and the fact that a U.S. materials company holds a substantial share of the claims covering that commercialization process is not something Korean cell makers and materials companies can casually overlook. This piece examines how broad this patent’s claims actually are, and how its scope of rights has evolved relative to the prior-generation patent, in the form of a claim chart.
① What’s the Story
Forge Nano states that it holds a patent portfolio of more than 200 patents, and in August 2026 it announced breaking ground on a gigafactory in North Carolina, showing a trend of expanding its coating IP into a cell-manufacturing business (see a separate piece for related developments). The core asset underpinning this expansion is its family of high-nickel cathode-coating patents. The purpose of this piece is to check just how broad the claims actually are, and whether domestic and foreign competitors’ own coating processes are managing to steer clear of this scope of rights.
② Basic Principle — The Difference Between Dry Coating and Wet Coating
Cathode-material surface coating broadly splits into wet methods (sol-gel) and dry methods (ALD/MLD, physical vapor deposition, and others). Sol-gel coating is a simple process of dipping the active-material powder into a solution and drying it, but it’s difficult to precisely control coating thickness and uniformity that way. ALD/MLD, by contrast, adsorbs a gaseous precursor onto the surface in a self-limiting reaction, which allows thickness to be controlled at the atomic-layer level — essentially setting thickness by the number of coating passes (cycles), the way you’d count and stack paper one sheet at a time. Thanks to this precision, dry coating has become the standard wherever a thin, uniform protective layer is needed, as with high-nickel cathode material.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from the article text and claim 1 of US12027661B2
③ Comparing Two Generations of Patents
| Item | US9196901B2 (Granted 2015) | US12027661B2 (Granted 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Invention title | “Lithium battery electrodes with ultra-thin alumina coatings” | “Nano-engineered coatings for anode/cathode active materials and solid-state electrolytes” |
| Current rights holder | Alliance for Energy Innovation LLC | TBP Investments LLC / Forge Nano Inc |
| Filing / Grant | Filed June 13, 2011 (priority June 14, 2010), granted November 24, 2015 | Filed June 1, 2015, granted July 2, 2024 |
| Status / Expiration | Active, adjusted expiration February 12, 2033 | Active, adjusted expiration April 23, 2036 |
| Coating target | A finished electrode already formed with binder (particle + binder) | The active-material “particle” itself, prior to electrode formation |
| Coating material | Limited to alumina (Al₂O₃) | A broad family of materials — metal oxides, metal halides, metal phosphates, metal sulfates, and others |
| Coating thickness | 2-20Å (angstroms, 0.2-2nm) | 2-10nm (20-100Å) |
| Active material covered | Either cathode or anode, no limitation on nickel content | Limited to high-nickel (NCM/NCA) cathode material with 80% nickel content or higher |
| Process-condition specificity | ALD process applied, cycle count unspecified | ALD or MLD, specifically set at 4-8 cycles |
Source: compiled by the editorial team from the bibliographic data and claims of US9196901B2 and US12027661B2 (Google Patents)
What this table shows: the 2015 patent covered a relatively narrow concept — “thinly coat lithium-battery electrodes with alumina by ALD” — while the 2024 patent widens the coating material beyond alumina but narrows the target to high-nickel cathode material, and in exchange pins down the process conditions (thickness, cycle count) far more specifically. The key point of this comparison is that the scope of rights has simultaneously widened in some respects and narrowed in others.
④ Patent Perspective — Claim Element Comparison (Claim Chart)
Breaking Claim 1 of US12027661B2 down element by element and comparing it against a generically known high-nickel cathode ALD coating process (a hypothetical reference process, naming no specific company) yields the following. Actual infringement can only be assessed by checking an individual company’s real process parameters, and the table below is presented strictly as a structural comparison meant to aid understanding of the scope of rights.
| Claim Element | Gist of US12027661B2 Claim 1 | Comparison Against a Generic Industry Process (Hypothetical) | Design-Around Perspective |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active-material composition | NCM/NCA-family cathode active-material particles with 80%+ nickel content | Most high-nickel processes use a Ni content in the 80-95% range | Lowering nickel content below 80% could mean this element itself no longer applies |
| Coating process | ALD or MLD | Some materials companies also use wet sol-gel or spray coating | Using a wet, PVD, or sputtering process instead of ALD/MLD could lower literal-infringement exposure |
| Coating cycles | 4-8 cycles | Lab-scale processes have also been reported at 1-3 cycles or 10+ cycles | Designing for 3 or fewer cycles, or 9 or more, could fall outside this element |
| Coating thickness | 2-10nm | Cases below 1nm or above 10nm also exist depending on the process | Designing thickness outside this range could be the most intuitive design-around point |
| Functional effect | Suppression of particle cracking, metal-distribution change, irreversible volume change, and crystal-phase change | Most coating processes claim a similar effect | In a Doctrine-of-Equivalents determination, this functional sameness could actually work against a design-around |
Source: paraphrased by the editorial team from claim 1 of US12027661B2 (Google Patents)
In sum, the structure appears to require stepping outside all four numerically defined elements — nickel content, coating-process type, cycle count, and thickness — to lower literal-infringement exposure. The fifth element, “functional effect,” by contrast, is not numerically bounded, so even after avoiding the first four elements, room for dispute could remain in a Doctrine-of-Equivalents determination.
⑤ Limitations and Outlook
It’s possible to view US12027661B2 optimistically as potentially becoming a de facto standard patent for high-nickel cathode ALD coating, but a counter-scenario needs to be considered alongside it. Given that US9196901B2, granted in 2015, already disclosed the concept of “coating a lithium-ion battery electrode with a thin inorganic film by ALD,” it can’t be ruled out that a dispute could arise in an invalidation-trial setting over whether US12027661B2’s inventive step is sufficiently established merely by the nickel-content limitation and the specific cycle count.
As a strategic alternative, Korean cell makers and materials companies could operate a checklist that regularly cross-checks their own coating process’s nickel content, cycle count, and thickness against the claim elements, and if needed, also consider in parallel an alternative process — wet coating, or a cycle count/thickness designed to fall outside the claim’s range.
Action to verify: IP staff are advised to start with an internal cross-check that matches, one by one, the nickel content, actual cycle count, and measured coating thickness recorded in their own or a partner materials company’s ALD/MLD coating-process logs against the five elements in the claim chart above.