On June 18, 2026, Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. and Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) filed a patent-infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, docketed as case No. 2:26-cv-00491. The defendants are three related entities operating under the Carbon One banner: Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd.; Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. The cause is patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

This is a newly filed complaint, not a ruling. What follows is drawn from the docket and the complaint as posted to CourtListener's RECAP mirror of PACER; the allegations are the plaintiffs' contentions, which the defendants have not yet answered.

The four patents-in-suit

The complaint asserts four U.S. patents, which it collectively calls the “Asserted Patents”:

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,515,528 (the “’528 Patent”), titled “Electrodes, lithium-ion batteries, and methods of making and using same.” Per the complaint, it issued on November 29, 2022, was subject to ex parte reexamination (No. 90/019,279, requested October 13, 2023), and a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the reexamined claims issued January 7, 2025.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,715,825 (the “’825 Patent”).
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,374,215 (the “’215 Patent”).
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,942,624 (the “’624 Patent”).

The complaint states that Sila and GTRC together own all right, title, and interest in the ’528 Patent by assignment, and that Sila is the exclusive licensee with the right to enforce it. The complaint lists the ’528 Patent's named inventors as Gleb Yushin, Oleksandr Magazynskyy, Patrick Dixon, and Benjamin Hertzberg.

The accused products

The complaint describes Sila as a next-generation battery-materials company founded in 2011, whose silicon-carbon anode material is marketed under the Titan Silicon brand and which it says it has been shipping commercially since 2021. It identifies the accused products as Carbon One's silicon-carbon anode materials, naming specifically the CI-SC(1800) and CI-SC(2000) products “and all reasonably similar products.”

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs bring the action to stop the defendants' activities relating to those materials:

Plaintiffs bring this action to cease Defendants’ unlawful and infringing activities relating to the manufacture, marketing, promotion, use, importation, offers for sale, and sales of silicon-carbon anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries, including at least their Carbon One CI-SC(1800) and CI-SC(2000) silicon-carbon anode products.

The complaint frames the three defendants as parts of a single vertically integrated operation. It quotes Carbon One's website describing a “global production network” with a “fully vertically integrated industry chain,” and alleges that the Hangzhou entity conducts research and development on the anode materials while Zhejiang Lichen manufactures them, with Carbon One importing the finished products into the United States.

What is alleged

The complaint pleads four counts — one per asserted patent — and alleges both direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (by importing, using, offering for sale, or selling the accused products) and indirect infringement under § 271(b) (by inducing others to infringe). For each count, the plaintiffs cite exemplary claim charts that they attached as exhibits comparing a claim of the asserted patent to the CI-SC(1800) and CI-SC(2000) products. On the face of the complaint, the asserted claims include at least claim 1 of the ’528 Patent; claims 1 and 19 of the ’825 Patent; claims 1 and 14 of the ’215 Patent; and claims 1 and 25 of the ’624 Patent.

The complaint also pleads willful infringement. It alleges that Sila's VP of Business Affairs contacted the defendants on or about April 5, 2026 to discuss licensing, identifying potentially relevant patents including the ’528 Patent, and that the defendants therefore had knowledge of the patents from at least that date. For relief, the complaint seeks an injunction enjoining the defendants and damages, in addition to the jury demand noted on the docket.

The import-evidence exhibits

The complaint's exhibit list reflects an import-focused theory. Beyond copies of the four patents and the eight claim charts, the filing attaches what it describes as FedEx and purchase-order records for Carbon One samples, package and inspection reports, importation data, and laboratory characterization of the accused products — SEM, STEM, and EDX analysis of the CI-SC(1800) and CI-SC(2000) materials. The complaint alleges that publicly available import records indicate Carbon One has been responsible for importing roughly 624,785 kg (gross weight) of product since February 2025. These figures and characterizations are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in the complaint.

Docket status

The docket reflects the complaint (entry 1) plus same-day filings including a jury demand, a disclosure statement, requests for the clerk to issue summonses to the defendants, and notices of attorney appearance. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Jones Day. As of the docket data available through the RECAP mirror, no presiding judge is identified in the structured fields. The complaint itself and its claim-chart exhibits are available on the mirror; some patent-copy and image exhibits were not yet retrievable at the time of writing.

This article reports only what the docket and complaint state. It does not assess the merits, predict an outcome, or characterize the strength of any party's position.