In 2003, Energizer Holdings, Inc. claimed that fourteen Chinese manufacturers of zero-mercury-added alkaline batteries, which were sold in the U.S. market, infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,464,709 patent (the “709 patent”).  Energizer then filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) in the U.S. to conduct a Section 337 investigation on their claims, and requested that the ITC forbid certain Chinese batteries and related products from entering the U.S. market.  Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC is authorized to conduct investigations into claims of infringement on U.S. intellectual property rights and other unfair trade practices regarding imports into the U.S., and to issue resolutions such as general or specific exclusion orders or cease and desist orders.

The Chinese parties, including the China Battery Industry Association, collectively responded and argued that the claims of the ‘709 patent were too extensive and violated Article 112 of the U.S. Patent Law, which requires that descriptions of inventions be clear and concrete. 

In 2004, the ITC ruled that the ‘709 patent lacked definitiveness and invalidated the patent.  The ITC required that Energizer give up claims 8-12 of their ‘709 patent, and ruled the same for its European patent for zero-mercury-added alkaline batteries.  Energizer subsequently filed an appeal.

After two rounds of appeals, Energizer finally lost their case.  On April 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled to maintain the ITC’s decision.  This is the first time any Chinese enterprise has won in court against a foreign non-tariff barrier.  The result will have significant impact on the development of battery manufacturing in China, and will open markets for Chinese manufacturers in the U.S.