Claim 1 says more than "a cylindrical cell," and less than the energy-density headline implies. The grant is US12671150B2, "Cylindrical battery cell, and battery pack and vehicle including the same," assigned to LG Energy Solution and — the point this desk always insists on — issued June 30, 2026, not merely published. It is an enforceable grant, so the claim language is what matters, and it is worth reading before reaching for the marketing phrase "cap that doubles as current collector."

“A battery cell comprising: a battery can including a side wall extending in an axial direction between a closed first end and an open second end, the open second end defining an opening into an interior of the battery can; an electrode assembly including a first electrode and a second electrode, the electrode assembly being received within the interior of the battery can so that at least one tab extending from the second electrode is positioned proximate the open second end of the battery can; and a cap positioned to close the open second end of the battery can by covering the opening at the second end…”— U.S. Patent No. 12,671,150 source

Where claim 1's limitations sit

Read past the preamble and the operative limitations stack up. The cap is electrically conductive and its radially outer edge is in contact with the can side wall. It carries a vent defined by a weakened portion running circumferentially, which radially divides the cap into an outer region along the edge and an inner region encircled by the vent. That inner region has a plurality of electrode connecting portions protruding axially into the can to make direct electrical contact with the tab. And then the limitation that does the real work: the vent is "configured to be broken due to an increase of internal pressure" so as to sever the electrical connection between the electrode connecting portions and the can and discharge the gas causing that pressure.

Scope, not spin: an accused cell that merely has a tabless jelly roll, or merely welds a collector plate to the tab, does not read on this claim. To infringe claim 1, the vent has to do double duty — mechanical pressure relief and electrical disconnection — and it has to be integral to the same conductive cap that both closes the can and reaches down to the tab. That is a specific combination, and it is where the claim is narrow in a useful way. The dual function of the vent is the limitation that separates this from the broad field of vented cylindrical cells.

The dependent claims map the intended embodiments. Claim 5 recites four electrode connecting portions equally spaced; claim 9 makes them monolithic with the cap; claims 17 and 23–25 add a central liquid inlet for electrolyte injection and a stopper, and a manufacturing method that welds the connecting portions to the tab by laser irradiation from the cap's outer surface. Those are not throwaway — they are the fallback positions a drafter builds so that if claim 1's breadth is challenged, narrower but still commercially meaningful scope survives. The CPC classification is consistent with the reading: H01M 50/533 (electric connections within the cell) and H01M 50/3425 (vent arrangements as safety devices), with cylindrical-can tags H01M 50/107 and 50/152.

A claim is not a product

Note also how the claim set is layered. Claim 1 is the sole apparatus independent, with a chain of twenty dependents narrowing it; claims 21 and 22 then extend the same cell into a battery pack and a vehicle, and claim 23 opens a second independent chain directed to the method of manufacture. That structure is worth reading for what it protects beyond the cell itself. The pack and vehicle claims mean the coverage travels downstream to an integrator or automaker assembling the cell, not only to whoever fabricates it; the method claims mean the making of the cell — the laser-through-cap weld sequence in particular — is fenced separately from the finished article. For landscape purposes, that is one filing doing the work of several: product, system, and process, all keyed to the same self-severing cap.

The house caution applies. This grant fences off a cell design; it does not tell you what ships, in what cell diameter, or at what volume — and nothing here should be read as a judgment on the claim's breadth or validity. What the record does show is a coherent family. Sibling grants from the same day claim adjacent structures: US12671146B2 recites a spacer set between the current collector and the cap to fix the axial gap; US12671138B2 claims a related cell whose venting cap ties to the can and one uncoated portion while a separate terminal reaches the other; and US12671142B2 moves up a level to a pack that routes each cell's vented discharge along a defined passage.

The containment theme recurs at the cell wall too: US12671132B2 claims a gas-discharge portion inserted into a pouch cell's seal, and US12671105B2 claims a secondary cell with a temperature-sensitive polymer insulator that swells as temperature rises. For anyone mapping the landscape, the signal is coherence rather than count: a set of grants that all turn on the same idea — let the cell fail in a controlled, self-disconnecting way — with claim 1 of the lead grant tying that behavior directly into the current-carrying cap. Read claim 1, and "higher energy density" resolves into a precise, enforceable limitation about how one scored piece of metal is meant to break.