Solar energy — US PTAB Patent Cases
15 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 15 total
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to a trial decision. The Board found that Hanwha demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite arguments regarding prior art scope and predictability.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent on back-contact solar cell technology. The petitioner argues that key claims are unpatentable due to obviousness when combining the patented structure with various prior art references.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. successfully challenged claims of the '315 patent, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings. The challenge focused on obviousness over combinations of prior art in solar cell fabrication techniques.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that claims 10-16 and 19 were unpatentable. The Board found insufficient motivation in the prior art to combine references, particularly regarding optimal dopant concentrations for solar cell fabrication techniques.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The USPTO issued a proposed rulemaking that would amend PTAB practice for discretionary denial, parallel/serial petitions, and settlement handling in inter partes reviews. The changes aim to formalize current practice, improve efficiency, and reduce duplicate challenges in solar‑technology patents such as U.S. 11251315.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully instituted its IPR against Maxeon Solar regarding solar cell fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for several claims over various combinations of prior art, authorizing trial on multiple claims.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.