Short Summary
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).
Detailed Summary
Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent 8878053, challenging claims 1-20 based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board reviewed the petition using the Fintiv factors and determined that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Specifically, the Board found sufficient evidence to support the combination of prior art references (Froitzheim/Gan and Li/Gan/Smith), despite arguments from Maxeon Solar regarding the scope of Gan's teachings. Consequently, the IPR was instituted, leading to trial on all claims and grounds.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hanwha Solutions Corporation vs Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,936,693, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko under 35 U.S.C. §103.
r-pac International CorporationvsAdasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.