Short Summary
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to cancel Claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon’s 2022 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review, Canadian Solar Inc. seeks cancellation of Claims 16 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,251,315, which cover back‑contact solar cells. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—including Li, King, Swanson‑352, Marvin, Muller, Hu, and Ramappa—each teaching the same structural elements. The petition also argues that the Board should not invoke discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) or 325(d) because the prior art was not considered during prosecution and the filing complies with all IPR requirements. The case is pending institution, with related district‑court infringement suits already filed by Maxeon.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Canadian Solar Inc. et al. vs Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Wiz, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing that the existing MDL already handles the dispute efficiently. The petition highlights duplicative effort and potential abuse of discretion by the Board.
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.