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
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc.vsUS Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsEXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
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.