Short Summary
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-00918, Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. challenges all 11 claims of Trina Solar's U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104, which covers a TOPCon solar cell with an isolation portion. The petitioner contends that each claim is obvious in view of combinations of earlier publications—Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe—demonstrating motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and full disclosure of claim limitations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) does not apply and that institution is warranted, especially given a prior IPR on identical grounds that was already instituted. No claim construction is required, and the petition includes expert testimony from Dr. Sanjay Banerjee.
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 (USA) Inc. et al. vs Trina Solar Co. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsVideo Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
r-pac International CorporationvsAdasa Inc
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.
Juniper Networks, Inc.vsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the cited references do not teach a shared link between two pseudo‑wires and that the petition repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
MPL Brands NV, Inc.vsBuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all six claims of the '904 patent unpatentable. The Board determined that the claimed features were anticipated or obvious over prior art references (Kick, Ackermann, Kaminski, Hutchinson).
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.