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
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.
Microsoft CorporationvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that ordered review of an expired content‑delivery patent owned by Sandpiper CDN. The petition argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the district‑court record, making the decision an outlier.
Ciena CorporationvsK.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
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.