Hanwha Solutions Corporation v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

IPR2024-01203

Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01203
Decision Date
8 August 2024
Filing Date
8 August 2024

Detailed Summary

Hanwha Solutions Corporation filed an opening petition challenging 12 claims of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed solar cell features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art, citing references like Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats, Borden-575, and Li. The petition emphasizes that the Examiner failed to consider key combination teachings necessary to demonstrate obviousness across multiple grounds, linking the challenge directly to ongoing district court litigation.

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

patentIPR2025-00833

Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.

patentIPR2025-00910

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

patentIPR2024-00286

Dropbox, Inc.vsMotion Offense LLC

Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.

patentIPR2025-00912

Kangxi Communications TechnologiesvsSkyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.

Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.

patentIPR2025-00688

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call