Untitled case

In a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-headquartered premium solar technology company known for high-efficiency solar cell designs and an extensive IP portfolio, accused REC Solar Holdings AS, a Norwegian solar energy company with global manufacturing operations, of infringing its patents. The litigation, case number 2:24-cv-00260, was initiated on April 19, 2024, with Maxeon alleging that REC Solar's N-Peak Black Series Solar Panels infringed upon its intellectual property. The case involved three U.S. patents covering advanced solar cell technology: U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516, which covers foundational solar cell structure technology, U.S. Patent No. 8,878,053, directed at solar cell fabrication and interconnection methods, and U.S. Patent No. 11,251,315, a more recent patent covering advanced photovoltaic cell configurations. For patent 8,222,516, specifically, the patent describes a bipolar solar cell with a backside junction, an N-type silicon substrate, and a P-type polysilicon emitter on the backside, designed for improved solar radiation collection.

The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically recognized as a significant hub for patent litigation due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly verdicts and fast trials. While the case was active for over a year, it ultimately concluded with a joint motion to dismiss, which Judge Gilstrap granted on June 25, 2025, leading to a dismissal without prejudice. This outcome suggests a likely negotiated resolution between the parties, with no damages awarded or injunctive relief issued. Parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were also filed against the asserted patents, including IPR2025-01039 against the '516 patent by Canadian Solar, Inc. and Canadian Solar (USA), Inc. The presence of these IPRs in parallel with the district court litigation before Judge Gilstrap highlights a common strategy in patent disputes, where defendants often challenge patent validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) while litigating infringement in court. The Eastern District of Texas, particularly under Judge Gilstrap, remains a dominant forum for patent assertions, notably in the solar technology sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v. REC Solar Holdings AS (2:24-cv-00260)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involved Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. as the plaintiff and REC Solar Holdings AS as the defendant. The case, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, concluded with a joint dismissal without prejudice in June 2025, suggesting a likely negotiated settlement.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• 2024-04-19: Case Filing & Initial Pleadings
  Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. filed the complaint against REC Solar Holdings AS, alleging infringement of three U.S. patents: 8222516, 8878053, and 11251315. The lawsuit claimed that REC Solar's N-Peak Black Series Solar Panels infringed these patents, which cover advanced solar cell technology.

• Pre-Trial Scheduling (Motions & Hearings)
  Before the dismissal, the court had set a schedule for key pre-trial events. A Markman hearing for claim construction was scheduled for December 3, 2025, and jury selection was slated for June 1, 2026. However, these events did not occur due to the early resolution of the case.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings
  Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

  • REC Solar Holdings AS, the defendant in the district court case, filed IPR2025-00592, IPR2025-00593, IPR2025-00594, and IPR2025-00595, challenging Maxeon Solar's patents, including US8222516B2 (specifically IPR2025-00592).
  • Separately, Hanwha Solutions Corporation filed IPR2024-01203 against US8222516B2.
  • Another IPR, IPR2024-01198 (which was subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit as case 26-1531), also involved US11251315B2, US8222516B2, and US8878053B2.
    These IPRs were filed while the district court litigation was active.

• 2025-06-25: Settlement and Dismissal
  The litigation concluded on June 25, 2025, when Judge Gilstrap granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 46). The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Maxeon Solar retained the right to re-file infringement claims on the same patents. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded, indicating a likely negotiated resolution between the parties. The duration of the litigation was approximately 1 year and 2 months.

Based on the available information as of July 29, 2026, the plaintiff, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., is represented by counsel from PV Law LLP and potentially WilmerHale. While Vinson & Elkins LLP attorneys were noted in an earlier filing, more recent information points to PV Law LLP as having lead counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Bradford A. Cangro

• Role: Lead Counsel [cite: 1 in prior step]
• Firm: PV Law LLP, Washington, D.C. [cite: 6, 8, 12 in prior step]
• Experience Note: A first chair trial lawyer with a B.S. in electrical engineering, Cangro represents global companies in intellectual property disputes in federal courts, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). He has been recognized as a leading global IP lawyer by Lawdragon (2026) and a top-ranked attorney for PTAB and patent litigation by Patexia Insights [cite: 2 in prior step, 6 in prior step, 10 in prior step, 12 in prior step, 15 in prior step, 18 in prior step, 22 in prior step].

Jeremy Peterson

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: PV Law LLP, Washington, D.C. [cite: 3, 5, 6, 8, 12 in prior step]
• Experience Note: Peterson is highly experienced in all stages of patent litigation, including federal district courts (such as the Eastern District of Texas), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He has a background in genomic research and bioinformatics, and has been recognized by Thomson Reuters as one of the "World's Most Influential Scientific Minds" [cite: 3, 5, 15 in prior step].

Robert J. Gunther, Jr.

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: WilmerHale, New York, NY [cite: 4, 7, 13, 14, 21 in prior step]
• Experience Note: Gunther is a trial lawyer with over 35 years of experience representing life sciences, pharmaceutical, and technology clients in intellectual property and technology litigation at both trial and appellate levels. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and has been consistently recognized by Chambers USA, Managing IP magazine, LMG Life Sciences, and IAM as a leading patent litigator [cite: 4, 7, 13, 14 in prior step]. He was listed in connection with Maxeon Solar Pte Ltd in a March 2026 PTAB-related snippet [cite: 27 in prior step].

Earlier Noted Counsel (Vinson & Elkins LLP):
An April 2024 PacerMonitor snippet listed several attorneys from Vinson & Elkins LLP as representing Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. [cite: 1 in prior step]. While these attorneys may have been involved earlier in the case, the later designation of Bradford A. Cangro as lead counsel from PV Law LLP in April 2025, and recent mentions of PV Law LLP in related PTAB proceedings, suggest that PV Law LLP is currently taking a prominent role. Without more recent docket entries confirming the continued active involvement of these specific Vinson & Elkins attorneys in the district court case for the plaintiff beyond the initial filing, their current specific roles in the ongoing litigation are less clear through public web search.

• Hilary L. Preston

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY and Austin, TX [cite: 1 in prior step, 11 in prior step, 17 in prior step, 23 in prior step]
  • Experience Note: Co-Head of Vinson & Elkins' Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice, she focuses on IP litigation and commercial disputes in trial and appellate courts, with experience in sports, digital media, mobile content delivery, and e-commerce industries [cite: 3 in prior step, 5 in prior step, 8 in prior step, 35 in prior step].

• Eric Joseph Klein

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX [cite: 1 in prior step, 9 in prior step, 16 in prior step]
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation [cite: 9 in prior step, 16 in prior step]. Also has experience in IP licensing, negotiating dispute resolutions, and opinions on patentability, infringement, and validity [cite: 4 in prior step, 10 in prior step].

• Erik Chiles Shallman

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX [cite: 1 in prior step]
  • Experience Note: No specific patent litigation experience found in the provided snippets, beyond general association with the firm in this case.

• Paige Holland Wright

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX [cite: 1 in prior step, 20 in prior step, 25 in prior step, 37 in prior step]
  • Experience Note: An Intellectual Property attorney recognized as a Super Lawyers Rising Star, with experience in intellectual property [cite: 20 in prior step, 25 in prior step].

• Jeffrey R. Swigart

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP [cite: 1 in prior step] (Note: Other results mention a "Swigart Law Group" in privacy litigation, but no direct confirmation of this specific attorney's role or firm location for this patent case was found beyond the initial PacerMonitor listing. [cite: 11 in prior step, 13 in prior step, 14 in prior step, 16 in prior step, 24 in prior step, 26 in prior step, 29 in prior step, 30 in prior step])

• Corbin J. Cessna

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX [cite: 1 in prior step, 6 in prior step]
  • Experience Note: No specific patent litigation experience found in the provided snippets beyond general association with the firm in this case and another case in the Eastern District of Texas [cite: 6 in prior step].

REC Solar Holdings AS was represented by several attorneys in the patent infringement case 2:24-cv-00260. The counsel of record for REC Solar Holdings AS included attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, among others.

Here are the details of the identified counsel for REC Solar Holdings AS:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Michael De Vries - Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Michael De Vries is a nationally recognized jury trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. He has secured significant trial wins and settlements, including a complete defense verdict for Samsung in a $4 billion patent suit and multiple plaintiff jury verdicts totaling over $2.5 billion. His experience spans semiconductor, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, and life sciences industries.
• Kyle Calhoun - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (office location not specified in the search results but he is an intellectual property litigation partner).
  • Experience Note: Kyle Calhoun is an intellectual property litigation partner focusing on high-tech patent and trade secret litigation across various forums including U.S. Federal Courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has been involved in six winning trial teams and has experience with complex technologies such as solar panel systems and semiconductor manufacturing.
• Ellisen Turner - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
  • Experience Note: Ellisen Turner is a partner in Kirkland & Ellis's Intellectual Property Practice Group and serves as lead trial counsel on major patent and trade secret matters. He has secured complete dismissals in patent infringement cases and achieved favorable settlements for clients without payment by the client, sometimes involving acquiring patent rights extending beyond the patents-in-suit.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

• Shawn Cleveland - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (office location not specified, but the firm has offices throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia and the Middle East).
  • Experience Note: Akin Gump has a robust intellectual property practice with over 45 lawyers and advisors, many of whom have technical degrees in science or engineering. The firm is known for its patent litigation in federal district courts, ITC, and PTAB. Shawn Cleveland is listed as a practitioner for REC Solar in the context of IPR2025-01039 against the '516 patent. While not explicitly stated as lead counsel in the district court case, his involvement in parallel IPR proceedings suggests a significant role in the overall defense strategy.
• Daniel McFall - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
  • Experience Note: Similar to Shawn Cleveland, Daniel McFall is listed as a practitioner for REC Solar in the context of IPR2025-01039 against the '516 patent. His experience aligns with Akin Gump's strong IP litigation practice.

It is important to note that the case was ultimately dismissed without prejudice on June 25, 2025, suggesting a negotiated resolution between the parties.

Other attorneys identified as representing REC Solar Holdings AS at some point during the litigation include James R. Barney, Jordan Michaela Cowger, Eric Hugh Findlay, Mareesa A. Frederick, Anthony A. Hartmann, Forrest Jones, and Gary C. Ma.