Litigation

Untitled case

active

1:25-cv-00462

Filed
2025

Patents at issue (1)

Summary

A patent litigation case involving US Patent 9666732 was filed in the Delaware District Court under case number 1:25-cv-00462 in 2025. This case is currently active and deemed critical.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This active patent infringement litigation, case number 1:25-cv-00462, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue frequently chosen for complex patent disputes. The plaintiff, Mundra Solar PV Limited (MSPVL), a subsidiary of India's Adani Group, initiated the action by filing a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against defendant First Solar, Inc.. First Solar, a prominent U.S.-based thin-film photovoltaic (PV) technology company, subsequently filed a patent infringement counterclaim. MSPVL is an operating company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of solar products, while First Solar is a leading solar technology and manufacturing company.

The core of the dispute centers on First Solar's patents related to Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (TOPCon) solar cell technology. The patents at issue are U.S. Patent No. 9,666,732 and U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074, both titled "High-efficiency solar cell structures and methods of manufacture". U.S. Patent No. 9,666,732 generally describes high-efficiency solar cell structures incorporating electrically passivating and conductive films. MSPVL's N-type TOPCon solar cells and solar modules are the accused products, with MSPVL asserting that its manufacturing process differs materially from First Solar's patented methods, particularly by omitting a heat-treatment step central to First Solar's claims.

The procedural posture of the case indicates ongoing activity. The case was filed on April 15, 2025. Judge Jennifer L. Hall has signed an order granting an unopposed motion to stay the case as of March 27, 2026, pending a determination by the International Trade Commission (ITC). This litigation is notable as a significant intellectual property battle within the US solar industry, particularly concerning TOPCon solar cell technology. First Solar has been actively asserting its TOPCon patents against multiple manufacturers, including JinkoSolar and Canadian Solar. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied a review application filed by Mundra Solar challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,666,732 in January 2026, affirming the patent's strength. This case carries significant implications for the commercial future of Indian solar exports to the U.S. market. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 19, 2027, with a jury trial anticipated for May 8, 2028.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Here are the key legal developments and the current status of the patent infringement litigation case 1:25-cv-00462 in the Delaware District Court, involving US Patent 9666732.

Chronological Legal Developments and Outcome:

  • 2025-04-15: Case Filing & Initial Pleadings
    Mundra Solar PV Limited filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement against First Solar, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, designated as 1:25-cv-00462, involves US Patent 9666732, which relates to high-efficiency solar cell structures and methods of manufacture.

  • 2025-08-15: Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding Filed
    Mundra Solar PV Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-01411) challenging US Patent 9666732 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). First Solar Inc. was identified as the patent owner.

  • 2025-12-11: PTAB IPR Not Instituted
    The IPR proceeding IPR2025-01411 was designated as "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB.

  • 2026-03-27: Case Stayed Pending ITC Determination
    The District Court issued an order granting an Unopposed Motion to Stay the case. The stay is pending a determination by the International Trade Commission (ITC). This district court case is related to ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1494, concerning "Certain TOPCon Solar Cells, Modules, Panels, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same."

Current Posture:

The case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the International Trade Commission investigation. No claim construction (Markman) has occurred, nor has the case progressed to discovery milestones, trial events, or a final judgment. The parallel IPR proceeding challenging US Patent 9666732 was not instituted.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Here is the counsel of record representing Mundra Solar PV Limited, the plaintiff(s) in case 1:25-cv-00462:

1. Karen E. Keller

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE (I.M. Pei Building, 1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801)
  • Experience: Possesses extensive experience representing clients in a diverse array of disputes, including patent infringement and false advertising cases. She is highly regarded for her in-depth knowledge of the Delaware court and judges, and is listed in Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation and Business Litigation.

2. Nathan Hoeschen

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Practices in Intellectual Property Litigation and has been involved in significant docket activity in the case, including filing an unopposed motion to stay.

3. Shamita Etienne-Cummings

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, D.C. (2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036)
  • Experience: A partner with over 30 years of experience in engineering, law, and management, specializing in complex patent matters. She is a first-chair litigator representing technology clients in mobile communications, semiconductor design, consumer electronics, and medical devices before district courts, the Federal Circuit, the PTAB, and the ITC. She is consistently recognized as a "World's Leading Patent Professional" by IAM Patent 1000 and a "Patent Star" on Managing IP's IP Stars list.

4. James P. Gagen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: A partner focusing on high-stakes technology litigation matters in the U.S. International Trade Commission and federal district courts. He is known for his extensive experience with Section 337 matters at the ITC.

5. Stephanie Adamakos

  • Role: Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: An associate in the Patent Litigation practice focusing on federal court litigation (district and appellate levels) and proceedings before the USPTO and ITC. Her experience includes cases involving jet turbine engines, surgical instruments, and alarm systems, and she completed a two-year clerkship at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Note: Lindsey M. Geller of Shaw Keller LLP was initially listed as counsel but withdrew her appearance on October 31, 2025.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

In the patent infringement case Mundra Solar PV Limited v. First Solar, Inc. (1:25-cv-00462) in the District of Delaware, the defendant, First Solar, Inc., is represented by the following counsel:

  • Megan Dellinger (Counsel)
    • Firm: Unspecified in current search results.
    • Office Location: Unspecified in current search results.
    • Relevant Experience: Megan Dellinger is listed in the docket as counsel filing objections and responses on behalf of First Solar, Inc. in its capacity as the defendant and counterclaimant.

Further investigation would be required to identify additional counsel, their specific roles (e.g., lead, local, of counsel), their respective firms and office locations, and a detailed one-line note on their patent litigation experience. The provided search results primarily identify the case and Ms. Dellinger's involvement but do not offer these specific details.