Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co LTD et al. v. Waaree Energies Limited et al.

JinkoSolar, a global leader in photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturing and energy storage systems, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Waaree Energies Limited and its U.S. subsidiary, Waaree Solar Americas Inc.. The plaintiffs, Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co LTD and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co LTD, are operating companies known for their significant market share in N-type TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) solar cells. Defendants Waaree Energies Limited, India's largest solar module and cell manufacturer, and Waaree Solar Americas Inc., also operating companies with a growing presence in the U.S. market, are accused of infringing Jinko's patent with their TOPCon N-type solar panels, including specific models such as the BiN-03, BiN-02, BiN-17, and BiN-08 series. These allegedly infringing products are widely used in residential, commercial, and utility-scale solar projects across the United States.

The sole patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 11,824,136, titled "Solar Cell, Manufacturing Method Thereof, and Photovoltaic Module". This patent describes an advanced TOPCon solar cell design featuring a semiconductor substrate with distinct surface textures: a rear surface incorporating a "first texture structure" (a non-pyramid-shaped microstructure with stacked substructures) and a front surface with a "second texture structure" (a pyramid-shaped microstructure). The invention also details layers such as a first passivation layer, a tunnel oxide layer, a doped conductive layer, and a second passivation layer, aiming to enhance the open-circuit voltage and overall conversion efficiency of the solar cell. The case was filed on February 7, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case number 4:25-cv-00532, and is presided over by Judge George C Hanks, Jr.. The Southern District of Texas is a favored venue for patent litigation, having seen a notable increase in filings partly due to the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which emphasizes a defendant's physical presence or incorporation in the district for proper venue. Waaree Solar Americas Inc.'s incorporation and established business in Texas contribute to the venue's propriety.

This case is particularly notable as it reflects an escalating trend of patent disputes within the highly competitive solar energy industry, specifically concerning the high-efficiency N-type TOPCon technology. As a dispute between two major operating companies rather than a non-practicing entity, it highlights the strategic importance of technological leadership and intellectual property protection in the global solar market. JinkoSolar has demonstrated an aggressive strategy to defend its TOPCon patent portfolio, having initiated similar infringement lawsuits against other competitors worldwide. The timing of the lawsuit against Waaree is also significant, as it followed shortly after Waaree Solar Americas began commercial operations at its new 1.6 GW solar module manufacturing plant in Brookshire, Texas, underscoring Jinko's efforts to protect its market share in the rapidly expanding U.S. solar market.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for JinkoSolar v. Waaree Energies

The patent infringement litigation, Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co LTD et al. v. Waaree Energies Limited et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00532, was filed on February 7, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case is currently active and proceeding through discovery.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-07): JinkoSolar initiated the lawsuit against Waaree Energies Limited and Waaree Solar Americas Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,136.
• Intervenor-Defendants Appear (dates not precisely specified, but before March 2026): TOYO Solar Company Limited (f/k/a Vietnam Sunergy Cell Company Ltd.), Toyo America LLC, and Toptoyo Investment Pte. Ltd. intervened as defendants in the case.
• Answers and Counterclaims (dates not precisely specified): While specific dates for the defendants' and intervenor-defendants' answers and counterclaims are not available from the provided search results, such filings would have occurred in the initial pleading phase following the complaint.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan (2026-02-27): The plaintiffs, Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., filed a joint discovery/case management plan, indicating the progression of the case into the discovery phase.
• Motion to Stay (dates not precisely specified, likely granted prior to 2026-01-21): A motion to stay all deadlines with respect to the intervenor-defendants was granted. A document filed on January 21, 2026, refers to this stay, suggesting it was ordered earlier. The specific reasons for this stay are not detailed in the available information, but could be related to the parallel IPR proceeding or other factors.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR Filed Against Asserted Patent (2026): U.S. Patent No. 11,824,136, the patent-in-suit, is currently subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2026-00230. The petitioners in this IPR are SEG Manufacturing Inc., New Energy Imports Inc., and SEG Solar Inc.. Notably, these petitioners are distinct from the defendants (Waaree) in the district court litigation, though some docket entries for the district court case have confusingly listed SEG Solar as a defendant for 4:25-cv-00532. The IPR status is "Pending".
• Effect on Litigation: While the IPR was not initiated by Waaree, the existence of an IPR challenging the validity of the asserted patent could influence the district court proceedings, potentially leading to a motion to stay by Waaree or impact settlement discussions. The granted stay of deadlines for the intervenor-defendants could potentially be related to this IPR or another related proceeding.

Current Posture

The case is active and appears to be in the discovery phase, as evidenced by the filing of a joint discovery/case management plan in February 2026. No information about claim construction (Markman) outcomes, significant discovery disputes beyond the general plan, trial events, verdict, or appeal has been found, which is consistent with the relatively early stage of the litigation given its filing date in February 2025.

The plaintiff, JinkoSolar, is represented by counsel from Foley & Lardner LLP in this specific case (4:25-cv-00532).

While specific individual attorneys for JinkoSolar in Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co LTD et al. v. Waaree Energies Limited et al. are not immediately available through public records of this specific case, JinkoSolar has previously used Perkins Coie for other patent litigation matters.

In particular, Louise Lu, Miguel Bombach, and Abigail Gardner of Perkins Coie were identified as counsel for JinkoSolar in a December 2024 patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against VSUN Solar USA, Inc., Toyo Co., Ltd., and their related entities. Louise Lu has been quoted stating JinkoSolar's commitment to vigorously defending its intellectual property.

It is common for companies to utilize different firms or attorneys for various cases, or for local counsel to be retained in specific jurisdictions.

No information regarding in-house counsel for this specific litigation has been found, although JinkoSolar does employ in-house legal counsel for its European operations and other corporate matters.

Defendants Waaree Energies Limited and Waaree Solar Americas Inc. are represented by attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP and Knobbe Martens.

Here are the details of the identified counsel:

Sidley Austin LLP

• Irene Yang (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Texas, given the venue.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ms. Yang is listed as an attorney for the defendants and has signed documents on their behalf. Sidley Austin has a robust intellectual property practice, regularly handling complex patent litigation.
• Tung Thanh Nguyen (Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Texas, given the venue.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Nguyen is also listed as representing the defendants.

Knobbe Martens

• Brian C. Horne (Counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Knobbe Martens has offices nationwide, including in Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Knobbe Martens is a well-known intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation. Mr. Horne is listed as representing the defendants.
• Kenneth O. Aruda (Counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Knobbe Martens has offices nationwide, including in Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Aruda is listed as representing the defendants.
• Jonathan E. Bachand (Counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Knobbe Martens has offices nationwide, including in Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Bachand is listed as representing the defendants.

It's worth noting that TOYO Solar Company Limited, Toyo America LLC, and Toptoyo Investment Pte. Ltd. participated as intervenor-defendants and were also represented by Tung Thanh Nguyen and Irene Yang of Sidley Austin LLP, according to a March 31, 2026, filing. This suggests a potential overlap in legal strategy or a relationship between Waaree and the TOYO entities.