Trina Solar Co., Ltd. et al. v. Runergy USA Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. et al. v. Runergy USA Inc. et al., involves two significant players in the global solar energy industry. The plaintiffs, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., are a leading Chinese photovoltaic (PV) manufacturer specializing in solar modules, cells, trackers, and energy storage systems with extensive global operations. The defendants, Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc., are also operating companies in the solar sector, manufacturing high-efficiency solar photovoltaic modules in the United States, notably from their Huntsville, Alabama facility which produces N-type solar panels.

Trina Solar alleges that Runergy's solar cells and modules, specifically those utilizing TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) solar cell technology, infringe its intellectual property. The patents asserted in this case include U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 and U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104. Both patents are titled "Solar Cell and Method for Manufacturing the Same" and describe solar cell structures that employ an isolation portion and a tunnel layer to enhance efficiency, integral to TOPCon technology. U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 was issued on March 12, 2019, while U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 was issued in 2017.

The case was filed on May 8, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation known for its specialized judges and efficient dockets, presided over by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. This litigation is notable as it is part of a broader "patent war" within the highly competitive solar photovoltaic industry, focusing on cutting-edge TOPCon solar cell technology. In addition to this district court case, Trina Solar filed parallel complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), seeking import exclusion orders against Runergy and other entities, demonstrating an aggressive, multi-forum enforcement strategy. Runergy, in turn, challenged the validity of Trina Solar's patents by initiating inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. In a significant development, the PTAB issued final written decisions on April 15, 2026, finding claims 1-17 of the '009 patent and claims 1-11 of the '104 patent unpatentable, effectively invalidating these patents, which removes the legal basis for the Delaware infringement action and effectively halts the district court case, subject to appeal. Runergy has argued that Trina Solar acquired these patents from LG in February 2024 and that the technology was already public knowledge prior to the patent filings.

Trina Solar Co., Ltd. and Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on May 8, 2024 (Case No. 1:24-cv-00557-JCG). The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,230,009 and 9,722,104.

Key legal developments and the outcome for this litigation include:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-05-08: Trina Solar Co., Ltd. and Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. filed their complaint against Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc. in the District of Delaware, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,230,009 and 9,722,104.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • 2024-10-03: Runergy USA Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009, designated as IPR2025-00006, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO.
  • 2024-10-04: Runergy USA Inc. also petitioned for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104, designated as IPR2025-00007.
  • Canadian Solar later joined as a petitioner in the IPR cases challenging Trina Solar's patents.
  • 2026-04-15: The PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents. The Board determined that claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 and claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 were unpatentable.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • The District of Delaware case was stayed at an early stage. Initially, the stay was pending an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), where Trina Solar had also filed complaints against Runergy and others for unfair imports concerning the same patents. The ITC investigation against Runergy and Adani was instituted on November 5, 2024.
  • The district court action subsequently remained stayed pending the outcomes of the IPR proceedings before the PTAB. Due to this early stay, the case did not reach claim construction (Markman) or significant discovery milestones.

• Outcome and Present Posture:

  • The PTAB's final written decisions on April 15, 2026, finding all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,230,009 and 9,722,104 unpatentable, effectively remove the legal basis for the patent infringement action in the District of Delaware.
  • While the PTAB decisions are subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, they have an immediate practical effect, making it unlikely for the district court litigation to proceed to trial. The district court case, though technically active, is effectively halted due to the invalidation of the underlying patents.

In the patent infringement case Trina Solar Co., Ltd. et al. v. Runergy USA Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-00557-JCG) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, while specific docket entries detailing the appearance of individual attorneys are not publicly accessible through general web searches, the nature of the case and typical practice in the District of Delaware strongly indicate the involvement of prominent intellectual property litigation firms.

Based on legal news coverage of Trina Solar's patent disputes in the solar technology sector and the frequent involvement of certain firms in Delaware patent litigation, the following firms are highly likely to be representing the plaintiff(s):

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or co-lead counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan is one of the largest intellectual property law firms globally, with offices in multiple locations including Washington, D.C., and Palo Alto.
  • Experience Note: Finnegan possesses extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in clean energy and renewable technologies, including solar cells, and frequently represents clients in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morris Nichols is a Wilmington, Delaware-based law firm.
  • Experience Note: Morris Nichols is recognized as a premier patent litigation firm in Delaware, handling a substantial number of intellectual property cases in the District of Delaware and often serving as local counsel for complex patent disputes.

As of the current date (2026-06-15), without direct access to the PACER docket for case 1:24-cv-00557-JCG, it is not possible to definitively list the names of individual attorneys who have entered an appearance as counsel of record for Trina Solar. However, the involvement of firms with strong IP litigation practices, like Finnegan, and leading local Delaware counsel, such as Morris Nichols, is standard practice in patent infringement cases in this jurisdiction.

Despite extensive web searches for direct docket entries from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:24-cv-00557-JCG), the specific counsel of record who have entered appearances for defendants Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc. in this patent infringement case could not be definitively identified without direct access to the court's ECF (PACER) system. Filings may be sealed, or counsel may not yet have formally appeared in all public records accessible through general web searches.

However, based on related proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent 10,230,009 (IPR2025-00006), the following attorneys were identified as representing Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc. in that inter partes review. It is common practice for the same legal teams to handle parallel district court litigation and PTAB proceedings for a client.

Likely Counsel for Defendant(s) (Based on Related PTAB IPR):

• Samuel N. Tiu (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Skilled IP litigator with experience in patent and trade secret cases across various technologies, including solar and laser technologies. Has successfully defended clients against infringement claims and secured findings of non-infringement and patent invalidity in the ITC and PTAB, including for LONGi Solar in a case involving solar cell composition.

• Tung Nguyen (Counsel)

  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Over 25 years of experience in complex patent and trade secret litigation, licensing, and counseling. Represents clients in federal courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) across a wide range of technologies, including solar cells and modules, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

• Michael L. Roberts (Counsel)

  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex patent litigation, having represented clients in various district courts, including the District of Delaware, and before the Federal Circuit. His experience covers diverse technologies such as power converter technology, wireless communications, and consumer electronics, and includes drafting petitions for inter partes review and assisting in ITC investigations.

• Joseph A. Micallef (Formerly Counsel, now at a different firm)

  • Former Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Current Firm: Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Veteran intellectual property trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience, specializing in complex litigation involving cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence, cellular technology, and solar cell design. He has litigated cases before federal district and appellate courts, federal agencies (including the ITC and PTAB), and arbitration panels. (It is unclear from public information if he continues to represent Runergy in this specific district court case after his firm change.)

Delaware Local Counsel:

It is a requirement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for out-of-state attorneys to associate with local counsel admitted to practice in Delaware, who often play an active role throughout the litigation. Reputable Delaware firms frequently serving as local counsel in patent cases include:

• Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
• Richards, Layton & Finger P.A.

Without access to the official docket for 1:24-cv-00557-JCG, the specific Delaware local counsel associated with the above firms for Runergy cannot be identified at this time.