Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al.

Trina Solar Co., Ltd. initiated patent infringement litigation against Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation, and Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Trina Solar, a Chinese photovoltaics company founded in 1997, is a global leader in the R&D, production, and sales of PV modules, as well as energy storage and system solutions. The defendants are subsidiaries of Canadian Solar Inc., a Canadian-headquartered global renewable energy company established in 2001, which is a major manufacturer of solar photovoltaic modules, provider of solar energy and battery storage solutions, and a developer of utility-scale solar power projects. Recurrent Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary, specifically handles Canadian Solar's U.S. utility-scale solar and storage project development. Both Trina Solar and Canadian Solar are significant operating companies and direct competitors in the solar industry, making this a dispute between industry giants over core technology.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of Trina Solar's "tunnel oxide passivated contact" (TOPCon) solar cell technology. The accused products are Canadian Solar's TOPCon solar cells, modules, panels, and related components, which Canadian Solar manufactures and sells globally. Trina Solar asserted two U.S. patents: Patent No. 10,230,009 and Patent No. 9,722,104. Both patents are titled "Solar Cell and Method for Manufacturing the Same" and generally relate to solar cell architecture, manufacturing techniques, and improvements in efficiency through elements like an isolation portion and a tunnel layer.

The case, filed in October 2024, is docketed as 1:24-cv-01115-UNA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue frequently chosen for patent litigation due to the incorporation of many large companies in Delaware and the court's experienced patent bench. The procedural posture is complex and notable for its multi-forum strategy and recent developments. Trina Solar initially filed a parallel complaint for unfair imports at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), leading to the district court case being stayed pending the ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1425). While the ITC investigation against Canadian Solar has since been terminated, the district court action remained stayed pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Critically, in April 2026, the PTAB issued final written decisions invalidating all claims of both U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 and U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104, effectively dismantling the legal foundation of Trina Solar's infringement claims in the District of Delaware, although these decisions are subject to appeal. This ongoing "global IP war" over TOPCon technology highlights the intense competition and strategic importance of intellectual property in the high-efficiency solar sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al.

The patent infringement litigation, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01115-UNA, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on October 8, 2024. The case is currently suspended pending an investigation by the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-10-08): Plaintiff Trina Solar Co., Ltd. initiated the lawsuit against Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation, and Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 and U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Case Suspended Pending ITC Investigation: The litigation has been suspended. The existing case summary notes that this suspension is pending an ITC investigation, though specific docket entries for the motion to stay and the order granting it are not immediately available through the provided search results for this specific case number. Further detailed docket searching would be required to pinpoint the exact date of the motion and order to stay.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions Against '009 Patent (2024-10-03): Runergy USA Inc., a party involved in other parallel litigation with Trina Solar, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR 2025-00006) of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on October 3, 2024.
• IPR Petitions Against '104 Patent (2024-10-04): Runergy USA Inc. also filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR 2025-00007) of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 on October 4, 2024. These IPR proceedings, while initiated by a different entity, could potentially impact the asserted patents in the Trina Solar v. Canadian Solar litigation if the PTAB decides to institute and ultimately cancel claims.

Current Posture:
The case is currently suspended, as noted in the initial information, likely awaiting the outcome of a related ITC investigation. No further substantive proceedings such as answers, counterclaims, claim construction, discovery, or trial events appear to have occurred given the recent filing date and suspended status.

Based on the available web search results, the specific counsel of record representing Trina Solar Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware case, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01115-UNA), is not explicitly identified. The various news articles and press releases discussing the lawsuit confirm its filing and status but do not name the plaintiff's attorneys for the District Court action.

However, Trina Solar has also filed a parallel complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) related to the same patent dispute (Inv. No. 337-TA-1425), and for that ITC investigation, counsel has been identified. It is highly probable that the same or closely associated legal teams are handling both matters.

Based on the ITC filing, the following firm is listed as a representative for an additional complainant (Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC), which is part of the Trina Solar entities involved in the dispute:

• Firm: Levi Snotherly & Schaumberg, PLLC
• Role: Participant Representative (for Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC in the related ITC Investigation).
• Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically Washington, D.C. for ITC matters.
• Relevant Experience: The firm is actively representing Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning TOPCon solar cell technology.

Given that the District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, it is customary for plaintiffs to engage local counsel in addition to their lead national counsel. While not confirmed for this specific case, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is widely recognized as a premier patent litigation firm in Delaware and frequently serves as local counsel in such matters. Similarly, Paul Hastings LLP is known for its strong intellectual property litigation practice, including experience with ITC Section 337 investigations and patent litigation in district courts across the U.S.

As the District Court case is currently suspended, and direct PACER access to docket entries is not available through this platform, a definitive list of attorneys who have formally appeared in 1:24-cv-01115-UNA for Trina Solar cannot be provided at this time.

In the patent infringement case Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-01115-UNA), the defendant Canadian Solar entities are represented by attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP and Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP.

The case is currently suspended pending an ITC investigation, which also involves Trina Solar and Canadian Solar concerning TOPCon solar cell technology and the same patents. In that related ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1425), Sidley Austin LLP is explicitly listed as the participant representative for Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation and Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC.

Additionally, in another recent patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Delaware, First Solar Inc v. Canadian Solar Inc (Case No. 1:25-cv-00582), Canadian Solar entities are represented by the same firms and several of the same attorneys. This strongly indicates their representation in the Trina Solar case.

Here is the identified counsel for the defendant(s):

Lead Counsel

• Michael J. Bettinger
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (or Palo Alto, CA) (Based on general firm presence and practice areas, specific office for this attorney needs to be confirmed via firm website).
  • Relevant Experience: Bettinger is a prominent patent litigator who has represented Canadian Solar in other significant patent disputes, including a victory against Maxeon where all patents-in-suit were invalidated. He also represents Canadian Solar in the First Solar litigation. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly in high-tech and life sciences.
• Brooke Shanelle Boll
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (or Palo Alto, CA).
  • Relevant Experience: Boll is also part of the Sidley Austin team representing Canadian Solar in the Maxeon dispute and the First Solar litigation, focusing on intellectual property litigation.

Local Counsel

• Arthur G. Connolly, III
  • Firm: Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP (or potentially Wilks Lukoff & Bracegirdle, though Connolly is specifically listed in the related First Solar case).
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Relevant Experience: Connolly is a well-known Delaware attorney often serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases filed in the District of Delaware. He is listed as counsel for Canadian Solar in the First Solar case.

In-House Counsel

While specific in-house counsel for this particular litigation are not named in the search results directly for appearances in this case, Canadian Solar has in-house legal teams.

• Adam Walters (General Counsel, Americas at Canadian Solar's Modules and Systems Solutions business)
  • Firm: Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. (in-house)
  • Office Location: Americas (specific office not identified, likely North America).
  • Relevant Experience: Walters has publicly commented on the Trina Solar lawsuit, stating that Canadian Solar views it as "frivolous" and expects the court to find no infringement.
• Jeff Kalikow (Chief Legal Officer at Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Canadian Solar)
  • Firm: Recurrent Energy (in-house)
  • Office Location: Austin, TX (Recurrent Energy's office of the General Counsel).
  • Relevant Experience: Kalikow leads the in-house legal team for Recurrent Energy, one of the defendants, and is involved in various legal matters for the company, including corporate financing.
• Brett Martino (Counsel at Clean Energy Counsel, previously Senior In-House Counsel at Recurrent Energy)
  • Firm: Clean Energy Counsel (previously in-house at Recurrent Energy).
  • Office Location: Marin County, CA (Clean Energy Counsel).
  • Relevant Experience: Martino has over a decade of legal experience in the renewables industry, including serving as senior in-house counsel at Recurrent Energy.