Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

Trina Solar Co., Ltd., a prominent Chinese operating company founded in 1997, specializes in a broad range of photovoltaic (PV) products, energy storage solutions, system solutions, and digital energy services globally. Its business encompasses the R&D, production, and sales of PV modules, as well as providing comprehensive energy storage and smart energy solutions. The plaintiff, Trina Solar, is actively involved in the manufacturing and distribution of solar cells and modules. The defendant, Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., also a Chinese operating company established in 2013, focuses on the R&D and production of high-efficiency solar products, particularly solar cells and modules, with a significant presence in N-type technology. Runergy has been recognized among the top three global solar cell shippers for multiple consecutive years. This litigation represents a dispute between two major players in the competitive solar energy industry.

Trina Solar accuses Jiangsu Runergy of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 ("the '009 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 ("the '104 patent"), both of which relate to TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) solar cell technology. The '009 patent, titled "Solar cell and method for manufacturing the same," generally describes a solar cell structure that includes an isolation portion and a tunnel layer designed to enhance efficiency. Specifically, it details aspects like a tunnel layer made of silicon oxide (SiOx) for passivation and carrier tunneling, and first finger electrodes potentially depressed into a semiconductor region. The accused products or technology are Runergy's TOPCon solar cells and modules.

The case, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., case number 2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR, was filed on September 10, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While the specific judge is not explicitly mentioned in the provided search results for this case number, Magistrate Judge Maureen A. Cleveland is indicated by the "MAR" suffix in the case number. The Central District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation due to its substantial economic activity and its role in handling disputes involving international technology companies. The case is notable as it is part of broader intellectual property enforcement efforts by Trina Solar concerning its TOPCon solar cell technology, including parallel lawsuits and investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Critically, Jiangsu Runergy, along with other defendants in related cases, has initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to challenge the validity of both the '009 and '104 patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO has already issued final written decisions, finding all claims of both the '009 and '104 patents unpatentable in related IPRs, which could significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation. This IPR linkage and the subsequent invalidation decisions highlight the intense competition and high stakes in the advanced solar cell market.

This analysis details the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-09-10): Trina Solar Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,230,009 and 9,722,104, related to TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) solar cell technology.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions Filed by Runergy (2024-10-03 & 2024-10-04): Shortly after the district court filing, Jiangsu Runergy initiated actions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of the asserted patents. Runergy USA Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 (IPR 2025-00006) on October 3, 2024. The following day, October 4, 2024, Runergy filed another IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 (IPR 2025-00007). Runergy contended that these patents were unpatentable, arguing that the underlying technology had been published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy as early as 2013, predating Trina Solar's acquisition of the patents in February 2024.

3. Parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Proceedings:

• ITC Complaint Filed by Trina Solar (Late September/Early October 2024): In parallel with the district court litigation, Trina Solar also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337. This complaint alleged that Runergy and Adani Green Energy improperly imported and sold products infringing Trina's TOPCon solar cell patents (including 10,230,009 and 9,722,104), seeking a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. The ITC initiated its investigation on October 31, 2024.

4. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (Stay Pending IPR):

• District Court Stay (Implied): While specific docket entries for the Central District of California case are not detailed in the provided search results, a parallel infringement action filed by Trina Solar against Canadian Solar in the District of Delaware, involving the same patents, was stayed early on, initially pending the ITC investigation and subsequently pending the IPR proceedings. It is common practice for district courts to stay patent infringement cases pending the outcome of IPRs on the asserted patents. The identified sources indicate the PTAB decisions "effectively halted" the litigation.

5. PTAB Final Written Decisions (2026-04-15):

• Patents Invalidated: On April 15, 2026, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in the IPR proceedings, holding that all claims of both U.S. Patent Nos. 9,722,104 and 10,230,009 were unpatentable. These decisions removed the legal basis for the ongoing infringement actions.

6. Outcome / Present Posture:

• Effective Halt of Litigation: The PTAB's invalidation of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 (and U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104) effectively halts the district court patent infringement litigation against Jiangsu Runergy. Courts are unlikely to advance infringement proceedings once the underlying patents have been declared unpatentable.
• Appeal Possibility: The PTAB decisions are subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A successful appeal would be the only path for reviving the dispute, which would then resume from a stayed position and require further proceedings.
• ITC Proceedings Terminated: The parallel ITC proceedings, which were initially a factor in staying related district court cases, were also terminated following the PTAB's decisions.

As of the current date (2026-06-15), the Central District of California case (2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR) is effectively halted due to the PTAB's final written decisions finding the asserted patents, including US Patent 10,230,009, unpatentable. While a formal dismissal or final judgment entry in the district court based on the PTAB decisions would depend on further motion practice, the substantive basis for the infringement claim has been eliminated.

The plaintiff, Trina Solar Co., Ltd., is represented by attorneys from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in the case Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR).

The identified counsel of record for Trina Solar Co., Ltd. includes:

• Thomas C. Chen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: Thomas Chen is a partner and co-head of Orrick's IP practice. He has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector, including solar energy disputes. He has represented clients in district courts across the U.S. and before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

• Bastiaan "Bas" de Blank

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience Note: Bas de Blank is a partner in Orrick's IP litigation group, focusing on patent litigation for technology companies. He has represented clients in disputes involving various technologies, including matters before the ITC and federal district courts.

This patent infringement case, Trina Solar Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., case number 2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, lists the following counsel of record for the defendant, Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.:

• Ziyong (Sean) Li

  • Role: Lead Counsel (substituted in)
  • Firm: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP
  • Office Location: Unknown from current search, but Benesch Friedlander has multiple offices across the US.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Li was substituted in as counsel for Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. on March 7, 2025, replacing Samuel N. Tiu.

• Samuel N. Tiu

  • Role: Former Counsel (substituted out)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP
  • Office Location: Unknown from current search, but Sidley Austin has numerous offices globally.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Tiu initially represented Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. but was replaced by Ziyong (Sean) Li on March 7, 2025.

The Central District of California generally requires out-of-state attorneys to associate with local counsel to appear pro hac vice. However, the search results do not explicitly name specific local counsel for Jiangsu Runergy in this particular case, beyond the lead counsel information.

It is important to note that the case was stayed on November 8, 2024, until the determination of a related ITC investigation (No. 337-TA-1422) becomes final. The parties are required to file joint status reports every 120 days and notify the court within seven days of the ITC investigation's final determination.