Voltage, LLC et al. v. Shoals Technologies Group, LLC

This case, IPR2025-01443, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation. Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. (collectively, "Voltage") are the Petitioners, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375. Voltage, LLC is a global provider of utility-scale wire and electrical balance of system (EBOS) solutions for photovoltaic (PV) solar projects, based in Chapel Hill, NC, offering products like solar wire/cables and pre-assembled wire harnesses. Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. is a Chinese company also involved in the solar industry, with export activities to the United States, and appears to be an operating company. Shoals Technologies Group, LLC ("Shoals") is the Patent Owner. Shoals is a leading provider of electrical balance of system (EBOS) solutions for solar energy projects, energy storage, and eMobility, headquartered in Portland, TN, known for its patented "plug-n-play" wiring solutions like the Big Lead Assembly (BLA) that simplify solar installations.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375, is titled "Lead assembly for connecting solar panel arrays to inverter." It describes a lead assembly that includes multiple drop lines joined to a feeder cable at specialized joints, designed to electrically couple solar arrays to an inverter, and a system that can eliminate the need for a conventional combiner box. The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which ultimately "Denied Institution" of the IPR. A denial of institution means the PTAB decided not to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, often based on discretionary factors such as the stage of any parallel district court litigation, the overlap of issues, or considerations like "settled expectations" if the patent has been in force for a significant period.

This case is notable due to the competitive landscape within the solar energy industry, specifically concerning electrical balance of system (EBOS) solutions. Both Voltage and Shoals are active players in this market, providing wiring and connection solutions for large-scale solar projects. The IPR challenge by Voltage against a Shoals patent suggests a direct competitive interest in the underlying technology for connecting solar panels. The denial of institution by the PTAB could impact the parties' strategies, potentially leaving the patent owner's claims unchallenged on the merits through IPR and possibly shifting the battleground to any parallel infringement litigation, if such exists or arises. Indeed, Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. were also identified as respondents in a Section 337 investigation by the USITC concerning photovoltaic trunk bus cable assemblies, which alleges infringement of patents asserted by a complainant (not explicitly identified as Shoals in that specific search result, but indicating a broader IP dispute in this technology area). The PTAB's recent trend of increasing IPR institution denials, influenced by factors like parallel litigation and the Director's discretion, highlights the strategic importance of such decisions in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent dispute between Voltage, LLC, Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. (collectively, "Voltage") and Shoals Technologies Group, LLC ("Shoals") involves parallel proceedings across the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a U.S. District Court, and the International Trade Commission (ITC). U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375 is central to these disputes.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-04-14): Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01443, challenging claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-17, and 19-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375 owned by Shoals Technologies Group, LLC. [cite: 3 in prior step]
• Sotera Stipulation: Voltage stipulated that if the PTAB instituted IPR, they would not pursue the same challenged grounds in any parallel district court litigation. However, if institution was denied, Voltage reserved the right to pursue those grounds or any other prior art invalidity grounds in the parallel litigation. [cite: 5 in prior section]
• Institution Denied: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) subsequently denied institution of IPR2025-01443. The specific date of the denial is not available in the public records consulted, but IPRs typically receive an institution decision within 6-12 months of filing. This occurred amidst a period (starting October 2025) where USPTO Director John Squires assumed personal authority over all IPR and PGR institution decisions, often issuing summary denials without detailed reasoning. [cite: 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 in prior step]

Parallel U.S. District Court Litigation

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025): Shoals Technologies Group, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Voltage, LLC et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Case No. 1:25-cv-00026. The case asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 12,015,376 and 12,015,295. The exact filing date of the initial complaint is not available, but the case was active by at least July 2025 and October 2025. [cite: 2, 5 in prior section, 2, 3 in prior step]
• Stay (Early 2025): As of January 17, 2025, the district court action was reported as "currently stayed," likely pending developments in the ITC investigations. [cite: 4 in prior section] However, subsequent docket activity indicates the stay may have been partial or lifted for certain pre-trial matters.
• Discovery Milestones (2026-03-11): The court issued an order partly granting Shoals' motion to compel discovery, requiring Voltage to produce certain emails and specify facts regarding non-willfulness. The discovery deadline was extended to March 31, 2026, for compliance. [cite: 6 in prior section]
• Pre-trial Motions – Motion to Dismiss (2026-03-23): The court granted in part and denied in part Voltage's motion to dismiss Shoals' Third Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four but denied dismissal for Counts One, Two, and Five, which relate to alleged infringement of the '375, '376, and '295 Patents. The court indicated that it would assess evidence of infringement at the Rule 56 (summary judgment) stage or at trial. [cite: 2 in prior section]
• Motions to Seal: The court addressed multiple motions to seal documents, distinguishing between judicial records (requiring stronger justification for sealing) and non-judicial records (allowing sealing with good cause). [cite: 3 in prior section]
• Claim Construction: Details regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order for the district court case are not publicly available in the consulted sources.
• Present Posture: The district court case remains active, with recent orders on discovery and motions to dismiss, suggesting it is moving through pre-trial phases despite the earlier reported "stay."

Parallel ITC Proceedings (Inv. No. 337-TA-1438)

The parties have been involved in multiple investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

• First ITC Investigation - Complaint (2023-05): Shoals filed an ITC complaint in May 2023, asserting two patents. An amended complaint was filed in July 2023, adding a third patent. [cite: 4 in prior section]
• First ITC Investigation - ALJ Initial Determination (2024-08): An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination finding a violation by Voltage's original design, but cleared an alternative design. [cite: 4 in prior section]
• First ITC Investigation - ITC Final Determination (2025-01-17): The ITC reversed the ALJ's finding, issuing a final determination of "no violation" of Section 337 for Voltage. This decision terminated that specific ITC investigation. [cite: 4 in prior section]
• Appeal of First ITC Investigation (2025-02-11): Shoals filed a Petition for Review and Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking to overturn the ITC's interpretation of the '153 patent. [cite: 9 in prior section]
• Second ITC Investigation - Institution (2025-02-11): The ITC instituted a new investigation into Voltage's infringement of the newly issued U.S. Patent Nos. 12,015,375 and 12,015,376, which are also at issue in the district court litigation. [cite: 9 in prior section]
• Second ITC Investigation - ALJ Initial Determination (2026-02-06): In the new investigation, an ALJ found that Voltage violated Section 337 by importing LYNX trunk bus products, which were found to infringe Shoals' '375 and '376 patents. [cite: 7, 8 in prior section]
• Second ITC Investigation - Final Determination Expected (2026-06): The full ITC is expected to issue its final determination in this second investigation by June 2026. [cite: 7 in prior section]

Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. (Petitioners) were represented by counsel from at least two law firms in the IPR2025-01443 proceeding: Crowell & Moring LLP and King & Wood Mallesons LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Crowell & Moring LLP

• Scott L. Bittman
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Crowell & Moring LLP, Two Manhattan West, 375 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10001
  • Note: Mr. Bittman is a registered patent attorney, involved in patent litigation, and his firm has a robust Intellectual Property practice.

King & Wood Mallesons LLP

• J. Benjamin Bai
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: King & Wood Mallesons LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
  • Note: Mr. Bai has significant experience in intellectual property law, including patent prosecution and litigation, particularly with a focus on cross-border matters given his firm's global presence. His firm has attorneys with experience in patent litigation and IPR proceedings.

It's also worth noting that in a related Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC) (Inv. No. 337-TA-1438), Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. were represented by White & Case LLP. Key attorneys from White & Case LLP in that ITC matter included:

• Yar Chaikovsky (Global Head of IP, Silicon Valley)
• Philip Ou (Partner, Silicon Valley)
• Jordan Coyle (Partner, Washington, DC)
• Bruce Yen (Partner, Silicon Valley)
• Yolanda Xu (Associate, Silicon Valley)
• Sojung Yun (Associate, Silicon Valley)
• Brady Schoenlein (Associate, Silicon Valley)
• Radhesh Devendran (Associate, Silicon Valley)

While this ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-1438) is distinct from the IPR, it involves the same parties and related patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375, and demonstrates the broader legal teams involved in Voltage's defense against Shoals' patent assertions.

I'll start by clarifying the role mapping, then search for counsel of record on both sides.

Now let me pin down the PTAB-specific counsel of record for Shoals (the "defendant"/Patent Owner in this IPR) and check the MDNC docket for the defense-side counsel of record.

Framing note — which "defendant"?

Before naming anyone, one role-mapping caveat, because this case has two different captions and the prior sections use a third framing:

• IPR2025-01443 (this docket): Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. are Petitioners; Shoals Technologies Group, LLC is the Patent Owner — i.e., functionally the respondent/defendant side of this PTAB proceeding. The prior "Plaintiff representatives" section already covers the Petitioners' PTAB counsel (Crowell & Moring / King & Wood Mallesons), so I do not repeat them here.
• The actual patent infringement case: Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co., No. 1:25-cv-00026 (M.D.N.C.) — here Shoals is Plaintiff and Voltage is the defendant. Voltage's defense team in that court is White & Case, not its PTAB team.

So below I give (A) Shoals' counsel of record — the "defendant"/Patent Owner side of IPR2025-01443, plus (B) the defense-side counsel of record in the parallel infringement suit, since a reader asking for "defendant's counsel in this patent infringement case" could mean either.

---

A. Shoals Technologies Group, LLC — counsel of record in IPR2025-01443

Shoals' counsel is designated in its Power of Attorney (executed Aug. 29, 2025) and its 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) counsel designation, both filed in IPR2025-01443. The POA appoints all practitioners associated with Customer Number 11951 (Troutman Pepper Locke LLP).

Sources: Shoals' Power of Attorney and counsel-designation papers in IPR2025-01443 (PTABS petition 1558386), e.g. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558386/download-documents?artifactId=8rpmaJKez1mg5I_cyRM_pVhjwEYE7x09o1s_8LwJrz4g4-ZPW1EUjR8 and .../artifactId=pOvY1g88QMpNhUZwUFcrPEVOgNNh_n1bvCLHEZ6fyaDkKtQQfrVSU1M (lead/back-up table). Cross-checked against the IPR2025-01443 case record at https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01443 (listing "Respondent Counsel: McCarthy, Alison et al.").

Other Troutman attorneys active on Shoals' PTAB side (not designated of record in this IPR, but part of the team in the related Shoals IPRs): Dustin N. Ferzacca appears on PTAB correspondence for Shoals' IPR2025-00064/-00065 (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556824](/patent/1556824)/download-documents?artifactId=1subfTjZJORYH6EJgn5BU5ygE8U9vAm8qA9xDuhaTIpH8XMlAB7RMGU). I found no separate designation of Ferzacca or other Troutman attorneys in the IPR2025-01443 § 42.8 paper, so I am not listing them as counsel of record here — treat the two names above as the operative of-record designations.

Shoals' district-court and ITC counsel (same firm, different forum) — from Troutman Pepper Locke's own announcements and the M.D.N.C. docket:

Not counsel of record, but relevant: Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP (Charles S. Barquist, Kirk R. Harris, Eric L. Maschoff, Christina L. Trinh, Carol A. Hanna Girgis, Saloni Mathur) were Shoals' ITC counsel and prosecuted the '375/'376 applications — the subject of Voltage's inequitable-conduct/prosecution-bar theory. They appear in the M.D.N.C. docket only as an objector (motion-to-quash subpoena, M.D.N.C. misc. Nos. 1:25-mc-00029 / 1:25-mc-00033), not as Shoals' litigation counsel. See the ITC prosecution-bar stipulation reproduced at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558386/download-documents?artifactId=0vETA7l27p-pYVkMvTHuMKXmNXB6J0JvyH82cCH46gHxqhtrmQETXwA and the docket roll at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_25-cv-00026.

---

B. Defendants in the infringement suit (Voltage) — counsel of record in M.D.N.C. No. 1:25-cv-00026

Because the prompt asks about the "patent infringement case," here is the defense-side docket presence — deliberately brief, since the prior section already detailed the same firms' ITC roster.