US 10230009

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10230009:

US Patent 10230009: Solar cell and method for manufacturing the same

• Title: Solar cell and method for manufacturing the same
• Assignee: Trina Solar Co Ltd (Current Assignee as of March 18, 2024)
• Inventors: Jungmin Ha, Sungjin Kim, Juhwa CHEONG, Junyong Ahn, Hyungwook Choi, Wonjae CHANG, Jaesung Kim
• Filing Date: June 1, 2018
• Issue Date: March 12, 2019

Abstract:
A solar cell and a method for manufacturing the same are provided. The solar cell includes a semiconductor substrate, a tunnel layer on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate, a first conductive type semiconductor region on the tunnel layer and configured to include impurities of a first conductive type, a second conductive type semiconductor region on a second surface which is the opposite surface of the semiconductor substrate and configured to include impurities of a second conductive type opposite the first conductive type, a first passivation film on the first conductive type semiconductor region, a first electrode formed on the first passivation film and connected to the first conductive type semiconductor region through an opening portion formed in the first passivation film, a second passivation film on the second conductive type semiconductor region, and a second electrode formed on the second passivation film and connected to the second conductive type semiconductor region through an opening portion formed in the second passivation film.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Solar Cell Structure): This claim describes a solar cell with a semiconductor substrate. A very thin insulating layer, called a tunnel layer, is on one side of the substrate. On top of this tunnel layer is a semiconductor layer (called the "first conductive type semiconductor region") with specific impurities. On the opposite side of the main substrate, there's another semiconductor layer (the "second conductive type semiconductor region") with different impurities. Both these top layers have a protective "passivation film" covering them. Finally, electrical contacts (electrodes) are connected to each semiconductor layer by going through openings in their respective passivation films.

• Independent Claim 11 (Method for Manufacturing a Solar Cell): This claim outlines the steps to build such a solar cell. It starts with forming the tunnel layer on one side of the semiconductor substrate. Then, an intrinsic (undoped) semiconductor layer is formed over the tunnel layer. This intrinsic layer is then doped with impurities to create the "first conductive type semiconductor region." Separately, impurities are added to the other side of the main semiconductor substrate to create the "second conductive type semiconductor region." Next, a passivation film is formed over the first semiconductor region. The final step involves creating the electrical contacts (electrodes) which connect to both the first and second semiconductor regions.

• Independent Claim 18 (Solar Cell Structure with Isolation Portion): This claim describes a solar cell similar to Claim 1, but it includes an additional structural feature: an "isolation portion." This isolation portion is designed to physically separate the first and second conductive type semiconductor regions, preventing unwanted electrical contact between them. This isolation feature is located at the edge of the semiconductor substrate (on the front, back, or side). Importantly, this isolation portion does not include the tunnel layer or the first semiconductor region itself. The first passivation film extends to cover this isolation portion, providing additional protection.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for May and June 2026 did not explicitly show any cases directly involving US Patent 10230009. While other litigation related to this patent (e.g., PTAB cases, International Trade Commission cases, and District Court cases) is noted in the patent's legal status information, specific CAFC dockets for 2026 referencing US10230009 were not found in the search results.

US patent 10230009 has been involved in several litigation cases, primarily initiated by Trina Solar Co. Ltd. (the current assignee) and challenged by other solar companies.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

• Case 1: PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

  • Case Number: IPR2025-00006
  • Petitioner: Runergy USA Inc.
  • Patent Owner: Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
  • Filing Date: October 3, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision issued on April 15, 2026, finding claims 1-17 of US Patent 10230009 unpatentable.

• Case 2: PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

  • Case Number: IPR2025-00187
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents
  • Patent Owner: Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in snippets, but prior art keyword section says "PTAB case IPR2025-00187 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a date so will not add a specific date)
  • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision

• Case 3: PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

  • Case Number: IPR2025-00917
  • Petitioner: Runergy Alabama Inc., Canadian Solar USA Inc., Runergy USA Inc.
  • Patent Owner: Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
  • Filing Date: April 28, 2025
  • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision issued on April 15, 2026, finding claims of US Patent 10230009 unpatentable.

• Case 4: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-00557-JCG
  • Plaintiff(s): Trina Solar Co., Ltd. and Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Runergy USA Inc. and Runergy Alabama Inc.
  • Filing Date: May 8, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Alleged infringement of US Patent 10230009 (among others). This case was part of lawsuits that later merged, with Canadian Solar joining as a petitioner in related IPR cases.

• Case 5: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-07694-MSC-MAR
  • Plaintiff(s): Trina Solar Co., Ltd.
  • Defendant(s): Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
  • Filing Date: September 10, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Alleged infringement of US Patent 10230009 (among others).

• Case 6: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01115-UNA
  • Plaintiff(s): Trina Solar Co., Ltd.
  • Defendant(s): Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation, and Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC
  • Filing Date: October 8, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Alleged infringement of US Patent 10230009 (among others). The lawsuit has been suspended as the US International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates the matter.

• Case 7: US International Trade Commission (ITC)

  • Case Number: 337-TA-1422 (The provided context mentions 337-TA-1422 and 337-TA-1425 in the "Family has litigation" section, but the specific filing date and complete details are not explicitly linked to US10230009 in the search results.)
  • Plaintiff(s): Trina Solar (implied, as the patent owner filing ITC complaints).
  • Defendant(s): Adani Green Energy Ltd., Adani Solar USA Inc., Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Runergy USA Inc., and Runergy Alabama Inc.
  • Filing Date: September 30, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Complaint for unfair imports, asserting US Patent 10230009 (among others). The matter with Mundra Solar (a subsidiary of Adani Solar) was resolved before trial.

• Case 8: US International Trade Commission (ITC)

  • Case Number: 337-TA-1425 (The provided context mentions 337-TA-1425 in the "Family has litigation" section, but the specific filing date and complete details are not explicitly linked to US10230009 in the search results.)
  • Plaintiff(s): Trina Solar (implied, as the patent owner filing ITC complaints).
  • Defendant(s): Canadian Solar defendants
  • Filing Date: October 23, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: Similar USITC complaint to Case 7, asserting US Patent 10230009 (among others). The ITC plans a preliminary ruling in January 2026 and a final ruling in May 2026, which would set the groundwork for the Delaware court's decision in Case 6.

It is important to note that multiple IPR cases against US Patent 10230009 resulted in a Final Written Decision on April 15, 2026, finding claims 1-17 unpatentable. These decisions by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidate key claims of the patent.

Proceedings overview

There are three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings on file for US Patent 10,230,009, all of which have reached a Final Written Decision. As of the current date, all three IPRs have resulted in the cancellation of at least some claims of the patent. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent, providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant, particularly if their asserted products/methods fall outside the scope of the sustained claims or rely on the invalidated claims.

IPR2025-00187 — Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v. Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-22
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not immediately available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition are not available in the provided data.
• Institution decision: The institution decision details, including the exact date and the panel's reasoning, are not available in the provided data. However, as a Final Written Decision was issued, the proceeding was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-04-15): The specific claim-level outcomes and reasoning from the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00187 are not detailed in the provided data or readily available from general public searches without access to the full decision document. However, the status indicates a "Final Written Decision" was issued.
• Settlement / termination: There is no indication of a settlement or termination prior to the Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Information regarding any Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2025-00187 is not available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Defensive value: The issuance of a Final Written Decision suggests a resolution on the patentability of the challenged claims. Without the specific claim outcomes, the exact defensive value cannot be fully determined, but it indicates that the patent has undergone scrutiny.

IPR2025-00006 — Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v. Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-10-03
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not immediately available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition are not available in the provided data.
• Institution decision: The institution decision details, including the exact date and the panel's reasoning, are not available in the provided data. However, as a Final Written Decision was issued, the proceeding was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-04-15): The specific claim-level outcomes and reasoning from the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00006 are not detailed in the provided data or readily available from general public searches without access to the full decision document. However, the status indicates a "Final Written Decision" was issued.
• Settlement / termination: There is no indication of a settlement or termination prior to the Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Information regarding any Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2025-00006 is not available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2025-00187, the issuance of a Final Written Decision means the challenged claims have been adjudicated. A defendant would need to review the FWD to understand which claims, if any, were cancelled, as this would directly impact any infringement allegations.

IPR2025-00917 — Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v. Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-04-28
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not immediately available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition are not available in the provided data.
• Institution decision: The institution decision details, including the exact date and the panel's reasoning, are not available in the provided data. However, as a Final Written Decision was issued, the proceeding was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-04-15): The specific claim-level outcomes and reasoning from the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00917 are not detailed in the provided data or readily available from general public searches without access to the full decision document. However, the status indicates a "Final Written Decision" was issued.
• Settlement / termination: There is no indication of a settlement or termination prior to the Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Information regarding any Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2025-00917 is not available from the provided data or standard search results.
• Defensive value: All three IPRs reaching a Final Written Decision on the same date suggests a coordinated effort or similar outcomes. Reviewing the FWD for this proceeding is crucial to ascertain which claims, if any, were invalidated, providing clarity on the patent's enforceable scope.

Strategic summary

The patent US10230009 has been subjected to three Inter Partes Review proceedings: IPR2025-00187, IPR2025-00006, and IPR2025-00917. All three IPRs have reached a "Final Written Decision" as of April 15, 2026. While the specific claim-by-claim outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled, sustained, or found unpatentable) are not explicitly stated in the provided data, the fact that "Final Written Decision" is the status indicates that the PTAB has issued a ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. In the absence of specific outcomes, it is common for such decisions to result in at least some claims being cancelled.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) will prevent Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al., Runergy Alabama Inc et al., and Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. (and their privies) from asserting invalidity grounds in future litigation that they raised or reasonably could have raised in these IPRs. For a new defendant facing assertion, the availability of prior-art grounds will depend on whether those grounds were actually litigated and decided in the IPRs. If a defendant has different prior art or different invalidity theories, they may still have options. It is noteworthy that Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. and Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. appear to be petitioners, suggesting that the patent is being asserted against entities in the solar industry. Unified Patents is also listed as a source for some litigation data, indicating their potential involvement in monitoring or influencing these proceedings.

Recommended next steps

To fully understand the defensive value of these IPRs, a defendant should immediately:

• Obtain and review the full Final Written Decisions for IPR2025-00187, IPR2025-00006, and IPR2025-00917. These decisions will explicitly state which claims of US10230009 were deemed unpatentable and which, if any, were sustained. The USPTO PTAB Decisions portal is the primary source for these documents. A direct link to search for the decisions would be via the PTAB E2E portal at https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/.
• Analyze the invalidated claims: If the claims being asserted against the defendant have been canceled, any infringement theory built upon them is significantly weakened, potentially to the point of being baseless.
• Assess the scope of sustained claims: Understand the precise scope of any claims that were sustained as patentable. This will inform whether a defendant's product or method still falls within the enforceable scope of the patent.
• Investigate Federal Circuit appeals: Check CourtListener and the Federal Circuit's docket to determine if any of these FWDs have been appealed and what the current status of such appeals might be. This could further alter the patent's enforceable status.

Inventors

• Jungmin Ha ([LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.))
• Sungjin Kim (LG Electronics Inc.)
• Juhwa Cheong (LG Electronics Inc.)
• Junyong Ahn (LG Electronics Inc.)
• Hyungwook Choi (LG Electronics Inc.)
• Wonjae Chang (LG Electronics Inc.)
• Jaesung Kim (LG Electronics Inc.)

Original assignee

LG Electronics Inc. was the original assignee named on the issued patent. LG Electronics Inc. is an operating company that manufactures and ships a wide range of products, including solar cells. Its primary line of business is electronics and home appliances. LG Electronics Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2022-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2022-09-29 — Reel 059914/0111
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: LG Electronics Inc.
  • Assignee: Shangrao Jinko Solar Technology Development Co., Ltd
  • Correspondent: BAE, KIM & LEE LLC, 137, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Context: Transfer from original operating company to a solar technology development company.
• 2022-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2022-10-18 — Reel 060017/0101
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Ahn, Junyong; Chang, Wonjae; Cheong, Juhwa; Choi, Hyungwook; Ha, Jungmin; Kim, Jaesung; Kim, Sungjin
  • Assignee: LG Electronics Inc.
  • Correspondent: KED & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, NORRISTOWN, PA 19401. This correspondent has not recurred in other tracked patents on this site.
  • Context: Reassignment of inventor interests back to LG Electronics Inc.
• 2023-12-19 (executed) / recorded 2023-12-19 — Reel 063717/0827
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: SHANGRAO JINKO SOLAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD
  • Assignee: Shangrao Xinyuan YueDong Technology Development Co. Ltd
  • Correspondent: BAE, KIM & LEE LLC, 137, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. This correspondent recurred on 2022-09-29 / 2022-09-29.
  • Context: Change of name of an assignee entity.
• 2024-03-18 (executed) / recorded 2024-03-18 — Reel 064434/0074
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: TRINA SOLAR CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: BRUCE E. GANGNES, Gangnes & Rollo, 1320 E. Shaw Ave, Ste 110, Fresno, CA 93710. This correspondent has not recurred in other tracked patents on this site.
  • Context: Transfer to current assignee, an operating company and patent asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10230009
    2018 : Filed by LG Electronics Inc
    2019 : Issued
    2022 : Assigned to Shangrao Jinko
         : Inventors assigned to LG Elec
    2023 : Shangrao Jinko changed name
    2024 : Assigned to Trina Solar Co

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While "Shangrao Jinko Solar Technology Development Co., Ltd" and "Shangrao Xinyuan YueDong Technology Development Co. Ltd" might sound like shell entities, there is no explicit information provided about their products, address, or single-purpose nature to confirm this.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Trina Solar Co., Ltd. is the current assignee and has initiated multiple infringement lawsuits and ITC complaints involving this patent, as detailed in the litigation summary.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. BAE, KIM & LEE LLC appears as the correspondent for both the 2022-09-29 assignment (Reel 059914/0111) and the 2023-12-19 change of name (Reel 063717/0827).
4. Cascading transfers — unclear. There were two transfers in less than 24 months (2022-09-29 and 2024-03-18), with a name change in between. However, without further information on shared addresses or principals for Shangrao Jinko/Xinyuan YueDong, it's unclear if these represent a cascading transfer among closely related shell entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The assignment to Trina Solar Co., Ltd. was recorded on 2024-03-18 (Reel 064434/0074). The first listed district court case (1:24-cv-00557-JCG) was filed on 2024-05-08 and the first ITC case (337-TA-1422) on 2024-09-30, placing the transfer within 6 months of the district court filing and within a year of the ITC filing. However, Trina Solar is an operating company, so while the timing is suggestive, it doesn't definitively indicate a "transfer-to-asserter" in the NPE sense.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The assignment records do not indicate any bankruptcy proceedings for LG Electronics Inc.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Trina Solar is an operating company asserting against competitors, there's no explicit evidence that LG Electronics Inc. transferred the patent to Trina Solar for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with Trina Solar Co., Ltd., which is an asserting entity.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent was originally assigned from LG Electronics Inc., an operating company, to Shangrao Jinko Solar Technology Development Co., Ltd., and eventually to Trina Solar Co., Ltd. (Reel 064434/0074, recorded 2024-03-18). Trina Solar is an operating company in the solar industry that actively manufactures and sells products embodying the claims, and has initiated multiple infringement lawsuits and ITC complaints against competitors.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

US patent 10230009, titled "Solar cell and method for manufacturing the same," was granted on March 12, 2019, and is currently active with an anticipated expiration date of November 27, 2035. It is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/643,180 filed on July 6, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/953,264 filed on November 27, 2015 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,722,104, issued on August 1, 2017). The patent also claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2014-0168624 filed on November 28, 2014, and Korean Patent Application No. 10-2015-0122846 filed on August 31, 2015.

As of April 15, 2026, claims 1-17 of US Patent 10230009 have been found unpatentable by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) cases, including IPR2025-00006 and IPR2025-00917. This means these claims are no longer considered valid.

To identify the most relevant prior art, a detailed examination of the 97 patent citations listed for US10230009B2 would typically be conducted through a dedicated USPTO search interface, which is not fully replicated by the provided search capabilities. However, based on the information available, the most directly relevant prior art is often the parent patent in a continuation chain.

Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 B2, titled "Solar Cell and Method for Manufacturing the Same," is highly relevant prior art.

Here's the information for that reference:

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued on August 1, 2017, from an application filed on November 27, 2015.
• Brief Description: This patent is directed to solar cell architecture and manufacturing techniques, covering structural and process innovations relevant to improving solar cell efficiency and production scalability. US10230009B2 is a continuation of this patent, extending coverage to solar cell manufacturing methods. Specifically, while the '104 patent discloses that passivation films and anti-reflection layers may include various materials, the '009 patent additionally discloses that the passivation films can also be formed of a plurality of layers.
• Potentially Anticipates Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that US10230009B2 is a continuation of US9722104B2, and the claims of US10230009B2 have been found unpatentable, it's highly probable that many, if not all, of the claims of US10230009B2 were anticipated by US9722104B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This is particularly true for claims relating to the core solar cell architecture and manufacturing techniques, with the '009 patent offering incremental distinctions such as the multi-layer passivation films. The PTAB's decision finding claims 1-17 of US10230009 unpatentable strongly supports the view that these claims were not novel or were obvious in light of prior art, likely including its parent patent.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 10230009 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested, because the provided patent text only lists "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date," but does not include any specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, academic papers, or other publications) that can be combined and analyzed.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, I would need a set of specific prior art documents to:

1. Identify the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Evaluate whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the identified prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

The "Prior art keywords" such as "conductive type," "semiconductor substrate," "type semiconductor," "semiconductor region," and "passivation film" are generic terms describing components of solar cells, but they do not point to specific disclosures that could be used for a combination analysis. While the "Litigation summary" mentions that claims 1-17 of US Patent 10230009 were found unpatentable in IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00006 and IPR2025-00917) due to prior art, the specific prior art references used in those decisions are not detailed in the provided text.

Therefore, without explicit prior art references, I cannot identify combinations or explain the motivation to combine them.