As patent battles spread across continents, the solar industry faces a legal traffic jam that could freeze U.S. cell supply. PERC remains the one clear path forward
For years, the challenge in American solar manufacturing was scale. Today, it’s time. The U.S. has the policy framework — tax credits, Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) rules and 45X incentives — to bring solar-cell production back onshore.
But the next bottleneck isn’t in Washington or at the ports. It’s in the courts.
The great solar pileup
Since 2024, the global solar industry has been embroiled in a sprawling web of intellectual property (IP) disputes that now affect nearly every major manufacturer.
At least 40 lawsuits and administrative trials are underway — most targeting TOPCon (tunnel oxide passivated contact) and similar next-generation cell designs expected to define the industry’s future.
These cases stretch across U.S. federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) and counterparts in Asia — creating a tangle of overlapping filings, injunctions and counterclaims that threaten to stall manufacturing progress for years. Together, they represent a surge of global actions spanning early pleadings, ITC investigations, UPC proceedings, PRC dockets and escalating pre-suit activity.
First Solar, Inc. – Broad Multijurisdiction Actions
- First Solar, Inc. vs. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. JinkoSolar (U.S.) Industries Inc.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. JinkoSolar (U.S.) Manufacturing Inc.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. JinkoSolar (Vietnam) Industries Co. Ltd.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.
- First Solar, Inc. vs. Canadian Solar
- First Solar, Inc. vs. JA Solar
- First Solar, Inc. vs. LONGi
- First Solar, Inc. vs. Trina Solar Co., Ltd.
JA Solar
- JA Solar vs. Astronergy
JinkoSolar – U.S., EU & PRC Filings
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. LONGi / European subsidiaries
- JinkoSolar (Shangrao Xinyuan) vs. LONGi Green Energy / subsidiaries
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. LONGi Green Energy
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. Waaree Energies
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. Waaree Solar Americas
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. VSUN Solar USA Inc. (and affiliates)
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. Toyo and U.S. affiliates
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. SEG Solar, Inc.
- JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. vs. SEG subsidiaries (including Indonesian manufacturing affiliate)
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. – Extensive U.S. & Global Actions
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Canadian Solar, Inc.
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. REC Solar Holdings AS
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Hanwha Q Cells
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Hanwha Solutions Corporation
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Hanwha Energy Corporation
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Aiko Energy
- Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs. Canadian Solar, Inc. (duplicate claims across filings)
Trina Solar – ITC and Multinational Defendants
- Trina Solar vs. Runergy USA Inc.
- Trina Solar vs. Runergy Alabama Inc.
- Trina Solar vs. Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
- Trina Solar vs. CSI Solar Co., Ltd.
- Trina Solar vs. Canadian Solar Inc.
- Trina Solar vs. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc.
- Trina Solar vs. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
- Trina Solar vs. Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation
- Trina Solar vs. Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC
- Trina Solar vs. Mundra Solar PV Ltd.
That’s not a competitive landscape — it’s a courtroom logjam. Nearly every company supplying cells or modules to the U.S. market is now suing or being sued.
And with new filings like JinkoSolar’s October 2025 lawsuit against SEG Solar, the pileup is only growing. The case accuses SEG of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 11,824,136, which covers N-type TOPCon technology — another example of how critical next-gen designs are being trapped in litigation instead of production.
Many of these cases are still in their earliest stages:
- First Solar v. JinkoSolar — Complaint filed Feb 2025; case management not yet scheduled.
- Maxeon’s Texas filings — Won’t hit claim construction until late 2025.
- ITC exclusion orders — Target decisions mid-2026.
- PTAB reviews — Likely late 2025 or early 2026.
Even the fastest cases take 18 to 24 months to resolve, and many will extend beyond 2026. Meanwhile, FEOC enforcement tightens and Treasury guidance under 45X and 48E demands proof of domestic-cell sourcing before developers can claim credits.
The result: a global legal gridlock that leaves manufacturers uncertain, investors cautious, and developers waiting—while clean-energy policy timelines keep moving forward.
The new supply-chain risk: intellectual property
Incentives are designed to drive capital investment; lawsuits freeze it.
Until these disputes resolve, no manufacturer can confidently license, reproduce or scale TOPCon or similar designs in the U.S. without exposure.
In past cycles, trade barriers and tariffs slowed the industry.
Now, it’s the courts — with parallel filings across Delaware, Texas, Brussels, Munich and Beijing — that are choking progress.
It’s a policy-tech mismatch: incentives maturing faster than the IP they depend on.
A timeline of delays
- 2023–2024: Early filings and warning letters begin.
- Mid-2024: ITC and UPC actions launched.
- 2025: Dozens of U.S. federal cases flood Delaware and Texas; claim-construction hearings slip into Q4 2025.
- Late 2025-2026: PTAB reviews, exclusion orders and settlements.
- Meanwhile: FEOC enforcement expands; domestic-content verification tightens.
If this timeline holds, litigation will outlast the first domestic-content cycle entirely, delaying the very production the IRA was designed to unleash.
The opportunity hiding in plain sight
Here’s the irony: While the industry fights itself over patents, the solution already exists — and it’s in production today.
PERC (Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell) technology is proven, bankable and litigation-free. Its IP landscape is stable, its performance well-understood and its production process already refined.
That’s why ES Foundry is manufacturing high-quality PERC cells right now in Greenwood, South Carolina — delivering a domestic, FEOC-compliant, litigation-free supply of cells that developers can buy today.
No courtroom delays. No injunctions. No uncertainty.
By producing PERC cells at scale since early 2025, ES Foundry is helping developers and EPCs meet domestic-content standards and move projects forward with confidence.
Why it matters
Every gigawatt of cell capacity delayed by lawsuits keeps the U.S. dependent on imports and complicates compliance for developers trying to stay within FEOC and domestic-content rules.
The fastest way to close the gap isn’t another round of policy — it’s scaling the technology that’s ready and legally clear.
That’s already happening with PERC, and ES Foundry is leading the charge.
By expanding the U.S. PERC production capacity now, the industry can:
- Secure immediate domestic-content compliance.
- Keep project timelines on track.
- Build investor confidence while next-gen technologies work through disputes.
The takeaway: Build what’s ready
America’s clean-energy independence won’t hinge on who builds factories first, but on which technology can actually deliver today.
While TOPCon and other next-gen designs remain mired in lawsuits that could stretch into 2026 and beyond, PERC cells are proven, open and already powering U.S. production.
With a stable IP landscape and a mature supply chain, PERC enables immediate scaling — without waiting for court rulings or risking exclusion orders.
Every month spent waiting on litigation is a month of missed domestic-content opportunities.
The path forward is clear: Build with PERC now.
Let innovation continue in the background — but let progress happen in the factory.
(Source: ES Foundry analysis of public dockets and trade-press reports, 2024–2025.)