LONGi Green Energy vs. Jinko Solar: Solar Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. v. Jinko Solar
Case Number 2:25-cv-00048 (E.D. Tex.)
Court U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Duration Jan 2025 – Sep 2025 251 days
Outcome Dismissed With Prejudice
Patents at Issue
Accused Products Jinko Solar’s high-efficiency photovoltaic modules including JKM390M-72HBL-V, JKM425N-54HL4-B, and broader line of monocrystalline silicon solar cells and modules.

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

One of the world’s largest monocrystalline silicon solar module manufacturers, holding a significant IP portfolio covering photovoltaic cell architecture, PERC technology, and high-efficiency module designs. Known for proactive IP enforcement.

🛡️ Defendant

Among the world’s top solar panel manufacturers, supplying utility-scale and commercial solar projects. Named Vietnam and Malaysia manufacturing entities as co-defendants, reflecting the multinational scope.

Patent at Issue

This case centered on U.S. Patent No. US9515214B2, covering innovations in monocrystalline silicon solar cell technology, enhancing photovoltaic conversion efficiency.

  • US9515214B2 — Innovations in monocrystalline silicon solar cell technology.
🔍

Developing next-gen solar cells?

Check if your cell architecture might infringe this patent family.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Eastern District of Texas accepted the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on September 25, 2025. This means LONGi cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Jinko for the same patent and accused products, and each party bears its own costs, consistent with a private settlement.

Key Legal Issues

The case resolved before any substantive rulings on claim construction, validity, or infringement of US9515214B2 were made public. The dismissal with prejudice strongly suggests a private licensing or cross-licensing arrangement was reached, avoiding protracted litigation.

✍️

Filing a solar cell patent?

Learn from this case. Draft stronger claims for photovoltaic cell architecture.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis: Solar IP Risks

This case highlights critical IP risks in solar cell design. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand Solar IP Landscape

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation and broader solar IP.

  • View all patents in this technology space
  • See leading companies in solar cell patents
  • Understand claim patterns for PERC/TOPCon
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

Monocrystalline silicon cell architecture

📋
US9515214B2

Core patent in this case

Design-Around Options

Available for many cell structures

✅ Key Takeaways from LONGi v. Jinko Solar

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

EDTX remains an effective venue for solar patent plaintiffs seeking early settlement leverage.

Search related case law →

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with-prejudice dismissals are strong indicators of substantive licensing resolutions.

Explore licensing precedents →

For R&D Leaders & Product Teams

Commission FTO analysis covering US9515214B2 for any monocrystalline silicon cell or module product targeting U.S. distribution.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

Early design-around investment for key cell architectures is significantly less costly than patent litigation defense.

Try AI patent drafting →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.