Tigo Energy v. SMA Solar: Six-Patent Rapid Shutdown Dispute Ends With Prejudice
Tigo Energy asserted six patents covering solar rapid shutdown technology against SMA Solar’s JMS-F device and Sunny Boy, Sunny Tripower inverter lines in Delaware federal court. After 1,039 days of litigation, the parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice — each side bearing its own legal costs.
A Six-Patent Solar Shutdown Standoff Resolved by Mutual Stipulation
Tigo Energy, Inc. filed this infringement action on July 11, 2022 in the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams, asserting six U.S. patents — US10256770B2, US8823218B2, US8933321B2, US9966848B2, US9584021B2, and US10333405B2 — all directed to solar photovoltaic rapid shutdown technology. The accused products included SMA Solar Technology America’s JMS-F rapid shutdown device and its Sunny Boy, Sunny Tripower Core1, and Sunny Tripower X inverter families, each marketed with SunSpec-compliant rapid shutdown capability.
The case closed on May 15, 2025 when both parties filed a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — Tigo cannot refile the same infringement claims against SMA Solar for these six patents. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, a mutual cost-bearing arrangement that is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
At 1,039 days, the case ran for nearly three years before resolution — longer than the median district court patent case, suggesting the parties engaged in substantial discovery and possibly claim construction before reaching terms. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, cross-license, or other commercial arrangement was reached; the with-prejudice dismissal precludes re-litigation but does not preclude a private settlement. What drove final resolution — claim construction rulings, invalidity risk, commercial negotiations, or a combination — remains confidential.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1039 days
1,039-day case duration — roughly 2.8 years from filing to stipulated dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — the case is permanently closed
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures and court approval. When entered with prejudice, it carries the same legal weight as a final judgment on the merits. Tigo Energy is barred from reasserting any of the six patents against SMA Solar on the same claims. The court itself made no finding of infringement, validity, or damages.
No merits adjudicationTigo relinquishes all claims — but retains the patents themselves
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Tigo’s right to sue SMA Solar on these six patents for the conduct alleged. However, the patents remain in force and Tigo retains full rights to assert them against other competitors. The mutual cost-bearing term means Tigo recovered no damages or fee award from this litigation. Whether Tigo received licensing revenue through a private settlement is not disclosed in the public record.
Patents survive; claims do notSMA Solar secures permanent closure — no invalidity ruling on record
SMA Solar obtained the most commercially valuable outcome short of a validity judgment: permanent immunity from Tigo’s six asserted patents on these accused products, with no damages liability and no public finding of infringement. The absence of an invalidity ruling means SMA Solar cannot use this case as IPR estoppel precedent, but the with-prejudice bar protects its current product lines from further suit by Tigo on these patents.
Full immunity, no invalidity recordRapid shutdown IP competition continues — six patents remain live against others
The resolution between Tigo and SMA Solar leaves the broader rapid shutdown patent landscape unresolved. Tigo’s six patents — covering rapid shutdown systems and photovoltaic power optimization — remain enforceable against third parties. Other inverter and rapid shutdown device manufacturers should note that no claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued, meaning the patents’ full scope is untested in public litigation and could be asserted in future actions.
Third-party exposure remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tigo Energy, Inc. | Company | Solar energy technology company — holder of US10256770B2 and 5 rapid shutdown patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SMA Solar Technology America, LLC | Company | U.S. subsidiary of SMA Solar Technology AG; manufacturer of solar inverters and rapid shutdown devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin J. Schladweiler | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Colin | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leif Olson | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Renee Mosley Delcollo | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen M. Ullmer | Attorney | Counsel for Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greenberg Traurig PA | Law Firm | Representing Tigo Energy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Wyatt Poff | Attorney | Counsel for SMA Solar Technology America, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexis Stombaugh | Attorney | Counsel for SMA Solar Technology America, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samantha G. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for SMA Solar Technology America, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing SMA Solar Technology America, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory B. Williams | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s precise language — ‘dismissed, including any and all claims and counterclaims asserted, with prejudice’ — is notable for its breadth. It extinguishes not only Tigo’s infringement claims but SMA Solar’s counterclaims, which in patent cases typically include invalidity and non-infringement declaratory judgment counts. This mutual release of all pleaded positions, combined with each party bearing its own fees, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution. No court finding on liability, damages, or patent validity was made.
US10256770B2 and five further patents — solar rapid shutdown systems
The six asserted patents — US10256770B2, US8823218B2, US8933321B2, US9966848B2, US9584021B2, and US10333405B2 — share a common technical domain: module-level power electronics (MLPE) and rapid shutdown systems for photovoltaic installations. Application dates span from 2009 (US12/628977) to 2018 (US15/969607), reflecting a decade-long patent prosecution strategy by Tigo that tracks the evolution of NEC rapid shutdown requirements. These patents collectively cover the architecture by which solar arrays de-energize conductors within seconds of a shutdown signal — a safety-critical requirement under U.S. electrical codes.
Rapid shutdown compliance became a mandatory commercial requirement following NEC 2014 and 2017 code cycles, creating an enforcement opportunity for patent holders whose filings predated widespread industry adoption. Tigo’s portfolio, built around early MLPE and rapid shutdown filings, positions it as a potential gatekeeper for competitors entering the NEC-compliant inverter and shutdown device market. SMA Solar’s accused products — the JMS-F device and multiple Sunny Boy and Sunny Tripower inverter families — represent its core U.S. residential and commercial solar lineup, making the stakes of this litigation commercially significant for SMA’s North American market position.
Should you run an FTO against Tigo Energy’s rapid shutdown patent portfolio?
Any manufacturer, importer, or integrator of NEC-compliant rapid shutdown devices, module-level power electronics, or grid-tied solar inverters sold in the U.S. market should treat Tigo Energy’s six-patent rapid shutdown family as a live enforcement risk. The dismissal of this case with prejudice resolves only the SMA Solar dispute — it does not limit Tigo’s ability to assert these patents against other parties. Products incorporating SunSpec rapid shutdown protocols, module-level communication, or rapid shutdown initiator/receiver architectures are squarely within the technical scope suggested by the accused product categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map claim language from all six Tigo patents against your specific product architecture, identify prosecution history that may narrow claim scope, and surface prior art cited during examination. Because no public claim construction order issued in this case, the patent claims’ outer boundaries remain judicially undefined — making a formal FTO analysis more valuable, not less. Eureka can also monitor Tigo’s portfolio for continuation filings that may extend rapid shutdown coverage into next-generation MLPE architectures.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10256770B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar solar photovoltaic patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Cases involving solar energy module-level power electronics and rapid shutdown patents litigated in Delaware and other federal district courts.
What this case signals for the solar rapid shutdown IP landscape
Six patents, nearly three years of litigation, and a mutual walk-away: the solar shutdown IP battleground is far from settled.
Rapid shutdown patents carry real litigation leverage — monitor Tigo’s portfolio
Tigo’s willingness to assert six patents across a 1,039-day case signals that it views its rapid shutdown IP as commercially valuable enforcement assets. Competitors developing NEC-compliant or SunSpec rapid shutdown products should conduct proactive FTO analysis against Tigo’s patent family before product launch.
No claim construction ruling means patent scope stays ambiguous for the industry
Because the case ended by stipulation before any judicial claim construction ruling, the bounds of Tigo’s six rapid shutdown patents remain legally untested in public court. This ambiguity is a risk factor for any competitor designing around these patents without formal FTO or IPR proceedings.
Tigo v SMA — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on May 15, 2025, after 1,039 days of litigation. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. No court finding on infringement, validity, or damages was issued.
Tigo Energy asserted six U.S. patents: US10256770B2, US8823218B2, US8933321B2, US9966848B2, US9584021B2, and US10333405B2. All six relate to solar photovoltaic rapid shutdown and module-level power electronics technology. The patents span application dates from 2009 to 2018.
Tigo accused SMA Solar’s JMS-F rapid shutdown device and multiple inverter product lines: the Sunny Boy 3.0-US through 7.7-US, the Sunny Tripower Core1 33-US through 62-US, and the Sunny Tripower X 20-US through 30-US. These products employ SunSpec rapid shutdown technology and were marketed for use with rapid shutdown devices including the JMS-F.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under federal law. Tigo Energy is permanently barred from reasserting the same six patents against SMA Solar Technology America for the conduct alleged in this case. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants. The dismissal does not disclose whether a private licensing or settlement agreement was reached between the parties.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between Tigo and SMA Solar. Because the case ended before any claim construction or invalidity ruling, the scope and validity of Tigo’s six rapid shutdown patents remain judicially untested. Other manufacturers of NEC-compliant rapid shutdown devices or inverters incorporating SunSpec rapid shutdown technology remain potentially exposed and should consider FTO analysis against Tigo’s portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.