Trina Solar vs. CSI Solar: ITC Investigation 337-TA-1425 Resolved

Case Overview

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This landmark case involved two U.S. patents covering solar cell technology and manufacturing methods. These utility patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional innovations rather than ornamental appearance.

• • U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 B2 — Directed to solar cell architecture and manufacturing techniques, covering structural and process innovations relevant to improving solar cell efficiency and production scalability.
• • U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 B2 — A continuation-related patent extending coverage to solar cell manufacturing methods.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The investigation was closed on February 10, 2026, with a participant disposition recorded as consolidated. The specific basis of termination was not publicly disclosed in available case records. In ITC practice, consolidation of proceedings can occur when related investigations are merged, when matters are resolved through consent orders, or when administrative efficiency considerations lead to procedural restructuring. No damages award is applicable in ITC proceedings—the Commission’s remedies are non-monetary, consisting principally of exclusion orders (prohibiting importation of infringing goods) and cease and desist orders (directing domestic respondents to stop infringing conduct). Whether either remedy was ultimately issued remains subject to the full Commission’s determination following ALJ proceedings.

Key Legal Issues & Significance

The case was designated as an Infringement Action, meaning the central legal question before the ITC concerned whether CSI Solar’s solar cell products—specifically those falling within the “Solar cell and method for manufacturing the same” category—practiced the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,722,104 B2 and 10,230,009 B2. In ITC Section 337 investigations, complainants must establish: (1) valid and enforceable patents; (2) importation of accused products; (3) infringement of asserted claims; and (4) the existence of a domestic industry practicing the patents. The consolidated disposition suggests the litigation trajectory was redirected before a full evidentiary hearing on infringement merits. This outcome pattern at the ITC sometimes reflects negotiated resolution, licensing agreements, or strategic consolidation with related proceedings—all of which carry significant implications for how parties manage multi-patent, multi-proceeding IP disputes.

This case reinforces several important dynamics in solar cell patent infringement litigation:

• • ITC as enforcement venue: Trina Solar’s decision to pursue Section 337 relief rather than district court litigation reflects a deliberate enforcement strategy prioritizing import exclusion over damages recovery—a common approach when the accused infringer is primarily a foreign manufacturer.
• • Continuation patent strategy: The assertion of both a parent patent (9,722,104) and a later-issued continuation (10,230,009) demonstrates the value of building patent families around core manufacturing innovations, providing layered claim coverage against design-arounds.
• • Consolidated disposition: For practitioners, the consolidation outcome signals the importance of monitoring related ITC investigations and coordinating litigation strategy across parallel proceedings.