The Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final decision on eleven patents held by Tigo Energy, Inc. From the suit, brought by the SunSpec Alliance, nine of the patents were seemingly ruled in Tigo’s favor, while two of them were apparently ruled in SunSpec’s favor. SunSpec did note that they would potentially appeal the ruling, and needed to have conversations with its members on what to do next.
Reading the headlines from the competing press departments only – one is led to believe this was a ‘win win’ type of decision. Tigo noted that they secured an ‘overwhelming’ 80% victory rate.
The headline read: Tigo Energy Secures Overwhelming Legal Victory Protecting U.S. Innovation in Solar Industry: U.S. patent office rejects more than 80% of SunSpec Alliance patent challenges, helping Tigo protect solar industry R&D investments
Tigo expressed excitement at their portfolio of patents being mostly defended. They hardly mentioned the two patents that were ruled against, except to say, “ruling on the two other claims has no effect on the applicability of the 18 remaining claims in the ’770 patent to the SunSpec Rapid Shutdown Specification.”
The headline read: Patent Office Invalidates Tigo Energy Inc.’s Patent Claims in Response to SunSpec Alliance IPR Challenge
SunSpec appeared happy to take down two specific patents, out of eleven overall. SunSpec noted in their press release that “Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,256,770 are unpatentable.” SunSpec stated in their release that U.S. Pat. No. 8,531,055 anticipated the claims by Tigo.
In its press release, SunSpec noted that Tigo had filed suit against SunSpec members using their ownership of patent 10,256,770. SunSpec included links to prior art.
However, at the end of SunSpec’s press release, they do express disappointment over losing the argument on the other nine patents. SunSpec is considering its next steps, which may include filing an appeal.
pv magazine USA reached out to both companies to gain insight into why the two groups might both be feeling positive about the outcome, but as of the time of this publication has not received a response.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.