Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01516/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hanwha Q CELLS USA Inc.
Appellant
Hanwha Solutions Corp.
Appellant
REC Solar Pte. Ltd.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

REC SOLAR PTE. LTD.,

Appellant

v.

HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP., HANWHA Q CELLS 

USA INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________

2023-1508, 2023-1516

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00988, IPR2021-00989.

______________________

Decided: January 21, 2025

______________________

JAMES R. BARNEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by MAREESA ARNITA FREDERICK,

ANTHONY A. HARTMANN, FORREST ALEXANDER JONES,

ANDREA GRACE KLOCK MILLS. 

 MARK D. SELWYN, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for cross-appellants. Also 

represented by JASON KIPNIS; DAVID LANGDON 

Case: 23-1516 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2025
2 REC SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP.

CAVANAUGH, NORA N. XU, Washington, DC; ROBERT J.

GUNTHER, JR., New York, NY.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from two final written decisions of 

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which 

have been consolidated for our review.

REC Solar Pte. Ltd. (“REC”) appeals from a final written decision of the Board holding claims 1–6, 11, and 13 of 

U.S. Patent 10,749,060 (“the ’060 patent”) unpatentable as 

obvious. Hanwha Sols. Corp. v. REC Solar Pte. Ltd., 

IPR2021-00988 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2022) (“the ’988 Decision”), J.A. 1–59.

Hanwha Solutions Corporation and Hanwha Q CELLS 

USA (collectively, “Hanwha”) conditionally cross-appeal

from a final written decision of the Board holding that the 

same claims were not shown to be unpatentable as obvious. 

Hanwha Sols. Corp. v. REC Solar Pte. Ltd., IPR2021-00989

(P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2022) (“the ’989 Decision”), J.A. 60–89.

For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s

’988 Decision. We therefore dismiss the cross-appeal of the 

’989 Decision as moot because it was conditioned upon a 

reversal of the ’988 Decision. See Appellee’s Br. 89.

BACKGROUND

REC owns the ’060 patent, which generally relates to a

solar-cell module comprising multiple solar cells. ’060 patent col. 1 ll. 5–6. Specifically, the ’060 patent is focused on 

solving the problem of partial shading in a solar module 

consisting of half-cut solar cells by dividing the entire solar 

module in half and arranging the module into units of two 

strings of series-connected half-cut cells. Id. col. 1 l. 23–

col. 2 l. 50. In this arrangement, each string is connected 

Case: 23-1516 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 01/21/2025
REC SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP. 3

in parallel with both the other string in the other half of 

that unit and a bypass diode. Id.

Hanwha filed two Petitions for inter partes review 

(“IPR”) challenging claims 1–6, 11, and 13 of the ’060 patent. In the ’988 Decision, the Board determined that 

claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were unpatentable as obvious over

the combination of Chinese patent publications 

CN202585481U (“Huang”) and CN102044587A (“Wu”). 

’988 Decision, J.A. 38. In contrast, the Board in the ’989 

Decision determined that Hanwha failed to establish that 

claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were obvious over the combination 

of U.S. Patent 8,049,096 (“Yagiura”) and U.S. Publication

2013/0098423 (“Shimasaki”) or the combination of Yagiura, 

Shimasaki, and Chinese patent publication 

CN1020224865A (“Yan”). ’989 Decision, J.A. 87–88.

Both parties timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We need only address the appeal for the ’988 Decision. 

REC first argues that the Board’s obviousness determination was flawed because the Board exceeded its authority 

under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 

U.S.C. § 554(b)(3), when it held claims 1–6, 11, and 13 obvious over Huang and Wu based on a new obviousness theory that Hanwha never raised and REC never had the 

opportunity to rebut. REC contends that the Board’s analysis relied on a new theory because it ignored how Hanwha 

conditioned its obviousness theory on Huang disclosing bypass diodes contained in a junction box. We disagree.

REC’s argument mischaracterizes Hanwha’s petition 

and the Board’s analysis. Hanwha did not condition its 

Case: 23-1516 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 01/21/2025
4 REC SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP.

obviousness argument upon a finding that Huang disclosed 

bypass diodes in a junction box. Rather, Hanwha’s petition 

plainly alleged that claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were obvious 

over Huang in view of Wu. Accordingly, Hanwha argued, 

and the Board agreed, that a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would have been motivated to modify Huang to implement the multiple junction boxes of Wu to shorten the 

length of the bus bar, reduce the series resistance, and improve overall output performance as taught by Wu. J.A. 

549–551; ’988 Decision, J.A. 27, 32. In so finding, the 

Board stated that “whether or not Huang teaches a diode 

in a junction box . . . is ultimately not critical to this asserted ground” because Wu provides that missing limitation. Id. at 32. The Board therefore acted within its

authority under the APA and did not rely on any new obviousness theory.

REC next argues that the Board’s obviousness finding 

regarding dependent claims 5, 6, and 13 was not supported 

by substantial evidence because combining Huang and Wu 

does not “naturally result” in the single assembly crossconnector limitation as required by those claims. We disagree.

The Board’s obviousness findings were supported by 

substantial evidence. REC again mischaracterizes the 

Board’s analysis and our precedent by arguing that 

Hanwha was required to prove this limitation through inherent obviousness since neither Huang nor Wu expressly

discloses a central cross-connector as a single assembly. 

The Board, however, appropriately applied KSR in crediting expert testimony that explained why a person of ordinary skill would have found a single assembly crossconnector a “predictable variation” on the prior art. 

J.A. 36–37; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417

(2007). The Board explained that once Wu’s multiple junction boxes are introduced to Huang, the modified cross-connectors terminate at a single bypass diode, and as a result, 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would have fabricated

Case: 23-1516 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 01/21/2025
REC SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP. 5

the co-located cross-connectors as a single assembly. ’988 

Decision, J.A. 36. In doing so, the Board credited the testimony of Hanwha’s expert, Dr. Kimball, that combining 

Huang and Wu would lead a skilled artisan to naturally 

choose to fabricate the cross-connectors as a single assembly. J.A. 35–37; see, e.g., J.A. 4443 ¶ 98. The Board also 

noted that REC and its expert did not provide sufficient evidence to refute this assertion. J.A. 36–37. Here too, the 

Board’s obviousness findings are supported by substantial 

evidence.

CONCLUSION

We have considered REC’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1516 Document: 11 Page: 5 Filed: 01/21/2025