Hanwha Solutions Corporation v REC Solar Pte Ltd

Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated legal proceedings against REC Solar Pte Ltd, LONGi Solar Technology Co Ltd, and Jinko Solar Co Ltd, alleging patent infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct, and unjustified threats of patent infringement. The primary dispute centred on Hanwha's patent for a method of manufacturing a solar cell with a surface-passivating dielectric double layer and the corresponding solar cell. Hanwha claimed that REC Solar's products infringed this patent and engaged in misleading conduct by asserting non-infringement and legal entitlement to sell the products. REC Solar denied infringement and argued that the patent was invalid on various grounds, including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and lack of fair basis. Additionally, REC Solar asserted that Hanwha made unjustified threats of patent infringement.

The court was tasked with determining whether REC Solar's products infringed Hanwha's patent, whether Hanwha's actions constituted misleading and deceptive conduct, and whether REC Solar's claims of invalidity were valid. The court first addressed the issue of infringement, concluding that REC Solar's products did not infringe Hanwha's patent because they did not fall within the scope of claim 9, upon which all other claims depended. Consequently, Hanwha's claim for misleading and deceptive conduct also failed. The court further found that claims 9, 12, 16, and 21 were invalid due to lack of novelty, but dismissed other invalidity challenges advanced by REC Solar. Additionally, the court determined that Hanwha had made unjustified threats of patent infringement by sending letters of demand to REC Solar.

The court ordered the parties to confer and submit draft minutes of order and a proposed timetable for further proceedings within 21 days. The case management was marked by cooperation between the parties, including the acceptance of a single substantive witness for invalidity issues, the preparation of a technical primer, and the adoption of a complex confidentiality regime. The court also noted the divergent interests of the respondents on the question of infringement and the separate roles of experts in addressing infringement and validity issues.