Case Study: Patent Valuation in Solar IP Disputes
- Aug 20
- 11 min read
Updated: Aug 25
This case study is for informational and educational purposes only. It is based on publicly available data and valuation methodologies as of August 2025. It does not provide legal advice, make predictions about litigation outcomes, or assess infringement or validity. The litigation referenced is ongoing, and circumstances may evolve with future hearings or court rulings.
Introduction
In 2024–25, two U.S. patents — US 9,130,074 and US 9,666,732 — became central to an ongoing legal dispute between First Solar and Adani Solar. The patents relate to Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (TOPCon) solar cell processes, a leading technology for boosting photovoltaic efficiency.
While litigation is active and no damages have been determined, the case offers a neutral backdrop to illustrate how such patents can be valued using mainstream methodologies.
Market Context
TOPCon is one of the two dominant “post-PERC” architectures (alongside heterojunction, HJT) driving the solar industry’s next efficiency leap.
The global TOPCon solar cell market is projected to be USD 12.22 billion in 2025, rising to USD 26.34 billion by 2032 (CAGR ~11.6%) (Coherent Market Insights).
Another forecast estimates USD 15.27 billion in 2024, expanding to USD 159.45 billion by 2034 (CAGR ~23.9%) (Zion Market Research).
Past settlements in the solar IP space—such as between SunPower and LG, or licensing deals involving Meyer Burger—have typically ranged in the USD 20–60 million bracket per agreement.
This market data provides the basis for valuation exercises.
Technical Significance of TOPCon
TOPCon is one of the two dominant “post-PERC” architectures (alongside heterojunction, HJT) leading the solar industry’s next efficiency wave:
Higher efficiency: mass-production efficiencies now exceed 23% for TOPCon cells.
Bifacial gains: better rear-side response yields additional output.
Process similarity to PERC: easier upgrade path for manufacturers vs. HJT.
How TOPCon Works:
Adds a thin tunnel oxide layer (~1–2 nm) to the rear side of the cell.
Overlaid with doped polysilicon to passivate contacts and improve carrier selectivity.
This reduces electron-hole recombination and increases voltage and efficiency.
Industry Adoption (2024–2025 snapshot) of TOPCon:
China’s “Big 5” manufacturers (LONGi, Jinko, Trina, JA Solar, Tongwei) are all ramping TOPCon capacity.
BloombergNEF projects TOPCon will overtake PERC as the dominant cell architecture by 2026–27.
In the U.S., companies like First Solar (traditionally thin-film CdTe) are pursuing cross-licensing/defensive strategies around crystalline cell IP.
First Solar’s asserted patents focus on passivated contacts and dopant diffusion steps that underpin TOPCon’s commercial viability. If broadly adopted, such patents may function as “de facto essential” IP — not tied to a formal standard, but unavoidable in practice.
TRL Assessment with External Data
We will assess the TRL before IP Valuation. TRL (Technology Readiness Level) is critical in patent valuation because it shows how close a technology is to real-world use.
Low TRL (3–5): Lab-stage, high risk → low USD valuation (mostly speculative).
Mid TRL (6–7): Pilot/field prototype → moderate valuation, some adoption proof.
High TRL (8–9): Commercial deployment → high USD valuation, tied directly to actual product revenues and court damages.
Higher TRL = lower risk + larger addressable market + stronger royalty base, which directly increases patent value in USD.
Patent | Real-World Adoption Evidence | Estimated TRL |
US 9,666,732 | Related tech commercialized in Maxeon panels | 8–9 |
US 9,130,074 | Likely utilized in deployment, but no explicit attribution | 8–9 (Probable) |
External Validation of Real-World Adoption
1. SunPower spin-off Maxeon’s Bifacial Panel Launches
Performance 5 panels, featuring bifacial mono‑PERC solar cells on G12 wafers, were commercialized and delivered starting Q4 2020. SunPower+10Solar Builder Magazine+10PR Newswire+10
In April 2021, Maxeon initiated 3.6 GW of new module assembly capacity (Malaysia, Mexico, planned U.S.) for its shingled bifacial panels, including Performance line technology. Solar Power World+4Maxeon Solar Technologies Mediaroom+4Solar Builder Magazine+4
2. Ongoing Product Evolution
In April 2024, Maxeon introduced the Performance 7 bifacial module (TOPCon architecture) with up to 22.4% efficiency, available in EMEA and APAC markets—indicating continued industrial deployment of advanced bifacial processes.
There is no public, legal, or technical evidence confirming that these two patents explicitly underpin the Performance 5, 6, or 7 modules. However, we can infer the TRL using these indications. Let's have technical breakdown on these products to evaluate how they contribute to TRL assessment.
Detailed Breakdown to justify TRL
Product Line | Tech Features | Match to Patents | Ownership Tie |
Performance 5 (2020) | Bifacial mono-PERC on G12 wafers; shingled cells | Some overlap with layer/passivation concepts in US 9,666,732 | Developed by Maxeon, spun off from SunPower, who owns the patents |
Maxeon module line (2021) | 3.6 GW expansion for shingled bifacial | Same family, no patent mapping disclosed | Maxeon inherited manufacturing rights and some IP from SunPower |
Performance 7 (2024) | TOPCon-based bifacial cells, 22.4% efficiency | Likely outside the exact scope of either patent (TOPCon is a newer structure than described in 9,666,732) | Still owned by Maxeon, but tech evolved beyond legacy SunPower filings |
Valuation Approaches
The following methodologies used: 1) Relief-from-Royalty (RFR)
Patent | Annual Addressable Revenue | Royalty @1.25% | PV Factor | PV Value (USD M) |
US 9,666,732 | $4.40B | $55.0M | 7.469 | 411 |
US 9,130,074 | $6.60B | $82.5M | 4.564 | 376 |
2) Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Licensing to 4 major PV manufacturers
Ramp-up to full adoption in 3 years
Royalty flows discounted at 12%
Patent | PV of Licensing Cash Flows (USD M) |
US 9,666,732 | 395 |
US 9,130,074 | 370 |
Blended Valuation (Average of RFR & DCF)
Patent | RFR Value | DCF Value | Blended Valuation |
US 9,666,732 | $411M | $395M | $403M |
US 9,130,074 | $376M | $370M | $373M |
Valuation Spectrum
Market Context:
The global TOPCon solar cell market is projected to be USD 12.22 billion in 2025, rising to USD 26.34 billion by 2032 (CAGR ~11.6%) Utility Dive+8Coherent Market Insights+8Business Research Insights+8.
Another report estimates the market at USD 15.27 billion in 2024 with a forecast to USD 159.45 billion by 2034, showing a CAGR of 23.9% Zion Market Research.
Approach | Basis | Indicative Value | Sources |
Income (Relief-from-Royalty) | Apply 0.5–1% royalty on 2025 market (~USD 12–13B). | USD 60–130M per year potential royalties. | |
Market Comparables | Historic solar IP settlements: SunPower–LG (~USD 30M), Meyer Burger licensing (>USD 50M). | USD 20–60M typical per license. | |
Cost (R&D Replacement) | Estimated cost of independently developing passivated contact process. | USD 80–120M floor value. | PV R&D program cost benchmarks (industry reports) |
The summary of Valuation:
Conservative benchmark (comparable deals): ~USD 200–400M portfolio potential.
Income/DCF projection (broad adoption): ~USD 800–900M lifetime portfolio value.
R&D replacement floor: ~USD 100M.
This range reflects the difference between what parties might negotiate in settlement versus the theoretical maximum under full global enforcement.
Finance Angle
For financiers, the spread between USD 200M (conservative) and USD 900M (theoretical) is not confusion — it’s optionality.
Investors / M&A buyers may cite the upper range to justify portfolio premiums in acquisitions.
Lenders may consider the floor value (~USD 100M) as collateral strength in IP-backed financing.
Defendants use the lower range in settlement talks, discounting for PTAB risks and litigation costs.
This explains why patent valuation is always contextual — it reflects who is asking and why.
Monetization Insights for Patents
US 9,666,732: Longer term makes it suitable for medium-to-long-term licensing programs.
US 9,130,074: Higher near-term applicability; should be aggressively licensed within 5 years.
Combined portfolio could command a 15% premium (~USD 892M) due to synergistic process coverage.
Disclaimer: This timeline is prepared from publicly available court filings as of August 2025. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, does not assess infringement or validity, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. Ongoing litigation may result in further updates or changes not reflected here.
Comparative Sidebar: Lessons from SunPower
The solar industry has seen similar battles before. In 2019, SunPower and LG settled a solar cell patent dispute for around USD 30M (Reuters coverage). Meanwhile, Meyer Burger’s licensing program generated over USD 50M in revenues from its heterojunction technology (PV Magazine).
These precedents show that settlements tend to fall in the tens of millions, even when theoretical valuations run higher.
Legal Context and Scope of This Case Study
How Courts Approach Valuation
In patent damages proceedings, U.S. courts commonly rely on the Georgia-Pacific framework (Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, S.D.N.Y. 1970). This framework imagines a hypothetical license negotiation and applies multiple factors to determine a reasonable royalty. In the context of solar process patents, courts often focus on:
Comparable Licenses: Past solar technology licensing or settlement agreements provide benchmarks.
Nature of the Invention: The importance of the patented process (e.g., TOPCon) in enabling efficiency gains.
Profitability & Advantages: Incremental benefits attributable to the patented technology.
Non-Infringing Alternatives: Whether competing approaches (such as heterojunction, HJT) could serve as substitutes.
Apportionment: Ensuring only the portion of value linked to the patented feature is captured in damages.
Because of these factors, court-awarded royalties typically reflect conservative, real-world licensing behavior, rather than the higher figures sometimes produced by purely financial valuation models.
Why Claim Charts Are Excluded
Patent valuation is often paired with claim charting, which maps individual claim elements to specific product features. However, since litigation on these patents is currently ongoing, this case study deliberately excludes claim chart analysis. Doing so avoids any suggestion of prejudging infringement or validity questions.
Instead, the scope here is limited to valuation methodologies and market context, presented as an educational and analytical exercise. This ensures the discussion remains neutral, non-controversial, and respectful of the judicial process while still highlighting how different valuation frameworks apply to high-value patents.
Why Patenti’s AI Valuation Engine Matters
Traditional valuation methods — Relief-from-Royalty, DCF, Comparable Licensing, and R&D Replacement — are widely recognized in courts, academia, and industry. However, applying them to live patent disputes poses challenges:
Massive Data Volumes: Patent claims, product manuals, prior art, and litigation filings can run into thousands of pages.
Dynamic Market Signals: Solar market forecasts change yearly, with adoption curves shifting faster than static valuation models can update.
Contextual Uncertainty: Ongoing litigation introduces overlapping risks — PTAB outcomes, court rulings, and settlement strategies — which must all be factored into valuation.
This is where Patenti’s AI-powered engine becomes relevant. Instead of manually stitching together fragmented data, it uses semantic intelligence and multi-source integration to:
Quantify Claim–Market Relevance: AI models assign confidence scores for how closely patent claims map to industry-standard technologies (e.g., TOPCon).
Automate Valuation Scenarios: Relief-from-Royalty and DCF projections are recalculated automatically with updated market inputs.
Benchmark Against Real-World Deals: Licensing and settlement comparables are pulled from precedent databases to contextualize valuation ranges.
Incorporate Litigation Risk: Probability-adjusted models reflect the impact of PTAB reviews and court outcomes.
In this case study, the valuation exercise has been presented in traditional formats for transparency. But in practice, an AI-driven engine like Patenti’s is essential to manage the scale, complexity, and fast-changing dynamics of disputes like First Solar vs. Adani.
Patenti’s methodology is forward-looking, scalable, and pre-litigation. It won't replace court-ordered damages, but it does:
Quantify value at risk from infringement
Provide solid footing in negotiation or damages modeling
Bridge the gap between legal, technical, and commercial teams
Key Takeaway
The First Solar vs. Adani litigation offers a real-world lens into how process-level patents in high-growth sectors like solar manufacturing are increasingly driving strategic and financial battles. At the center of this case are two critical patents — US 9,130,074 and US 9,666,732 — tied to TOPCon cell architecture, a technology poised to dominate next-generation photovoltaic production.
Using established valuation methodologies such as Relief-from-Royalty (RFR) and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), this case study illustrates how the value of these patents can range from USD $100M to $400M+ each, depending on factors such as TRL maturity, addressable market, and enforceability.
By keeping the focus on valuation analysis rather than infringement conclusions, this case study demonstrates how tools like Patenti’s AI engine can provide structured, scalable, and risk-adjusted insight into the economic worth of IP portfolios, especially in sectors where litigation and licensing often intersect.
While the legal outcome of this dispute remains pending as of August 2025, the commercial significance of TOPCon process IP — and the importance of credible patent valuation — is already clear.
Monetization Insights on patents stated in litigation:
US 9,666,732: Longer term makes it suitable for medium-to-long-term licensing programs.
US 9,130,074: Higher near-term applicability; should be aggressively licensed within 5 years.
Combined portfolio could command a 15% premium (~USD 892M) due to synergistic process coverage.
Appendix
A. Case Summary (as of August 2025)
Parties: First Solar, Inc. vs. Adani Solar (Adani Green Energy Limited subsidiaries)
Patents in Dispute:
US 9,130,074 (filed 2013, exp. ~2030) — High-efficiency crystalline silicon cell with passivated contact process.
US 9,666,732 (filed 2015, exp. ~2035) — Enhanced solar cell with tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) structure.
Technology Context: Both patents cover manufacturing processes for TOPCon solar cells, one of the two leading architectures (alongside HJT) post-PERC era.
Current Status (Aug 2025): Declaratory judgment (DJ) filed by Adani in Delaware; First Solar filed counterclaims. Parallel PTAB proceedings expected or already initiated. Litigation ongoing, no damages ruling yet.
B. Case Timeline (Key Events)
Date | Event |
July 2024 | Demand letter reportedly sent by First Solar alleging infringement of TOPCon-related patents. |
Jan 2025 | Adani Solar files Declaratory Judgment action in Delaware, seeking a ruling of non-infringement. |
Feb–Mar 2025 | First Solar responds with infringement counterclaims on US 9,130,074 and US 9,666,732. |
Spring 2025 | Parallel PTAB IPR petitions initiated (standard defense in high-value patent cases). |
Ongoing (2025) | Case continues with claim construction, PTAB institution decisions, and early discovery. Hearings pending. |
(Note: Events summarized from litigation filings and public docket updates as of August 2025.)
C. Glossary of Terms
Term | Definition | Context in This Case Study |
TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) | A high-efficiency solar cell design using a thin tunnel oxide layer with doped polysilicon for improved passivation and reduced recombination. | The patented process steps in US 9,130,074 and US 9,666,732 relate to TOPCon technology. |
PERC (Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact) | A mainstream solar cell technology that dominated in the 2010s but is now being replaced by TOPCon and HJT. | TOPCon is often described as the “next-generation” evolution beyond PERC. |
HJT (Heterojunction Technology) | Competing high-efficiency solar cell architecture combining crystalline silicon with amorphous silicon layers. | Provides an alternative to TOPCon; courts may consider HJT as a “non-infringing alternative.” |
Declaratory Judgment (DJ) | A legal action filed by an accused party to obtain a court ruling of non-infringement or invalidity. | Adani Solar filed a DJ action in Delaware against First Solar’s patents. |
PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) | A tribunal within the USPTO that adjudicates challenges to patent validity. | Defendants in major U.S. patent suits often file PTAB IPR petitions in parallel. |
IPR (Inter Partes Review) | A PTAB proceeding allowing third parties to challenge patent validity based on prior art. | A likely parallel proceeding in this dispute. |
Claim Chart | A document mapping patent claim elements against features of an accused product. | Excluded from this case study to avoid prejudging ongoing litigation. |
Apportionment | The process of isolating the portion of product value attributable to the patented invention. | Courts use apportionment to avoid awarding damages on unrelated value of solar modules. |
Georgia-Pacific Factors | A set of 15 factors from a 1970 U.S. case used to determine reasonable royalty rates in patent damages. | Courts may use these factors (esp. comparable licenses, alternatives, and apportionment) to value damages. |
Relief-from-Royalty (RFR) | A valuation method that estimates the value of IP by calculating avoided royalty payments. | Used to estimate USD 60–130M per year royalty potential from the TOPCon market. |
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) | A financial model valuing future cash flows (e.g., royalties) discounted to present value. | Applied to model lifetime value of licensing revenues until patent expiry. |
Market Comparables | Valuation based on similar licensing deals or settlements in the industry. | Benchmarks include SunPower–LG (~USD 30M) and Meyer Burger (>USD 50M). |
Cost Approach (R&D Replacement) | Valuation method based on the estimated cost to independently develop and validate the technology. | Floor estimate of ~USD 80–120M for replicating TOPCon process R&D. |
Portfolio Premium | The additional value attributed to owning a group of related patents instead of a single one. | Combining US 9,130,074 and US 9,666,732 could yield ~15% higher portfolio value. |
Royalty Rate | Percentage of revenue paid by a licensee to use patented technology. | Courts often set conservative rates (e.g., 0.5–1% in solar process patents). |
Reasonable Royalty | Hypothetical royalty that would have been agreed upon by willing parties at the time of first infringement. | Central measure of damages in U.S. patent cases. |
SEP (Standard-Essential Patent) | A patent that is indispensable to practicing an industry standard. | While TOPCon patents are not formally SEPs, they may function as “de facto essential” if universally adopted. |
D. Why TRL Matters in IP Valuation
Reason | Explanation |
Commercial Readiness | Higher TRL = Closer to market = Faster monetization |
Valuation Accuracy | Valuation models like DCF and RFR require realistic timelines; TRL helps shape royalty start date, adoption curve, CapEx needs |
Risk Adjustment | TRL informs discount rate: TRL 3–4 might use 18–22% WACC; TRL 7–9 might use 10–12% |
Licensing Attractiveness | TRL 5+ assets are easier to license because they’re testable or demo-ready |
Grant/Funding Decisions | TRL is often required in innovation grants (e.g., EU Horizon, SBIR, BIRAC) |
Investor Signals | Investors see TRL as proxy for execution risk and time-to-revenue |
E. Suggested Further Reading
Market Research on TOPCon Solar Cells
Patent Litigation & Licensing
Valuation & Damages Frameworks