Supreme People’s Court Overturns Prior Rulings, Validating Maxeon’s Core BC Patent In Second Instance – Patent

Purplevine IP

More

PurpleVine IP Group, based in Shenzhen, is a China-based and internationally-oriented IP service provider. Founded in 2018, Purplevine currently has 10 offices worldwide with more than 400 full-time employees. We provide full-chain, one-stop IP services that include global prosecution, IP consultancy, IP transactions, licensing, enforcement, and dispute resolution.

The Supreme People’s Court of China has issued a landmark ruling in a high-stakes patent dispute involving foundational back-contact solar cell technology, overturning two consecutive adverse decisions…

China
Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of the People’s Republic of China issued a final judgment [Case No. (2025) Supreme Zhi Xing Zhong No. 355] regarding an administrative dispute over the invalidation of an invention patent in the photovoltaic (PV) solar cell sector. The patent at issue is the invention patent entitled “Trench process and structure for backside contact solar cells with polysilicon doped regions” (Patent No. 200980122033.0). The SPC confirmed that all claims—with the sole exception of method claim 7—possess distinct inventiveness, thereby overturning the corresponding portions of the original invalidation decision and the first-instance review judgment.

This patent represents a foundational asset of Maxeon’s BC technology and serves as the Chinese counterpart to a litigated European patent (EP3065184B1). This ruling reinstates the validity of the patent, ensuring that the patent holder’s inventive contributions receive comprehensive protection under Chinese jurisdiction.

According to authoritative data released by the Intellectual Property Court of the SPC, the reversal/modification rate for such second-instance administrative patent cases has long remained at an exceptionally low level of around 8%. In judicial practice, it is remarkably rare to achieve a complete reversal and secure the validity of such a substantial majority of patent claims at the second-instance stage, especially after facing a dual negative scenario—where the patent was declared entirely invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and subsequently upheld by the first-instance court.¹

This ultimate reversal stands as a milestone achievement accomplished through the close collaboration between Ms. Rebecca Yan, General Manager of the Strategic Project Department of PurpleVine IP Group, and Jingtian & Gongcheng Law Firm, who jointly led their respective teams in this effort. It robustly demonstrates PurpleVine’s deep expertise and full-chain capability in handling high-value patent invalidation and complex appellate reviews.

Forging Ahead: Persistence Amidst Successive Adverse Rulings

The patent involved in this dispute is held by Maxeon, covering the core underlying structural characteristics of back-contact (BC) solar cells, with a priority date tracing back to 2008.

In 2022, a request was filed to declare the patent entirely invalid. In 2023, CNIPA issued a decision declaring all claims invalid, which was subsequently upheld by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in its first-instance judicial review judgment in January 2025. Upon stepping into the case that same month under the shadow of two consecutive adverse decisions, the PurpleVine team conducted a meticulous re-evaluation of the case dynamics. Recognizing a viable window for a turnaround, the team decisively filed an appeal to the Supreme People’s Court.

The Turning Point: Pinpointing the Core Crux of Inventiveness

During the second-instance proceedings before the SPC, PurpleVine, together with Jingtian & Gongcheng, systematically deconstructed the case history and precisely targeted the critical flaw in the first instance court’s reasoning: the significant disparity in technology roadmaps between the prior art and the patent at issue, the non-equivalence of material properties under actual application scenarios, and the lack of a factual basis for the lower tribunal’s definition of “common knowledge.”

The team constructed a rigorous and comprehensive comparative matrix demonstrating the divergence in technical routes. Furthermore, they successfully petitioned the court to allow a technical expert to appear in court, effectively guiding the SPC collegiate bench to re-evaluate the logic of inventiveness through the lens of historical technology evolution.

Victory Secured: Reversal Rendered After Dual Hearings

Following two court hearings, the Supreme People’s Court rendered its final judgment on June 30, 2026. The SPC explicitly clarified that during the initial emergence of a groundbreaking technology, the determination of inventiveness must be evaluated comprehensively in conjunction with the state of technical evolution prior to the patent’s priority date, rather than being judged in isolation from the historical backdrop. Grounded in this principle, the SPC ruled that the core claims of the patent possess clear inventiveness, thereby overturning both CNIPA’s invalidation decision and the first-instance judgment.

The final outcome of this case not only cements a solid legal foundation for the patent owners’s patent enforcement within Chinabut also offers a highly valuable precedent for navigating “common knowledge” challenges in high-value patent invalidation procedures. This triumphant reversal highlights the PurpleVine team’s profound capabilities in isolating critical legal contentions, building systematic technical arguments, and maintaining an unwavering commitment to the client’s commercial interests.

PurpleVine will continue to deeply cultivate the fields of high-value patent protection and IP monetization, leveraging its full-chain expertise to help clients secure a competitive edge in global IP strategy.

Footnote

1 Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (2025) – Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]