Rovshan Sade v. East Pecos Solar LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Rovshan Sade (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: East Pecos Solar LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Blank Rome LLP
• Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00234, W.D. Tex., 06/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district-a 120-Megawatt solar facility in Pecos County-and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's utility-scale solar facility uses solar trackers that infringe two patents related to the mechanical design and structure of solar tracking systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves single-axis solar trackers, which are mechanical systems designed to rotate solar panels to follow the sun's path, thereby increasing energy generation compared to fixed-panel installations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement of the patents-in-suit via letters sent on December 22, 2021, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond. Plaintiff also asserts that business opportunities, including a marketing arrangement with Siemens, were destroyed by Defendant's alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-06	Priority Date for '546 and '17546 Patents
2015-06-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 Issued
2018-03-13	U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 Issued
2021-12-22	Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendant
2026-06-16	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 - "Solar Tracker"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546, titled "Solar Tracker," issued on June 16, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section and the complaint identify issues with prior art solar systems, including high costs, difficulties in achieving optimal energy efficiency, and the need for large, dedicated spaces with permanent foundations, which could be aesthetically unappealing Compl. ¶35 '546 Patent, col. 1:23-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a free-standing solar tracker that does not require a permanent foundation Compl. ¶36 '546 Patent, abstract It features a base that can be filled with ballast material (e.g., gravel or sand) to hold it in place and is also designed to function as a "suitcase" to transport the tracker's disassembled components '546 Patent, col. 2:28-34 The system uses an actuator to rotate a panel assembly around an inclined axis to track the sun, aiming to decrease installation costs and improve energy output Compl. ¶36 '546 Patent, col. 2:25-28
• Technical Importance: This design purports to offer a more portable, less expensive, and more easily deployable solar tracking solution compared to traditional systems requiring fixed foundations, thereby expanding the potential applications for tracking technology '546 Patent, col. 1:49-59

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 5 Compl. ¶40
• Claim 5 of the '546 patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A support frame;
  • A panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame for supporting one or more solar panels, the assembly comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers extending outwardly from the spine;
  • A mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly, comprising a mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame and a slot in the mounting member configured to receive the spine; and
  • An actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the sun.
• The complaint states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶38

U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 - "Solar Tracker"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546, titled "Solar Tracker," issued on March 13, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the '546 patent, the '17546 patent addresses the same problems of cost, inefficiency, and installation complexity in prior art solar trackers Compl. ¶62 '17546 Patent, col. 1:12-45
• The Patented Solution: The '17546 patent describes a similar free-standing solar tracker architecture, comprising a support frame, a rotatable panel assembly with a central spine, and an actuator Compl. ¶63 '17546 Patent, abstract The claims of this patent place a particular focus on the structural relationship between the panel carriers and the central spine, as well as the specific configuration of the mounting assembly '17546 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a structurally robust yet simple-to-install solar tracker that improves energy efficiency and reduces costs, consistent with the goals of the parent '546 patent '17546 Patent, col. 1:60-65

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶67
• Claim 1 of the '17546 patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A support frame;
  • A panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame, which includes a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers "fixed relative to the central spine and extending outwardly from both sides of said central spine";
  • An actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the sun; and
  • A mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly, which includes a mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame and an "open-ended slot" in the mounting member configured to receive the central spine.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶65

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the solar trackers used at Defendant's 120-Megawatt solar power facility in Pecos County, Texas Compl. ¶23
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are single-axis solar trackers that rotate solar panels to follow the sun's movement, thereby maximizing energy production Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶42 The trackers are alleged to comprise a support frame with support posts, a "torque tube beam" functioning as a central spine, "transversely arranged elongated members" functioning as panel carriers, a "bearing assembly" for mounting, and an "electromechanical actuator" for rotation Compl. ¶¶43-46 The complaint provides an image of the accused trackers' "Torque Tube" and "Panel Carriers" Compl. p. 9 The facility sells the generated power to utility customers, and the complaint alleges this would be impossible without using the infringing trackers Compl. ¶27

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'546 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a support frame	The accused trackers include a support frame with a plurality of support posts. An image provided in the complaint shows these "Support Posts" Compl. p. 9	¶43	col. 2:58-59
a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame... said panel assembly comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers extending outwardly from said spine	A panel assembly is rotatably mounted on the support frame. It includes a "torque tube beam" alleged to be a central spine and "transversely arranged elongated members" alleged to be panel carriers.	¶44	col. 3:56-66
a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly... the mounting assembly comprising a mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame and a slot in said mounting member configured to receive the spine of the panel assembly	A "bearing assembly" that mounts on the support posts is alleged to be the mounting member. This assembly includes an "inner bearing race" with an "open beam slot" where the torque tube is seated.	¶45	col. 4:11-18
an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun	The trackers use an "electromechanical actuator" to rotate the panel assembly. An image shows the accused "Actuator" connected to the support structure (Compl. p. 10).	¶46	col. 4:30-32

'17546 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a support frame	The accused trackers are alleged to include a support frame with multiple support posts.	¶69	col. 2:66-67
a panel assembly... including a central spine... and a plurality of panel carriers fixed relative to the central spine and extending outwardly from both sides of said central spine for supporting said solar panels	The panel assembly includes a "torque tube beam" (central spine) and transversely arranged panel carriers mounted on the tube. An image labels these components on the accused device (Compl. p. 17).	¶70	col. 3:42-47
an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun	An "electromechanical actuator" is used to rotate the panel assembly to follow the sun.	¶71	col. 4:30-32
a mounting assembly... comprising: a mounting member... and an open-ended slot in said mounting member configured to receive the central spine of the panel assembly	A "bearing assembly" is alleged to be the mounting assembly. It includes an "inner bearing race" (mounting member) which contains an "open beam slot." A photograph in the complaint specifically labels an "Open-ended slot" in the accused "Mounting Assembly" Compl. p. 18	¶72	col. 4:9-14

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Equivalence: A central question for both patents will be whether the accused tracker's "bearing assembly" and "inner bearing race" Compl. ¶45 constitute the claimed "mounting member". The court may need to determine if this specific configuration, which the complaint alleges includes an "open beam slot," meets the limitations of a "slot in said mounting member" (for the '546 patent) and an "open-ended slot" (for the '17546 patent).
  • Scope of "Fixed Relative": For the '17546 patent, the claim requires panel carriers that are "fixed relative to the central spine". This raises the question of how rigidly the accused panel carriers are attached to the torque tube. The interpretation of "fixed relative" will be critical, and the analysis will depend on the actual mechanical connection used in the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mounting member"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted claims of both patents. The infringement theory depends on the accused "bearing assembly" or "inner bearing race" Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶72 qualifying as a "mounting member." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused product's rotational interface falls within the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition for "mounting member". A party may argue that it should be given its plain meaning, encompassing any component that serves a mounting function. The patent describes "mounting forks" and "mounting brackets" as components within a larger "mounting assembly", which may suggest that "mounting member" is a generic term '546 Patent, col. 3:82 '546 Patent, col. 4:11
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, such as the "mounting forks 94" that contain the slot for the spine '546 Patent, Fig. 7 '546 Patent, col. 4:11-14 A party may argue that the term "mounting member" should be construed more narrowly to a structure analogous to the disclosed fork-like embodiment.

• The Term: "open-ended slot"

• Context and Importance: This term is a specific limitation in claim 1 of the '17546 patent. The complaint highlights this feature with a dedicated photograph, suggesting Plaintiff believes it is a key point of infringement Compl. p. 18 The construction of "open-ended" will be dispositive for this element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean any slot or channel that is not fully enclosed, such as a U-shaped or C-shaped channel that allows the spine to be seated rather than threaded through. The patent's Figure 7, which shows the spine "66" resting in a U-shaped "slot 95" within the "mounting fork 94", may support a construction that is not limited to a single geometry but rather a functional configuration that facilitates assembly.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "open-ended slot" refers specifically to the U-shaped configuration shown in the patent's figures '17546 Patent, Fig. 7 The context of the invention's portability and ease of assembly '17546 Patent, col. 2:36-41 might be used to argue the term requires a structure that allows the spine to be dropped into place, potentially excluding other types of openings.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • Inducement is alleged based on Defendant's agreements (e.g., "Engineering, Procurement, and Construction agreements") and its provision of "instructions, technical support, and operation and maintenance services" that allegedly direct and encourage the infringing use of the solar trackers Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶49 Compl. ¶74 Compl. ¶75
  • Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused solar trackers and their components are "specially made or specially adapted for use in a manner that infringes" and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶52 Compl. ¶78
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint claims Defendant has known of the patents and its alleged infringement since receiving a notice letter dated December 22, 2021 Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶80 The continued alleged infringement after this date is asserted as evidence of knowing, deliberate, and willful conduct Compl. ¶54

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the structural terms "mounting member" and "open-ended slot"? The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the accused tracker's "bearing assembly" and "inner bearing race" can be properly characterized as the claimed "mounting member" containing the specified "slot".

• A second central question will be one of evidentiary mapping: does the physical evidence from the accused solar trackers align with the claim limitations as construed? Specifically, for the '17546 patent, the court will need to determine if the panel carriers are "fixed relative to the central spine" in a manner consistent with the claim, a determination that will depend on detailed factual evidence about the accused product's design and operation.

• Finally, the case raises a significant question regarding willfulness and potential damages: did the Defendant's conduct following the December 2021 notice letter constitute willful infringement? The court's finding on this issue, which will turn on the specific facts surrounding the notice and Defendant's response (or lack thereof), could substantially impact any potential damages award.