A - Maybe
B - Have you seen teardown pictures of Deye, Sol-Ark side by side? There was a post somewhere on this forum of 8K teardown. Its the same thing.
Sol-Ark's Comment on EG4 18k-PV-12-LV
- Thread starter HighTechLab
- Start date
B - Have you seen teardown pictures of Deye, Sol-Ark side by side? There was a post somewhere on this forum of 8K teardown. Its the same thing.
Tulex
Solar Wizard
It is clearly different.Sol-Ark claims they designed these inverters while they are yet to release their 30K HV inverter.
SunSynk/Deye (SunSynk is owned by Deye btw) introduced it 8 months ago
Sol-Ark 30K All-in-One
Sol-Ark® 30K-3P 208V-N commercial hybrid inverter is high-voltage battery agnostic, allows for fleet management, and scalable to meet your energy needs.www.sol-ark.com
BTW did anyone notice that Sol-Ark didnt even bother to change the case design this time?
Right. Color, facia and embossed smile around the display
themizz
tinkering
I don't think this is correct that SunSynk is owned by Deye - where have you seen this information? I don't think @Keith Gough has been around here in a while, but perhaps he can weigh in?Sol-Ark claims they designed these inverters while they are yet to release their 30K HV inverter.
SunSynk/Deye (SunSynk is owned by Deye btw) introduced it 8 months ago
Sol-Ark 30K All-in-One
Sol-Ark® 30K-3P 208V-N commercial hybrid inverter is high-voltage battery agnostic, allows for fleet management, and scalable to meet your energy needs.
BTW did anyone notice that Sol-Ark didnt even bother to change the case design this time?
Also, @Keith Gough if you are on here - is @jrcromer description of SunSynk a fair one? That is Sol-Ark designed the inverters and had Deye manufacture them and that Sunsynk is just a white labeller of Sol-Arks original design, as evidenced by the fact you don't have exclusivity in your markets?
Last edited:
One aspect of the Sol Arks that I don’t see mentioned much is how well they work with small generators. If you are off-grid (as in no grid ) a generator is a necessity in northern climes. I see a number of AIO units that need something like the Chargeverter to charge batteries with small low cost generators. I have a small Honda 7000is gas generator connected to the Grid input of my sol ark. The Sol Ark can trigger the generator start at a low battery SOC. I bought a Chargverter to play with, but disconnected it because the Sol Ark charger works way better than the chargeverter.
Sol Ark ought to promote this feature more because it’s a really nice capability (at least for people in my situation)
Sol Ark ought to promote this feature more because it’s a really nice capability (at least for people in my situation)
Interesting read 
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
I am talking about the Inverter Firmware not the App or Web Portal.Here we go again
Sol-Ark isn't even aware of new features that Deye added 3 months ago until it appears in the "Powerview" monitoring platform that they bought from Solarman
Sol Ark Low Power Mode?
I noticed in the Sol Ark App (I have a 12K) there is a setting named "LowPowerMode" I don't recall seeing this before, or documented. Maybe something relevant to another model?diysolarforum.com
Sol Ark Low Power Mode?
Never got a call back. Do you think I should I expect one tomorrow? I tried to call an engineer today on his private line today and got no answer (First time ever). I suspect that their CSR Dept phones and computers are probably being switched over right now. I will try him again tomorrow and...
Poweview is not owned by Deye it is owned by E-Linter Ltd.
E-Linter sells their monitoring services to several Inverter companies.
All Sol-Ark firmware updates come from Sol-Arks servers in Texas.
Last edited:
That doesn't make sense to me since from the thread it sounded like it directly affected the operation of the inverter itself which would be the firmware.
themizz
tinkering
That is an interesting read. Looks like they came to a settlement, case dismissed! https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43206471/Portable_Solar_v_Lion_EnergyInteresting read
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
Anyone care to guess what happened in the case? https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ty-to-energy-storage-solutions-301784974.html
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,468
Interesting read
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
"Plaintiff Portable Solar, LLC dba Sol-Ark's (“Plaintiff”) ...
Plaintiff also asserts that, in or about 2018, it entered into a Non-Compete Agreement with NingBo Deye Inverter Technology Co. Ltd. (“Deye”), and that, pursuant thereto, Plaintiff had exclusive rights in the United States and Canada (the “Territory”) to market and sell Deye's storage string inverter products and technology (collectively, the “Technology”). "
(my emphasis)
themizz
tinkering
Are you thinking your statement from earlier "If SolArk designed the hardware, then contracted out manufacturing, that would be very significant", might be incorrect ?"Plaintiff Portable Solar, LLC dba Sol-Ark's (“Plaintiff”) ...
Plaintiff also asserts that, in or about 2018, it entered into a Non-Compete Agreement with NingBo Deye Inverter Technology Co. Ltd. (“Deye”), and that, pursuant thereto, Plaintiff had exclusive rights in the United States and Canada (the “Territory”) to market and sell Deye's storage string inverter products and technology (collectively, the “Technology”). "
(my emphasis)
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
I think that the key point is that Sol-Ark wants the right to sell all Deye Products, even the ones that Sol-Ark has not been directly involved with but are possibly a spin off of the original design. Example the 30K which Sol-Ark started selling right after this."Plaintiff Portable Solar, LLC dba Sol-Ark's (“Plaintiff”) ...
Plaintiff also asserts that, in or about 2018, it entered into a Non-Compete Agreement with NingBo Deye Inverter Technology Co. Ltd. (“Deye”), and that, pursuant thereto, Plaintiff had exclusive rights in the United States and Canada (the “Territory”) to market and sell Deye's storage string inverter products and technology (collectively, the “Technology”). "
(my emphasis)
Last edited:
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
Nobody knows yet because Sol-Ark is in the process of moving and we cannot reach them.
There are a few of features in Powerview that are not connected to Sol-Ark inverters but seem to be used by different Inverters that E-Linter also supports. This is one of the reasons that Sol-Ark has moved to use their own version of the Software which is already available but still limited to only certain customers until it comes out of Beta.
Cheap 4-life
My body is 2.63 trillion volts, .07v per cell
Could just be wording but it says several times “Deyes technology“ not SolArksInteresting read
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
Last edited:
cs1234
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,734
@Cheap 4-life
You should change your sig to "Wanting SolArk's revolutionary technology, but I'm CHEAP".
You should change your sig to "Wanting SolArk's revolutionary technology, but I'm CHEAP".
jrcromer
Sol-Ark Senior Technical Manager
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2022
- Messages
- 102
That's your argument? Again, refer to my prior posts on determining manufacturers vs. OEMs vs. relabellers, the casework validates it.
It seems like there is alot of hooplah over "who invented the Sol-Ark inverter". One person has mentioned Solax... that's not a whole home backup inverter with integrated wiring compartment. Others have yet to show a Sol-Ark inverter, pre-Sol-Ark, but have validated Sol-Arks exclusivity claims to its territory, which in turn, illustrate a huge difference between a company like EG4 (which lacks exclusivity) and Sol-Ark (which commands it).
It's almost like those who criticize global manufacturing don't want to take pride in home grown technology, nor admit the kinds of contractual obligations which global manufacturing requires. And it doesn't matter - you don't need to understand this stuff. It is fun to learn about.
What's also fun to learn about is proper string sizing. I can provide countless string configurations as to how Sol-Ark can get to above 18kW. I've only found one solar panel (not in stock) that can get to 18kW DC nameplate capacity on the EG4 inverter with a valid circuit layout and the founder of EG4 has admitted that capacity is for "future modules". Which again, begs the question - how much validation of the EG4 18kW PV dc processing capability has actually been tested?
Sol-Ark knows it's inverter very well, and despite having 50% larger MPPTs, claims an energy processing capability of 15kW (albiet, a more valuable AC than DC capability). But my point here is that Sol-Ark isn't claiming 18kW of capability, and there's a reason for that which we don't particularly want EG4 to copy at this moment in time. Instead, we're very interested in seeing evidence of any sort of long term duration studies that have been performed to validate how a lighter weight inverter with undersized MPPT components can operate continuously at a higher processing power, even if only on the DC side of the inverter. And if the answer is "wait until the future" then again, what validation testing has been done in the past?
Anyone who thinks global manufacturing is a black and white dichotomy where America can do nothing but import whatever China provides needs to remove the copycat culture blinders and understand that ultimately, features found on the Sol-Ark inverter have an origination point. And if they think that the origination point is from China, a culture which doesn't understand why a USA-based home would even need a 200A grid-pass through function, well, that person needs to stop being so cynical. China manufacturing are very good order takers if you tell them precisely what to do and own that quality control process. But regarding innovation, as the undersized PV MPPT and AC nameplate capacity of the EG4 shows, copycats will always result in pale imitations. So don't give into the cynicism of copycat culture.
If you don't think Sol-Ark originated the Sol-Ark inverter, fine. Show me a Sol-Ark inverter, with the features that made Sol-Ark the success that it is today, on an inverter that pre-dates the Sol-Ark inverter. If you attack the Sol-Ark for being too expensive, show me an equivalent system on the US market that doesn't require an egregious waiting period. Make a complete argument, so we can stop the circular firing squad.
Last edited:
I never said Powerview is owned by Deye.
E-Linter is a software company that makes custom apps for Sol-Ark (Power View), Deye (Deye Cloud), SunSynk (Synsynk connect)
All of these apps use Solarman API and hardware - https://www.solarmanpv.com/products/data-logger/stick-logger/
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
Who cares about the API, the main argument you are making is that Deye is writing Sol-Arks firmware and I am telling you that the companies parted ways in Firmware development a long time ago.
Sol-Ark does all their Firmware development in Texas and it uploaded to Inverters from their Servers in Texas.
You have the Senior Technical Manager of Sol-Ark in this very thread giving you information on what is going on but your ignoring that and instead making assumptions.
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
And that is the Elephant in the room!
In 35 Years of doing Electronic Engineering I have never seen a Chinese company give exclusive rights to a small American company to distribute a product, especially a product that is as cutting edge as the Sol-Ark 8K.
And Sol-Ark was most certainly a very tiny company at the time when the 8K came out.
All manufactures to a tee are smart enough to know that the route to making the most amount of money is to do what Luxpower is doing and get it into the hands of as many different distributors as they possibly can or to find an extremely big partner in America that they can give a limited time distribution to.
jrcromer
Sol-Ark Senior Technical Manager
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2022
- Messages
- 102
Robbie, as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm and arguments, I think ruchira88 raises a valid concern about who owns the monitoring platform. Sol-Ark is very concerned about this issue - as you would expect of a veteran owned company based in Texas. Ruchira88 agrees that Powerview is not owned by Deye and would be interested in knowing that Sol-Ark is moving over to MySolArk to further increase the security of our cloud monitoring system. Anything cloud-related is fundamentally insecure, and Sol-Ark does not require internet access for warranty service (unlike Tesla). But in the spirit of the topic, it begs the question, who owns the EG4 monitoring system? Is LuxPower the actual provider? If so, what does that mean? These are good questions to ask.
I have never seen a company that gives their IP to a contract manufacturer in China and say "Hey do whatever you wish using our IP outside the US, we don't care"
jrcromer
Sol-Ark Senior Technical Manager
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2022
- Messages
- 102
It's not that you don't care about what happens to it. It's that you can't control it. That's what America is complaining about. There's nothing new to this argument.
Ultimately, you have to decide to give up your IP to participate in global manufacturing, or not have a market. As I said in a prior post, if you want to change things, one thing we all can do is to contact our representatives to say that the domestic manufacturing tax incentive should apply to residential tax code, not just corporate owners of solar arrays.
But ultimately, you want the road back to onshore manufacturing to come through US companies like Sol-Ark, rather than foreign-owned entities like Luxpower. There are politics behind manufacturing, whether we like it or not. But at the very least, consider the supply chain implications. Exclusivity for the best global market segment (USA) indicates strength - which as Robby has pointed out, only happens to startups (Sol-Ark back in the day) for a damn good reason (like actually creating the product). Likewise, having a multiple importers of the same Chinese product (luxpower) indicates weakness. If you want to define labelers vs. manufacturers, use that as a guide.
Ultimately, you have to decide to give up your IP to participate in global manufacturing, or not have a market. As I said in a prior post, if you want to change things, one thing we all can do is to contact our representatives to say that the domestic manufacturing tax incentive should apply to residential tax code, not just corporate owners of solar arrays.
But ultimately, you want the road back to onshore manufacturing to come through US companies like Sol-Ark, rather than foreign-owned entities like Luxpower. There are politics behind manufacturing, whether we like it or not. But at the very least, consider the supply chain implications. Exclusivity for the best global market segment (USA) indicates strength - which as Robby has pointed out, only happens to startups (Sol-Ark back in the day) for a damn good reason (like actually creating the product). Likewise, having a multiple importers of the same Chinese product (luxpower) indicates weakness. If you want to define labelers vs. manufacturers, use that as a guide.
Last edited:
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,293
Tom Brennan answers that it in his post.
Ok, let's see what happens to low noise and low power features in a while. Your argument will be invalid If Sol-Ark ends up implementing those features in its firmware
houseofancients
Solar Wizard
exactly...Interesting read
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC, 2:22-CV-00026-DAK, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
JX
Sign InGet a DemoFree Trial
Try Free for 7 Days
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Portable Solar, LLC v. Lion Energy, LLC
United States District Court, District of UtahAug 8, 2022
2:22-CV-00026-DAK (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2022)Copy Citation
Download
Treatment
Try Casetext. It's easier than googling the law.
Try Casetext free
2:22-CV-00026-DAK
08-08-2022
PORTABLE SOLAR, LLC dba SOL-ARK, a Texas limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LION ENERGY, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Defendant.
DALE A. KIMBALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO JOIN A NECESSARY PARTY
DALE A. KIMBALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on Defendant Lion Energy, LLC's (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7), (19), Plaintiff Portable Solar, LLC dba Sol-Ark's (“Plaintiff”) case for failure to join an indispensable party or, in the alternative, to join a necessary party. The court held a hearing on the motion on July 21, 2022. At the hearing, Defendant was represented by Matthew M. Boley. Plaintiff was represented by Christopher M. Von Maack and Christopher E. Thorsen. The court has carefully considered the materials submitted by the parties, the arguments made by counsel at the hearing, and the law and facts relating to this matter. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this case on January 10, 2022. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that it develops, markets, and sells solar battery technology, including storage string inverter products, which connect to a series or ‘string' of solar panels and convert the power from Direct Current (DC) into Alternate Current (AC) electricity, and that it markets and sells its products across the United States, including in Utah County, Utah. Plaintiff also asserts that, in or about 2018, it entered into a Non-Compete Agreement with NingBo Deye Inverter Technology Co. Ltd. (“Deye”), and that, pursuant thereto, Plaintiff had exclusive rights in the United States and Canada (the “Territory”) to market and sell Deye's storage string inverter products and technology (collectively, the “Technology”). Defendant submits that the NonCompete Agreement was merged, through a comprehensive integration clause, into Plaintiff and Deye's later Distribution Agreement regarding the Technology. (agreements collectively, the “Agreements”).
Similar threads
