Linton Crystal Sues Zhejiang Jingsheng Over Crystal-Puller Seed Lifts.

Linton Crystal Technologies Corp. filed Linton Crystal Technologies Corp. v. Zhejiang Jingsheng Mechanical & Electrical Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00863, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on September 22, 2026, and demands a jury. The case is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Counsel on the complaint are the Davis Firm and Nixon Peabody LLP.

The parties

Linton is a Delaware corporation based in Rochester, New York, that the complaint says develops and supplies crystal-growth equipment for the semiconductor and photovoltaic industries. JSG is a Chinese company with a registered address in Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, that the complaint says makes semiconductor and photovoltaic equipment, including silicon crystal-growth furnaces. The complaint alleges the two compete for U.S. customers and that Linton competed to supply pullers for a large U.S. photovoltaic project for which, according to market reports it cites, JSG later secured an order.

Patents and asserted claims

The complaint asserts two Linton patents titled "Seed Lifting and Rotating System for Use in Crystal Growth," both naming John A. Reese and Joel C. Stefl as inventors: U.S. Patent 11,255,024, issued February 22, 2022, and U.S. Patent 11,814,746, issued November 14, 2023, which issued from a continuation and shares the '024 patent's specification and priority date. It asserts claim 1 of each. Google Patents lists both as active, with expirations of April 9, 2040 for the '024 patent and June 18, 2039 for the '746 patent.

What the patents cover

The complaint describes the setting. A seed-lifting mechanism lifts and rotates the seed and the growing crystal, usually with a cable wound on a rotating drum, and Linton says its design lets the drum translate as it rotates so the cable winds and unwinds properly with a smaller, lighter, and simpler mechanism. The claim summaries below restate issued claim language. They are not findings that JSG practices any claim.

Claim 1 of the '746 patent covers a lift assembly with a lift housing that forms a cable exit port; a drum inside the housing with a helical groove around its exterior, rotatable about and translatable along its central axis; a roller guide mounted to the housing that engages the groove, turns on an axis parallel to and offset from the drum's axis, and is fixed against moving along that axis; and a drive shaft that rotates the drum, so that rotation makes the drum translate through the groove's engagement with the roller guide.

Claim 1 of the '024 patent covers a similar lift assembly in which the roller guide floats. A mounting plate on the housing has a throughhole; a floating shaft on the plate can move relative to it in a direction generally perpendicular to the shaft's own axis; and a floating roller guide turns on that shaft, sits generally within the throughhole, and engages the drum's helical groove. A drive shaft causes the drum to rotate and translate through that engagement.

Accused products

The complaint accuses JSG CZ crystal-growth pullers imported into, sold, offered for sale, or used in the United States that incorporate the accused seed-lift designs, including the TDR160P series. It relies on U.S. import records. It alleges that between October 26 and November 22, 2024, at least ten bills of lading covering 166 containers named JSG as shipper and JA Solar USA Inc. as importer of cargo described as including "CZ PULLER" equipment, shipped from Shanghai to ports in New York and New Jersey, and that a November 22, 2024 shipment to the same customer listed "EMBEDDED PCS/PLC" modules "IN SEED LIFTING MACHANISM" [sic].

The complaint pleads two accused designs. For the '746 patent, it alleges JSG seed lifts use a housing-mounted roller guide that engages the drum's helical groove and stays fixed while a spline shaft turns the drum, so rotation advances the drum along its axis. For the '024 patent, it alleges, on information and belief based on photographs of JSG equipment and information from persons knowledgeable about the assembly, that certain JSG pullers use a floating roller guide on a shaft that can move toward and away from the drum.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint invokes 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) for venue because JSG is not a U.S. resident. For personal jurisdiction in Texas, it cites public market reports that JSG secured an order to supply crystal pullers and associated equipment for a 10 GW photovoltaic production line in Texas, with deliveries scheduled in 2026. In the alternative, it relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) and JSG's shipments to U.S. customers.

Knowledge, willfulness, and relief

The complaint does not plead pre-suit notice. It alleges JSG will have actual knowledge of both patents no later than service of the complaint, pleads inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) to the extent JSG keeps supplying and supporting the pullers after that, and seeks enhanced damages under section 284 to the extent the evidence warrants. The prayer asks for a declaration of infringement, damages of at least a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, interest, a permanent injunction, and costs and, to the extent warranted, attorneys' fees under section 285.

Why it matters

This is a competitor suit over a component inside capital equipment for U.S. solar manufacturing. The complaint builds the U.S. link largely from import records and a reported Texas project, and its '024 theory rests on inferences from photographs about a guide that moves inside the lift. Expect the first point to shape any jurisdiction fight and the second to shape early discovery.

What to watch next

Watch for service on JSG, any motion challenging personal jurisdiction or the Rule 4(k)(2) theory, and early claim-construction positions on what counts as a floating roller guide.