Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of our “disclosure controls and procedures” as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e). Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that as of September 30, 2025 our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We also carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of our “internal control over financial reporting” as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) to determine whether any changes in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the three months ended September 30, 2025 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Based on that evaluation, there were no such changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended September 30, 2025.

CEO and CFO Certifications

We have attached as exhibits to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q the certifications of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which are required in accordance with the Exchange Act. We recommend that this Item 4. be read in conjunction with those certifications for a more complete understanding of the subject matter presented.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls

Control systems, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control systems’ objectives are being met. Further, the design of any system of controls must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of all controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of error or mistake. Control systems can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

JinkoSolar

On February 25, 2025, First Solar filed suit in the district court for the District of Delaware asserting that JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.; Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; Jinko Solar (Vietnam) Industries Co. Ltd.; Jinko Solar Technology Sdn. Bhd.; Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar (U.S.) Holding Inc.; JinkoSolar (U.S.) Inc.; Jinko Solar (U.S.) Manufacturing Inc.; and Jinko Solar (U.S.) Industries Inc. (collectively, “JinkoSolar”) directly and indirectly infringe a First Solar patent through JinkoSolar’s manufacture, import, use, sale, and offering for sale of certain tunnel oxide passivated contact (“TOPCon”) solar products. First Solar alleges that the JinkoSolar TOPCon products contain solar cells manufactured using a method claimed in the patent. First Solar seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 27, 2025, JinkoSolar filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patent-in-suit is not valid and that it is not infringed by JinkoSolar. On July 18, 2025, First Solar filed an answer to the counterclaims.

On July 18, 2025, JinkoSolar Co. Ltd. filed an inter partes review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) alleging First Solar’s patent asserted in the District of Delaware litigation (the “’074 Patent”) is invalid over certain prior art. On September 29, 2025, First Solar filed a brief requesting that the inter partes review be discretionarily denied.

Mundra

On April 15, 2025, Mundra Solar PV Limited (“Mundra”) filed suit in the district court of the District of Delaware seeking declaratory judgment that it does not infringe two of First Solar’s patents (the ’074 Patent and the ’732 Patent) through its manufacture, import, use, sale, and offering for sale of certain TOPCon solar products. On August 1, 2025, First Solar filed an answer to the compliant and pleaded counterclaims alleging that Mundra as well as its affiliates Mundra Solar Energy Ltd., Adani Solar USA Inc., Adani Solar USA LLC, and Adani Solar infringe the two First Solar patents. On September 22, 2025, Mundra filed an answer to First Solar’s counterclaims and added counterclaims asserting that the First Solar patents are invalid. On October 3, 2025, Adani Solar USA Inc. and Adani Solar USA LLC (collectively, “Adani Solar USA”) filed a motion to dismiss First Solar’s counterclaims with respect to Adani Solar USA. On October 8, 2025, First Solar filed an answer to Mundra’s counterclaims. First Solar filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 17, 2025, and Adani Solar USA filed a reply brief on October 24, 2025.

On August 15, 2025, Mundra filed an inter partes review before the USPTO alleging that First Solar’s ’732 Patent is invalid over certain prior art. On October 17, 2025, First Solar filed a brief requesting that the inter partes review be discretionarily denied.

Canadian Solar

On May 9, 2025, First Solar filed suit in the district court for the District of Delaware asserting that Canadian Solar Inc.; CSI Solar Co., Ltd.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd.; Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar (USA) Inc.; and Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation (collectively, “Canadian Solar”) directly and indirectly infringe a First Solar patent through Canadian Solar’s manufacture, import, use, sale, and offering for sale of certain TOPCon solar products. First Solar alleges that the Canadian Solar TOPCon products contain solar cells manufactured using a method claimed in the patent. First Solar seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 11, 2025, Canadian Solar filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 22, 2025, Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. filed an inter partes review before the USPTO alleging that First Solar’s ’074 Patent is invalid over certain prior art. On October 24, 2025, First Solar filed a brief requesting that the inter partes review be discretionarily denied.

Customer Contract Dispute

On September 30, 2025, First Solar filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York asserting that BP Solar Holding LLC and its affiliate Lightsource Renewable Energy Trading, LLC (together, the “Defendants”) breached their contractual obligations with First Solar, having entered into various master supply agreements to purchase solar modules from First Solar and then refusing to pay the amounts owed under the master supply agreements. As a result of the failure to cure such breaches, First Solar terminated the various master supply agreements, which triggered certain contractual termination payment provisions amounting to $384.6 million, of which First Solar recognized $61.0 million in revenue during the quarter related to advance payments previously received from the Defendants. First Solar seeks monetary damages, demanding payment from the Defendants for the remaining termination payments of $323.6 million along with certain other receivables for solar modules previously delivered to the Defendants. The Defendants’ answers to the complaint are due on October 31, 2025.

See Note 10. “Commitments and Contingencies” under the heading “Legal Proceedings” of our condensed consolidated financial statements for other legal proceedings and related matters.