Green Patent Blog®

The clean energy patent tallies for the first quarter of 2009 came out last month.  The first quarter report of the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index (CEPGI), run by the Heslin Rothenberg law firm, found that the number of U.S. patents granted in the clean energy sector fell slightly in the first quarter of this year.

According to CEPGI, 243 clean energy patents were granted in the first quarter of 2009, which was a slight drop from the 261 granted in the fourth quarter of 2008.  However, it was a relative gain from the first quarter of last year, in which the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted 220 clean energy patents.

This drop comes in the wake of a record year:  in 2008, 928 clean energy patents issued in the U.S.

As to the technologies being patented, fuel cells are the most represented but fell from 140 to 133 from the previous quarter.  Wind, solar and tidal / wave energy patents also dropped in the first quarter of 2009, but patents relating to biofuels and hybrid and electric vehicles rose.

The top 10 clean energy patentees in Q1 2009 included automakers such as Honda, General Motors, Toyota and Nissan with a host of fuel cell patents and some hybrid vehicle patents.  Other companies in the top ten included Panasonic, General Electric, Samsung and Enercon.

Last year’s first quarter report also found a drop in granted clean energy patents relative to the fourth quarter of 2007.  One possible explanation for first quarter dips is that the PTO issues more patents in the fourth quarter of the year than in the first quarter, perhaps because patent examiners try to wrap up cases at the end of the year.

One of the founders of Silicon Valley electric car startup Tesla Motors (Tesla), Martin Eberhard, has sued the company and its current CEO, Elon Musk, for libel, slander and allegedly breaching Mr. Eberhard’s severance agreement. 

The complaint, filed last month in San Mateo County Superior Court, further alleges that Tesla breached a Roadster Delivery Agreement providing that Eberhard was to receive the second Roadster that came off the production line by giving the No. 2 car to someone else. 

When Eberhard finally did receive a Roadster, the complaint says, it was damaged goods because it had been smashed into the back of a truck by a company employee doing an “endurance test” on the car.

According to the complaint, Musk forced Eberhard out of the company in November of 2008, and Tesla breached his severance agreement in February 2008 when it ceased the severance payments.

The defamation claims relate to Musk’s alleged statements regarding Eberhard’s status as founder and creator of Tesla and the work product he created for the company.  In particular, the complaint accuses Musk of falsely stating that Eberhard had been terminated by Tesla because of performance and management issues.

Eberhard also accuses Musk of falsely portraying himself as the founder of the company.  However, most of the statements listed in the complaint that state or suggest that Musk is the founder of Tesla Motors were made by media outlets; only a few appear to have been made by Musk himself.

The complaint tries to paint a picture of a broad pattern of misrepresentation by Musk with respect to his achievements and credentials, alleging that he has misrepresented his educational credentials by lying about attending Stanford University and having a physics degree from the University of Pennsylvania.

Among other things, Eberhard is seeking an injunction ordering Musk to stop making statements to the effect that he is a founder or creator of Tesla, that anyone other than Eberhard and co-founder Marc Tarpenning are the founders, or that Eberhard was responsible for the Roadster’s production delays or the company’s financial instability. 

Eberhard also wants the court to order Tesla and Musk to publish a public statement regarding those items and distribute it to major media outlets.

As the Greentech Media piece notes, while legal complaints often are dry, ”this one has some gems.”

In a previous post, I wrote about Kruse Technology Partnership’s (”Kruse”) infringement suit against DMAX, Ltd. (”DMAX”), an Ohio diesel engine manaufacturer formed as a joint venture between GM and Isuzu.  

In that case, Kruse alleges that DMAX’s Duramax engines infringe three related Kruse patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 5,265,562 (”‘562 patent”), 6,058,904 (”‘904 patent”) and 6,405,704 (”‘704 patent”).

Last month Kruse filed a second lawsuit, this time targeting Isuzu.  The complaint (kruse-isuzu-complaint.pdf), filed in federal court in Santa Ana, California, asserts the same patents and alleges that Isuzu’s diesel engines infringe the patents.

The asserted patents are directed to Kruse’s “Limited Temperature Cycle” technology, which reduces combustion temperature, boosts thermal efficiency and reduces certain chemical emissions by diesel engines by injecting fuel in multiple increments.   

The patents describe an engine (10) comprising a block (12), a cylinder head (14) and a cylinder (16) having a piston (18).  Fuel is supplied to the engine (10) by a fuel injection system (36).  The engine (10) also includes an air induction system (26) having an air intake valve (28) in the cylinder head (14).

The process maintains a proper fuel/air mix in the engine to reduce the temperature and the work of compression.  According to the ‘904 patent, the fuel injection system (36) precisely regulates this fuel/air mixture for combustion and exhaust emission control.

The complaint requests that the court issue a permanent injunction against Isuzu and award Kruse compensatory damages for the alleged infringement.

Fellow green patent enthusiast Stu Soffer brought this interesting item to my attention (Thanks Stu!):  an eBay auction for the rights to a small wind turbine patent.  The patent is New Zealand Patent No. 540102, and includes the international rights to PCT Application Pub. No. WO 2006/123951 (’951 application).

The ‘951 application is directed to a wind turbine having a rotor (1) having blades, the rotor rotatably mounted about the axis of rotor shaft (2) within housing (3).  Directional louvers, or shutters (15, 17), direct incident airflow to enhance the venturi effect and reduce drag for maximum power generation.

Though at first glance it appears the seller is only auctioning the rights to the patent application, the description of the transaction reveals that a purchaser would get substantially more than that (or less, depending on your point of view).  In fact, the purchaser would also buy an obligation to enter into a partnership with the inventor:

What is being sold is the US rights to patent protection vested in a company substantially owned by the purchaser. The purchaser will have written authority from the inventor to assign the US intellectual property rights to the new company. All the inventor requires apart from the purchase price is a small shareholding of 10% of the shares in the new US company as a silent partner that the buyer will create by agreement, and acknowledgement that the invention was created by the inventor at all times. 

The seller is offering free shipping, although what this means in this context is not entirely clear.  Would the buyer receive in the mail the patent application?  A prototype of the invention?  An executed assignment?

The opening bid price is USD $27,500.  The auction ends on June 24, 2009, and there have been no bids so far.

Kyocera recently announced that it is supplying solar modules for Toyota’s new solar ventilation system, an optional feature on the new Prius introduced in Japan last month.

The modules will be made using the company’s Reactive Ion Etching (RIE) technology, which creates microscopic ridges on the surface of the solar cell using plasma and reductive gases.  According to Kyocera’s press release, the ridges enhance output and conversion efficiency by facilitating better absorption of sunlight. 

The process also yields a “high level of aesthetic quality” and “stylish appearance” by providing a uniform dark navy blue color.

This RIE process is covered by Kyocera’s U.S. Patent No. 7,128,975 (’975 patent), entitled “Multicrystalline silicon substrate and process for roughening surface thereof.”  The ‘975 patent is directed to a multicrystalline silicon substrate and a process for roughening the substrate’s surface using an alkaline aqueous solution etching step and a dry etching step.

According to the ‘975 patent, this process overcomes the challenge of forming uniform textures in the irregular crystal orientation of multicrystalline substrates and reduces reflectance:

By this method, fine textures can be uniformly formed independent of the irregular orientation of the crystals of multicrystalline silicon. In particular, reflectance can be more effectively reduced in solar cells using multicrystalline silicon.

The ‘975 patent describes a silicon substrate (1) formed by the patented RIE process as having textures (2), or fine textures (22).  According to the ‘975 patent, the ratio of line a (connecting individual peaks of the fine textures (22)) and line b (connecting the two end points 23 and 24) is less than 1.1, which indicates that the heights of the peaks of the fine textures (22) are even.