Archive for the ‘Biofuels Patents’ category

Big Win for Butamax as PTAB Knocks Out All Claims of Gevo Patent

April 6th, 2015

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) discussed various threads of the major biofuels patent litigation between BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax and the advanced biofuels company Gevo.

A relatively new mechanism for challenging the validity of a U.S. patent is inter partes review (IPR), an administrative trial proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in which a third party can challenge the validity of a patent based on printed prior art publications.

Last year Butamax filed a petition with the PTAB for IPR of Gevo’s U.S. Patent No. 8,546,627 (’627 Patent).  The ’627 Patent is entitled “Renewable compositions” and directed to processes for preparing a renewable jet fuel.

The claimed processes comprise fermenting biomass with a microorganism, dehydrating the resulting alcohol to form biofuel precursors, and then subjecting the biofuel precursors to processes such as oligomerization, hydrogenation, and aromatization to form the fuel.

In a recent decision, the PTAB ruled that all 21 claims of the ’627 Patent are invalid in view of several prior art references cited by Butamax.

More particularly, the PTAB held that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0132741 to D’Amore discloses five of the seven steps of independent claim 1 of the ’627 Patent.  Because the sixth and seventh steps of claim 1 are recited as optional, D’Amore was found to anticipate the claims.  D’Amore was also held to anticipate dependent claims 7, 11 and 14 of the ’627 Patent.

As the primary prior art reference, the PTAB applied D’Amore in combination with several other printed publications in holding all of the claims invalid.  The PTAB also considered ASTM D1655 jet fuel standards as an important secondary reference and found that D’Amore in combination with the standards rendered claims 2-7, 11, 14 and 18-21 obvious.

The PTAB found an additional ground for invalidity of independent claim 18 in International, or PCT, Patent Publication No. WO 2007/061903 to Bradin.  Bradin is entitled “Alternative fuel and fuel additive compositions” and directed to alternative gasoline, diesel fuel, marine diesel fuel, jet fuel, and flexible fuel compositions including an alcohol and/or a glycerol ether or mixture of glycerol ethers, which can be derived from renewable resources.

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

March 24th, 2015

In January and February, there were a number of green patent infringement lawsuits filed in the areas of biofuels, hybrid vehicles, LEDs, smart grid, advanced batteries, solar power, and water meters.

Advanced Batteries

BASF Corporation et al. v. Umicore N.V. et al.

In this lawsuit BASF and UChicago Argonne, LLC accuse Umicore and Makita Corporation of unfair trade practices, antitrust violations, and infringement of two patents relating to cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (’082 Patent) and 6,680,143 (’143 Patent), both entitled “Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries” and directed to a lithium metal oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous lithium cell.

The cell is prepared in its initial discharged state and has a general formula xLiMO2.(1−x)Li2M′Oin which 0<x<1, and where M is one or more ion with an average trivalent oxidation state and with at least one ion being Mn or Ni, and where M′ is one or more ion with an average tetravalent oxidation state.

According to the complaint, Umicore is selling cathode materials that infringe the ’082 and ’143 Patents, and Makita is one of the companies importing and selling batteries incorporating the materials.  The lawsuit was filed February 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Biofuels

C T E Global, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S

In a complaint filed January 9, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, C T E Global seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two Novozymes patents relating to an enzyme used in biofuel production.  The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,255,084 (’084 Patent) and 7,060,468 (’468 Patent).

The ’084 and ’468 Patents are entitled “Thermostable glucoamylase” and are directed to an isolated glucoamylase enzyme which has higher thermal stability than prior glucoamylases.  The patents also claim starch conversion processes using the enzyme.  Glucoamylases are used to convert hydrolyzed corn starch to glucose, particularly in production of ethanol.

Novozymes and C T E previously litigated these patents and settled the case in 2012.  According to C T E, the ’084 and ’468 Patents are invalid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court Myriad Genetics decision holding that isolated natural products are not patent eligible subject matter.

Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Solenis Technologies L.P.

This is not a patent infringement suit, but rather a priority /ownership dispute in which Superior Oil claims that the inventors of its patent for a method for recovering oil from the byproducts of ethanol production using various surfactants were the first to invent the technology.

Superior Oil’s patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059, entitled “Bio-based oil composition and method for producing the same” (’059 Patent).  In its complaint, Superior Oil requests that the court declare that an interference-in-fact exists between the ’059 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,841,469 (’469 Patent), entitled “Chemical additives and use thereof in stillage processing operations” and owned by Solenis Technologies.

The complaint was filed February 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Hybrid Vehicles

Somaltus LLC v. Ford Motor Company

Somaltus filed this complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 12, 2015.  Somaltus alleges that Ford infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386 (’386 Patent) by selling vehicles equipped with an infringing hybrid battery system.

The ’386 Patent is entitled “Integrated battery service system” and directed to an integrated battery service system that performs a plurality of services related to a battery, such as battery testing, battery charging, and the like. In addition, the integrated service system provides services to devices/components that are coupled to the battery, such as starters, alternators, etc.

Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, has also sued Nissan, Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, Auto Meter Products, and Cadex Electronics.

LEDs

Cree, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. et al.

North Carolina LED manufacturer Cree sued Feit for alleged infringement of ten utility and design patents relating to LED technologies.  The complaint also alleges that Feit has engaged in false advertising in connection with marketing its LED products.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,657,236, entitled “Enhanced light extraction in LEDs through the use of internal and external optical elements”

U.S. Patent No. 6,885,036, entitled “Scalable LED with improved current spreading structures”

U.S. Patent No. 6,614,056, entitled “Scalable led with improved current spreading structures”

U.S. Patent No. 7,312,474, entitled “Group III nitride based superlattice structures”

U.S. Patent No. 7,976,187, entitled “Uniform intensity LED lighting system”

U.S. Patent No. 8,766,298, entitled “Encapsulant profile for light emitting diodes”

U.S. Patent No. 8,596,819, entitled “Lighting device and method of lighting”

U.S. Patent No. 8,628,214, entitled “Lighting device and lighting method”

U.S. Design Patent No. D653,366, entitled “LED lamp”

U.S. Design Patent No. D660,990, entitled “LED lamp”

The complaint includes greenwashing allegations as well, specifically that Feit’s advertising falsely suggests that some of its LED products meet the Energy Star standard relating to Luminous Energy Distribution when the products actually fail to meet this requirement.

Smart Grid

Allure Energy, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 

On January 29, 2015, Allure Energy sued Honeywell in federal court in Austin, Texas, alleging false advertising and infringement of two patents relating to smart thermostat technology.

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,344 and 8,457,797, both entitled “Energy management system and method” and directed to a wireless thermostat responsive to control action data communicated via a mobile app and other home energy management systems.

The accused device is Honeywell’s Lyric smart thermostat product.

Emerson Electric Co. et al. v. SIPCo LLC et al.

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) reported on SIPCo’s patent enforcement activities.

In this declaratory judgment (DJ) action, filed January 30, 2015 in federal court in Atlanta, Emerson, one of the defendants in SIPCo’s patent infringement suits, seeks a declaratory judgment that the claims of two SIPCo patents are invalid and not infringed.

The patents listed in Emerson’s complaint are U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062, entitled “Wireless network gateway and method for providing same,” and directed to certain wireless network systems having a server providing a gateway between two networks, and U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, which relates to remote monitoring and control systems.

In 2013, Emerson filed a similar DJ suit against SIPCo targeting several patents.

Solar Power

Beacon Power, LLC v. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. et al.

Beacon Power sued SolarEdge for patent infringement on January 9, 2015 in federal court in San Antonio, Texas.  The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,144 (’144 Patent) and 8,669,675 (’675 Patent), each entitled “Power converter for a solar panel.”

The ’144 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system including a DC-to-DC power converter configured and arranged to convert the raw power output for each solar module to a high voltage and low current output.

The ’675 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system wherein each DC-to-DC power converter is configured and arranged to convert the solar module output power (SOP) for each solar module to a converted solar module output power (COP) having a converted output voltage (COV) that is higher than the SOV and a converted output current (COI) that is lower than the SOI.

The accused products are SolarEdge’s P Series Power Optimizers.

Water Meters

Flow Dynamics, LLC v. Green4All Energy Solutions Inc. et al.

Filed February 20, 2015 in federal court in Palm Beach, Florida, Flow Dynamics’ complaint accuses Green4All of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,707,981 (’981 Patent).

The ’981 Patent is entitled “System for increasing the efficiency of a water meter” and directed to a system and an associated valve assembly adapted to increase the efficiency of an upstream water meter. The valve assembly removes entrained water bubbles from the water supply, increasing the density of the water running through the water meter. This ensures that the water meter is not inaccurately including entrained air as metered water so water readings are more accurate.

Flow Dynamics alleges that Green4All’s H2minusO system infringes the ’981 Patent.

Gevo Gets Good GVR in Supreme Court Decision

February 24th, 2015

A previous post discussed one significant piece of the massive patent litigation between BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax and the advanced biofuels company Gevo.  The most recent prior thread of this case – which resembles a yo-yo in its narrative – was an appellate court win for Butamax.

Initially, the district court ruled for Gevo, granting its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of two Butamax patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 (’889 Patent) and  7,851,188 (’188 Patent).  The district also denied both parties’ motions on literal infringement and reached split decisions on validity of the patents.

Butamax appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then vacated both the grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgement of non-infringement and the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment.

Gevo petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and in a single, swift decision known as a GVR, the Supremes granted the petition, vacated the Federal Circuit decision, and remanded for further proceedings.  Grant-Vacate-Remand, hence GVR (read a blurb on the decision and GVR at the Patently-O blog here).

The Federal Circuit must now reconsider this case in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Teva Pharmaceuticals decision, which raised the standard for appellate review of district court factual determinations in patent claim construction rulings.

Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used a “de novo” standard, which meant it could take a fresh look at the evidence on claim construction and make its own determination, which led to a high reversal rate.  After Teva, the Federal Circuit can reverse only where it finds “clear error” in the district court’s consideration of the facts in a claim construction decision.

So the yo-yo, in this thread of the patent war at least, swings back to Gevo with Butamax’s victory wiped out for the moment (see Gevo’s patent PR on the GVR decision here).

GreenShift Loses Across the Board in Ethanol Patent Case

December 14th, 2014

In a number of prior posts (e.g., here, here and here), I discussed the series of patent infringement suits brought by GreenShift and its New York subsidiary, GS Cleantech (GS), against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States.

The lawsuits involve GS’s patented ethanol production processes, described and claimed in a host of patents, principally the ’858 Patent Family consisting of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,8588,008,516 and 8,283,484, each entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517, entitled “Method of recovering oil from thin stillage.”

The patents relate to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production using the process of dry milling, which creates a waste stream comprised of byproducts called whole stillage.

GS has been on an aggressive patent enforcement campaign over the last several years, and multiple actions were consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana, where the ’858 Patent Family was construed and re-construed.

In a sweeping 233-page decision issued in October and made public last month, the court ruled on all of the pending motions for summary judgment brought by the original parties to the suit.

On plaintiff’s side, the motions brought by GS were for summary judgment of infringement of at least some claims of each patent in the ’858 Patent Family by each of fourteen different defendants.

On the other side, the defendants of course moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’858 Patent Family.  The defendants also filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’858 Patent Family (with GS cross-moving for summary judgment that the patents are valid).

Finally, GS alleged a subset of six defendants infringe U.S. Patent 8,168,037, entitled “Method and systems for enhancing oil recovery from ethanol production byproducts” (’037 Patent).  The ’037 Patent was also the subject of competing motions by both sides for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement and/or invalidity.

The court made several rulings on infringement, all for defendants.  Here are a couple of highlights:

The court found the defendants entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of a number of claims of the ’858 Patent Family because the claims require drying the concentrate, which the court construed to mean drying the reduced oil syrup leaving the oil recovery process without mixing it with anything else first.  The defendants’s processes mix the reduced oil thin stillage concentrate before drying the mixture.

A number of defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of several claims of the ’516 Patent and ’484 Patent were granted because the claims require that the reduced-oil syrup be “substantially free of oil” and defendants do not remove most of the oil from the incoming stream.

But the big news is the court held three of the four patents (’858, ’516 and ’517) in the ’858 Patent Family invalid because GS made a commercial offer to sell the technology more than a year before the August 17, 2004 filing date of the initial provisional patent application that led to the other applications in the family.

Under the patent law provisions in effect at that time, a sale of the invention or offer to sell the invention more than one year before filing a patent application directed to the invention invalidates a patent issuing on that application, so long as the invention was reduced to practice at the time of the offer.

The offer was in the form of a July 31, 2003 letter to a prospective customer which the court found was “the culmination of a commercial offer for sale”:

[T]he major elements of a contract for the sale of a system that could perform the the patented method are contained in the letter:  all items necessary to recover oil and the price.

All four patents of the ’858 Patent Family were also held invalid as obvious over a prior Prevost patent in view of the common practice of the ethanol industry at the time:

Prevost discloses centrifugation of concentrated thin stillage to recover oil.  The only elements of the ’858 patent family missing from Prevost’s explicit teachings are specific pH, moisture content and temperature range requirements that are indisputably encompassed by the standard operating conditions of a dry mill ethanol plant and the heating element recited in some of the claims.

If that weren’t enough, the court held the later-filed ’037 Patent invalid as obvious in view of the ’858 Patent and other prior art references.

At the end of the day, all of GS’s motions for summary judgment of infringement were denied, nearly all of its motions for summary judgment of validity of its patents were denied, none of the defendants was found to infringe GS’s patents, and the ’858 Patent Family was found to be invalid on multiple grounds.

More Green Patent PR: Phytonix, Proterro and Others Tout Patents and Licenses

August 4th, 2014

I’ve written before (e.g., here and here) about tech firms’ penchant for patent PR.  Here are several recent contributions to the genre.

 

Phytonix Corporation, based in North Carolina, touts its new U.S. patent for biobutanol production technology in this press release.  The patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,735,651, entitled “Designer organisms for photobiological butanol production from carbon dioxide and water” (’651 Patent).

The ’651 Patent is directed to a biosafety-guarded photobiological butanol production technology based on designer transgenic plants, designer algae, designer blue-green algae (cyanobacteria and oxychlorobacteria), or designer plant cells.

But the company’s IP portfolio doesn’t end here; Phytonix wants you to know that it also has IP relating to its biosafety guarded technology that “uses redundant mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of our organisms outside of a chemicals & biofuels productions environment.”

Query whether Phytonix directly competes with  biobutanol industry leaders Butamax and Gevo, who have been embroiled in contentious patent litigation.

 

Meanwhile, Ion Power Group (IPG) has been busy patenting not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, China, Japan and Russia.  The energy R&D company’s IP law firm announced that IPG’s “ground-breaking” ion power plant technology is the subject of “international patents.”

The press release does not contain the patent numbers, but specific patent info can be found on the company’s patents page.

 

New Jersey-based Proterro recently announced the grant of U.S. Patent No. 8,728,783, succinctly titled “Photobioreactor” (’783 Patent).

The ’783 Patent is directed to a photobioreactor for cultivating photosynthetic microorganisms comprising a non-gelatinous, solid cultivation support suitable for providing nutrients and moisture to photosynthetic microorganisms and a physical barrier covering at least a portion of the surface of the cultivation support.

The news was picked up by Biofuels Digest.  The press release also mentions a new Mexican patent and a prior U.S. patent covering the company’s sucrose-producing cyanobacteria.

 

Of course, not all green patent PR pertains to patent grants.  Some relates to tech transfer.  In this vein, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET) recently announces an exclusive licensing agreement with Provectus Environmental Products.

IET said the deal involves seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,828,974, with the positively prolix title “The induction of reducing conditions and stimulating anaerobic process through the addition of dried micro-blue green algae and seaweed to accomplish accelerated dechlorinization of soil and groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents and heavy metals” and U.S. Patent No. 8,147,694, entitled “Method for the treatment of ground water and soils using mixtures of seaweed and kelp.”

The press release can be found here.

By the way, this breakdown of green patent PR subject matter – the majority being directed to patent prosecution events – is consistent with my findings on patent PR in the clean tech industry discussed here.

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update, Part I

June 26th, 2014

A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several months in the areas of hybrid electric vehicles, ethanol production, LEDs, water treatment, and exhaust treatment catalysts.  This post covers new lawsuits filed from late 2013 to the end of March 2014.

 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company

After major success asserting its patents against Toyota, the HEV development and licensing company Paice is at it again.  On February 19, 2014, Paice sued Ford Motor Company for patent infringement in federal court in Baltimore.

The rather lengthy complaint accuses Ford of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, 7,559,388, 8,214,097, and 7,455,134.  These patents are part of a large family tracing priority all the way back to 1999.  Each patent is entitled “Hybrid vehicles” and relates to hybrid vehicles and associated control systems.

In its complaint, Paice lays out the details of, among other things, its collaborative relationship with Ford and how it soured.  The accused products are Ford’s Fusion hybrid and plug-in hybrid, C-Max hybrid and plug-in hybrid, and Lincoln MKZ.

 

Biofuels (Ethanol Production)

GS Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol Stockton LLC

GS Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley, LLC et al.

GS recently initiated two new lawsuits involving its patented ethanol production processes.  A complaint filed March 17, 2014 in federal court in Sacramento, California accused Pacific Ethanol Stockton of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems” (’858 Patent).

The next day, GS sued Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.  The Idaho complaint asserted the ’858 Patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,516 and8,283,484, each entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems,” and as U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517, entitled “Method of recovering oil from thin stillage.”

The patents relate to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production using the process of dry milling, which creates a waste stream comprised of byproducts called whole stillage.

GS has been on an aggressive patent enforcement campaign over the last several years.  Multiple actions were consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana, where the asserted patents were construed and re-construed.

 

LEDs

Luminus Devices, Inc. v. LED Engin, Inc.

Making its first green patent litigation appearance (to my knowledge), Massachusetts based Luminus Devices sued LED Engin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Filed back in November 2013, the complaint accuses LED Engin of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,170,100 (’100 Patent).  Entitled “Packaging designs for LEDs,” the ’100 Patent is directed to an array of LEDs and an LED package.

The package includes a layer configured so that at least about 75% of the light that that emerges from the LED and impinges on the layer passes through the layer. The layer is disposed such that a distance between the surface of the LED and a surface of the layer nearest to the surface of the LED is from about five microns to about 400 microns.

The accused products are several LED emitters allegedly made and sold by LED Engin.

 

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Cooper Lighting, LLC

On February 6, 2014 Florida LED lighting company Lighting Science Group (LSG) sued rival Cooper Lighting for patent infringement in federal court in Orlando.

The complaint alleges that Cooper infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (’968 Patent) by its manufacture and sale of the Halo LED Recessed White Surface Disk Light products.

Entitled “Low profile light,” the ’968 Patent is directed to a luminaire including a heat spreader and a heat sink disposed outboard of the heat spreader, an outer optic securely retained relative to the heat spreader and/or the heat sink, and an LED light source.

 

Water Treatment

Envirogen Technologies, Inc. v. Maxim Construction Corporation

Envirogen Technologies, a Texas company that makes water purification systems, recently filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and patent infringement against Maxim Construction.

Filed March 25, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint lists three patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,309,436 (’436 Patent), 6,878,286 (’286 Patent) and 7,041,223 (’223 Patent).

Entitled “High efficiency ion exchange system for removing contaminants from water,” the ’286 and ’223 Patents are related and are directed to a fixed bed ion exchange water purification system that combines features of single fixed bed ion exchange systems with those of a moving bed system.

The ’436 Patent is entitled “Process for removing perchlorate ions from water streams” and directed to methods and systems for removing perchiorate from water.

According to the complaint, Maxim failed to make all payments under a contract to purchase an Envirogen water purification system, and therefore its use of the system is unlicensed and infringing.

 

Exhaust Treatment Catalysts

EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

EmeraChem Holdings, a Tennessee-based company that creates catalysts for gas and liquid fuels, sued Volkswagen in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee on March 31, 2014.

The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.:

 5,451,558, entitled “Process for the reaction and absorption of gaseous air pollutants, apparatus therefor and method of making the same”;

5,599,758, entitled “Reduction of absorbed nitrogen oxides by reaction with gas flow containing hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide”;

5,953,911, entitled “Regeneration of catalyst/absorber”;

6,037,307 , entitled “Catalyst/sorber for treating sulfur compound containing effluent”: and

7,951,346, entitled “Methods and systems for reducing particulate matter in a gaseous stream”.

According to the complaint, Volkswagen’s diesel powered vehicles equipped with exhaust treatment systems, NOx storage catalyst, and other exhaust treatment catalysts infringe one or more of the patents.

Danisco DJ Revived; Pre-Issuance Conduct Counts in “War Over Patents”

April 15th, 2014

previous post discussed the dismissal of Danisco‘s declaratory judgment action against its rival Novozymes.  As described by the San Francisco district court decision, the Danish companies are “reputedly the two major competitors in the field of developing and supplying industrial enzymes used in the process of converting corn into ethanol fuel.”

Danisco’s lawsuit sought a judgment that the company’s Rapid Starch Liquefaction (RSL) alpha-amylase products did not infringe Novozymes’s U.S. Patent No. 8,252,573 (’573 Patent) and that the ’573 Patent is invalid.

The ’573 Patent  is entitled “Alpha-amylase variant with altered properties” and is directed to an isolated variant polypeptide having alpha amylase activity and containing a proline substitution at position 188 (to yield a variant called “E188P”).

In the alternative, Danisco asked the court for a determination that its own U.S. Patent No. 8,084,240 (’240 Patent) has priority over the ’573 Patent.  The ’240 Patent is entitled “Geobacillus stearothermophilus alpha-amylase (AMYS) variants with improved properties” and directed to an isolated variant of a truncated Geobacillus stearothermophilus enzyme also containing the proline substitution at position 188.

Novozymes had added the position 188 proline substitution to a claim late in prosecution of the application that issued as the ’573 Patent after learning that Danisco’s ’240 Patent would be granted with such a claim.

Although the district court conceded that the circumstances might reasonably suggest that Novozymes wanted to enforce the ’573 Patent against Danisco at some point, it held that events occurring prior to patent grant alone cannot support declaratory judgment jurisdiction.

Danisco appealed the district court decision dismissing the case, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reversed the lower court, holding there was an actual controversy and that the DJ action could be sustained.

The appeals court made clear that the distinction between a patentee’s activities before and after a patent issues is not significant to a DJ analysis that is supposed to be flexible:

The district court’s categorical distinction between pre- and post-issuance conduct is . . . irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s insistence on applying a flexible totality of circumstances test, its rejection of technical bright line rules, and our own precedent.  Contrary to the district court’s stated view, we have never held that “pre-issuance conduct” cannot constitute an affirmative act . . .

The Federal Circuit found “the record demonstrates that a definite and concrete patent dispute exists” between the parties, based on Novozymes’s actions and statements about the Danisco enzyme product before and after its ’573 Patent issued:

Novozymes has insisted on multiple occasions that its ’573 patent claim reads on the BSG alpha-amylase with an E188P mutation, which is the active compound in Danisco’s RSL products and is claimed in Novozymes’s patent.  The record shows that Novozymes sought its patent because it believed that Danisco’s products would infringe once the claim issued.

Significantly, the court of appeals observed that the parties have clearly staked out opposing legal positions on the patent rights at issue:

Novozymes twice asserted that Danisco’s ’240 patent was invalid and that Novozymes, not Danisco, is entitled to a patent on the claimed BSG E188P alpha-amylase invention.  Danisco has taken a legal position that is entirely opposed to the position taken by Novozymes, viz., that Danisco successfully prosecuted and obtained the ’240 patent, that it is the rightful owner of the claimed invention, and that its RSL products do not infringe the claim of Novozymes’s ’573 patent.

In light of all the circumstances, including previous litigation and Novozymes’ conduct prior to issuance of the ’573 Patent, the Federal Circuit held that there is declaratory judgment jurisdiction here:

Novozymes has twice sued Danisco or its predecessors in interest for patent infringement regarding related liquefaction products.  The parties have plainly been at war over patents involving genetically modified alpha-amylase enzymes and are likely to be for the foreseeable future.  They thus have adverse legal interests over a dispute of sufficient reality that is capable of conclusive resolution through a declaratory judgment.

Butamax Wins on Appeal as Federal Circuit Reverses Enzyme Claim Construction

March 18th, 2014

There’s been another big twist in the biobutanol battle between BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax and Gevo, its arch rival in advanced biofuels.

A previous post discussed the district court’s ruling granting Gevo’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of two Butamax patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 (’889 Patent) and  7,851,188 (’188 Patent).  The district also denied both parties’ motions on literal infringement and reached split decisions on validity of the patents.

Butamax appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently vacated both the grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgement of non-infringement and the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment.

The ’889 and ’188 Patents are both entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols” and directed to a more cost efficient method of producing isobutanol directly from pyruvate via a particular production pathway using recombinant microbial host cells.

The patented processes use an enzyme called KARI, which needs a cofactor that donates electrons to enable it to catalyze a reaction.  Based on statements in the patents, the district court had interpreted the claims to require a KARI defined with respect to the NADPH cofactor only.

The crux of the Federal’s Circuit’s decision was its holding that the district court erred in its claim construction, specifically concluding that the lower court got it wrong when it interpreted the claim term “acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase”, i.e., KARI, to mean an enzyme that is solely NADPH dependent.

The Federal Circuit found that the plain meaning of the term KARI does not in itself impose any limitation on the cofactor or the source of electrons needed for the reaction.

In addition, the appeals court found that nothing in the patents limited the definition of KARI to being only NADPH dependent:

The patent’s definition at least excludes as-yet-undiscovered KARI enzymes that could catalyze conversion of AL to DHIV without using NADPH at all.  Moreover, the description of specific types of KARI as NADPH-dependent does not clearly express an intent to redefine all KARI “using NADPH” as KARI that must be NADPH-dependent.

Ultimately, the Federal Circuit made its own determination on claim construction, defining “acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase” by its enzyme classification number and catalytic activity:

[T]he term “acetohydroxy acid reductisomerase” is construed as “an enzyme, whether naturally occurring or otherwise, known by the EC number 1.1.1.86 that catalyzes the conversion of acetolactate to 2,3-dihydroxyisovalerate.”

Therefore, the appeals court vacated the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment of infringement because the lower court now has to consider the question of whether Gevo’s enzymes infringe the patents-in-suit under the broader claim construction.

Interestingly, this case previously went up to the Federal Circuit on appeal of a preliminary injunction decision, and the appeals court at the time warned the district court to reconsider its claim construction of the disputed term.

As to validity of the Butamax patents, the Federal Circuit reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence – in the form of expert testimony and scientific publications – to create a genuine issue of fact that the ’889 Patent meets the written description requirement because those of skill in the art know how to deactivate the genes that express the claimed pathway.

So the case will go back down to the district court for another round on infringement and validity.

More Green Patent PR: Aphios Announces Grant of Cellulosic Biomass Patent

February 18th, 2014

Readers of this blog know that I have a soft spot for patent PR, particularly green patent PR (see, e.g., here and here).  So I’m always interested in covering announcements by green tech companies about their patents.

Aphios, a Massachusetts company that develops technology for cellulosic biomass conversion, recently put out a press release announcing the grant of U.S. Patent No. 8,540,847 (’847 Patent).

Entitled “Methods and apparatus for processing cellulosic biomass,” the ’847 Patent is directed to methods and apparatus for making ethanol or other biofuels using what Aphios calls its Aosic process.

The apparatus (11) described and claimed in the patent comprises a first vessel (13) for receiving cellulosic biomass and conveying means (15) in fluid communication with the first vessel (13).  The apparatus (11) also comprises supercritical, critical, or near critical fluid means (17), which includes a source of gas, such as gas tank (41), holding carbon dioxide pressurized to form supercritical, critical, or near critical fluid.

The fluid means (17) is in fluid communication with conveying means (15) via conduit (31).  A pump (47) is connected to a heat exchanger (55), which controls the temperature of the supercritical, critical, or near critical fluid.

The cellulosic biomass is loaded into the first vessel (13) and becomes laden with the supercritical, critical, or near critical fluid.  Discharge means (21) is in fluid communication with the conveying means (15) for receiving cellulosic biomass laden with the supercritical, critical, or near critical gas and discharging  the gas to form a disrupted cellulosic biomass.

A second vessel assembly (23) may include a hydrolysis vessel (23a) and a fermentation vessel (23b) for further processing of the cellulosic biomass.  Discharge means (21), including a discharge pipe (71) is connected to a turbine (73), which captures the kinetic energy of the expanding gas.  The turbine (73) is coupled to an electric generator to recover and recycle energy from the process.

According to the press release, contacting the cellulosic biomass with the supercritical, critical, or near critical fluid or gas improves the process by separating the fibers of the biomass:

In the Aosic process, biomass is contacted with SuperFluids such as carbon dioxide with or without small quantities of polar solvents such as ethanol, both sourced from the downstream fermentation process.  Pressure is released and fibers are made more accessible to enzymes as a result of expansive forces of SuperFluids (about 10 times those of steam explosion) and carbonic acid hydrolysis.

The ’847 Patent says the process provides biomass recovery yields between 95 and 99 percent.  Thanks to Biofuels Digest, from whence I picked up the Aphios news.

The Top Green IP Stories of 2013

January 13th, 2014

Before we turn to new green IP issues as they unfold in 2014, here is a look back at some of the top stories from 2013.

 

No. 7:  Green Patent PR

Clean tech is competitive, and PR is one of the tools used to stand out in a competitive industry.  But who would have thought PR around green patents could be so prevalent and contentious?  After DuPont sued Heraeus for alleged infringement of a patent directed to solar paste, the chemical giant put out a press release about filing the suit and the problem of IP theft in clean tech.

Heraeus counterclaimed for unfair competition and later threatened a separate lawsuit over the press release.  DuPont then filed a declaratory judgment action asking an Oregon federal court to declare that the company’s press release and customer letters about its patent infringement suit against Heraeus do not violate unfair competition laws.

My research indicates that clean tech companies engage in a substantial amount of PR around patent matters, with the clean tech industry generating the fifth highest number of patent-focused press releases.  DuPont’s disputed press release notwithstanding, the vast majority of clean tech industry press releases relate to patent prosecution.

 

No. 6:  Boston University Leads LED Lit

LED patent litigation continued to grow in 2013.  Leading the way this past year was the Trustees of Boston University, which sued dozens of defendants including AU Optronics, BlackBerry Corporation, Dell, Fujifilm, HTC, Eastman Kodak, Olympus, Sharp, and Sony.

The patent in these suits is U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738, entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.

 

No. 5:  Criminalizing Greenwashing 2.0

As discussed in this space, a new greenwashing paradigm has emerged where cases are brought by or on behalf of commercial consumers and involve B-to-B communications and misrepresentations (as opposed to advertising of consumer products directed to individual consumers).

In 2013 we began to see a new species of greenwashing 2.0 case:  criminal actions brought by governmental authorities for environmental crimes and fraud (see, e.g., here and here).

In one case a Colorado company called Executive Recycling and some of its officers were sentenced to imprisonment and fines for falsely representing that the company would dispose of all electronic waste (mostly cathode ray tubes) in an environmentally friendly manner in the United States when it instead sold the electronic waste it received to brokers for export overseas to China and other countries.

In another, the feds prosecuted companies for allegedly generating and selling fraudulent Renewable Energy Credits (RINs), and Cargill separately brought a civil action involving similar allegations.

 

No. 4:  Sinovel Faces Criminal Indictment in US

The AMSC- Sinovel copyright and trade secret dispute involving wind turbine control systems was big news in 2012, but legally speaking, mostly civil.

That changed in 2013 when the U.S. Department of Justice filed an indictment in federal court in Wisconsin alleging that Sinovel, two of its employees, and a former AMSC employee conspired to commit trade secret theft and criminal copyright infringement.

The indictment said the purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to illegally obtain proprietary source code, software, equipment designs and technical drawings relating to AMSC’s wind turbine control systems., thereby cheating AMSC out of more than $800,000,000.

 

No. 3:  Greenwashing Costs LED Maker $21 Million

In an indication of how seriously the American justice system may now be taking greenwashing, a Los Angeles federal court enjoined LED maker Lights of America (LOA) and ordered the company to pay $21,165,863.47.

This followed a decision holding that LOA violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making false claims about LED lamps replacing certain wattage incandescent lamps and about the lifetime of the company’s LED lamps.

The case was brought by the FTC, America’s competition and consumer watchdog agency.  The FTC was to receive the $21 million, and the court directed the FTC to deposit the money into a redress fund to be used for consumer redress.

 

No 2:  Burgeoning Biofuels Battles

While The Gevo-Butamax litigation was a major story of 2012, notable both for its size and as the first foray of big oil into biofuels patent suits, biofuels patent litigation in general makes the 2013 list.

Not only did Gevo and Butamax continue their “patent war over who can make biobutanol,” with big decisions starting to come down, but Danish enzyme maker Novozymes also was active in the courts, Danisco scored a big summary judgment win against Novozymes, GreenShift expanded its ethanol production patent enforcement campaign, and Neste’s biodiesel patent suits changed direction with the court staying the suits pending reexamination of the asserted patents.

 

No. 1:  Solar Patent Surge

Since the start of green patent history (admittedly a very brief era in the cosmic scheme of things), as recorded by the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index (CEPGI), fuel cells dominated other technologies and perennially led the green patent rankings.

That changed in 2013.  In its first-quarter report the CEPGI noted that the 217 solar patents granted were just one behind fuel cells’ 218, “the smallest differential on record [suggesting] that Solar patents are poised to pass Fuel Cell patents.”

As predicted, the Q2 report showed solar patents beating out fuel cell patents for the first time, surging ahead with 246 solar patents granted in the second quarter, with fuel cell patents in second place at 209.

According to CEPGI, “Solar patents’ quarterly win makes clear that innovation in this sector continues at a rapid pace despite the failures and consolidations of solar firms across that board that dominate cleantech media reports.”

 

Correction:  The e-alerts for the previous post announcing the opening of Green Patent Law indicated that they were sent from my old email address.  I think that problem has been corrected.  My new email address is elane@greenpatentlaw.com.