Archive for the ‘Biofuels Patents’ category

BioGasol Carbofrac Units Foster Feedstock Intimacy and Inclusion

May 15th, 2013

BioGasol is a Danish company that has developed a biomass pre-treatment system comfortably situated upstream in cellulosic biofuels production. The system, called Carbofrac, provides more efficient and lower cost biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic feedstocks such as wood and agricultural waste.

The company owns at least nine U.S. patents and published applications, including U.S. Application Publication No. 2012/0100045 (’045 Application), which covers the pre-treatment system.

The ’045 Application is entitled “Apparatus for rapid mixing of media and method” and directed to an apparatus (100) for processing at least two media. The apparatus (100) has a reaction chamber (102), a casing (108), at least two inlets for a materials to be processed and another medium, a rotating means (111), a series of rotating elements (110), and a lid (104).

The reaction chamber casing (108) has a conical shape to facility flow of the materials toward the lid (104), and the inlet is adapted so the material to be processed moves in a direction parallel to the radius of the rotating means (111).

The second figure shows the reaction chamber (102) in more detail. Rotating elements (205, 206) generate a vortex inducing mixture and transport of the feedstock material, thereby optimizing release of a medium such as steam or a chemical reagent and providing for a rapid interaction between the medium and the feedstock:

The rotating discs are designed in order to provide comminution, dispersion and fluffing of the pulp introduced and exposure of said material to a medium, i. e. gas or liquid, to produce a rapid interaction. The rotating discs are designed in order to optimize the medium release at the instant of comminution, dispersion and fluffing.

According to the ’045 Application, the “comminution and the dispersion effect” of the rotating elements cause “an instantaneous inclusion of the injected medium in the pulp” which, in turn, leads to reduced reaction time:

This allows localized and immediate contact between the freshly dispersed and comminuted pulp and the chemical reagent causing a fast and efficient reaction between the two. Reaction time is therefore reduced since the chemical reagent is put in intimate contact with the pulp minimizing the diffusion time through the pulp.

BioGasol recently delivered its first Carbofrac unit to Sweetwater Energy, a company that produces concentrated sugars for bioenergy and biochemical applications.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Biofuels Patents, Green Patents

Gevo Escapes Equivalents Infringement of Two Butamax Patents

April 4th, 2013

We’ve been tracking the major biobutanol patent litigation between advanced biofuels company Gevo and BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax, e.g., here, here and here.

In a signficant decision, a Delaware federal court judge recently ruled on several motions and cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to two Butamax patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 (’889 Patent) and 7,851,188 (’188 Patent).

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.

Butamax had moved for summary judgment of infringement of the ’889 and’ 188 Patents and no invalidity while Gevo had moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the two patents.

On infringement Gevo achieved a partial victory. The court granted summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, but denied both parties’ motions as to literal infringement.

The doctrine of equivalents provides that there can be infringement of a patent where the accused device or process does not literally meet all the elements of a patent claim but has an equivalent or only insubstantially different element.

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 court interpreted the claims to require a KARI defined with respect to the NADPH cofactor only.

Gevo’s process uses an NADH-dependent enzyme, so the issue was whether an NADH-dependent KARI enzyme is equivalent to an NADPH-dependent enzyme. The court noted that their chemical structures are different and not interchangeable:

NADH and NADPH have distinct chemical structures, with NADPH containing an additional phosphate group. This extra phosphate group allows NADPH “to be recognized selectively by the enzymes involved in biosynthesis;” thus, “despite their close chemical resemblance,’ NADH and NADPH are ’not metabolically interchangeable.’”

Accordingly, the court held that the two cofactors could not be deemed equivalents:

For the reasons discussed above in claim constructions, the court does not agree that NADH and NADPH are insubstantially different.

However, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to literal infringement because there was a question of fact about interpreting certain data about Gevo’s KARI enzymes’ NADH or NADPH dependency:

While Butamax’s evidence of infringement is less than compelling, nonetheless, the court finds it sufficient to withstand Gevo’s motion for summary judgment, as it raises genuine issues of material fact as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would determine NADH-dependency.

The court also reached split decisions on validity, holding claims 12 and 13 of the ’889 Patent invalid for lack of written description but denying Gevo’s summary judgment motion with respect to claim 8. Finally, the court denied Gevo’s motions for summary judgment that some of the asserted claims of the ’188 and ’889 Patents are anticipated and obvious.

Although this is a significant decision, it appears to only slightly narrow the issues and only with respect to two of the patents. There are at least 15 other patents in the dispute so there will undoubtedly be much more to come.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Green Patent Lit Report: Neste Stayed Pending Reexam; Solannex Consolidated, Not Certified

February 19th, 2013

There have been some recent developments in the green patent infringement suits we’ve been covering.

First, in Neste Oil v. Dynamic Fuels, Syntroleum and Tyson Foods (see previous post here) the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted defendant Syntroleum’s motion to stay the litigation pending reexamination of the asserted patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,187,344 (’344 Patent), entitled “Fuel composition for a diesel engine” and directed to diesel fuels made from animal, plant, or fish fatty acids.

The court acknowledged that delayed resolution of the case under reexam could prejudice Neste. However, ultimately the court found the likelihood of simplifying the issues for litigation and the early stage of the court proceedings weighed in favor of a stay:

[T]here is reason to believe that the PTO’s reexamination will result in the cancellation of at least some of the claims. To the extent that such cancellation does occur…the litigation necessarily will be simplified.

* * *

The present case is in its earliest stages –”the reexamination request was filed prior to any scheduling order being in place, less than three months after litigation began, and before Defendants’ answers were due, and where the parties have incurred little, if any, resources with respect to scheduling, discovery disputes, or motion practice.”

One important consideration was the fact that a related Neste patent – U.S. Patent No. 7,279,018 – had all of its claims canceled in a prior PTO reexamination.

In Solannex v. Miasole, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated two separate infringement actions involving solar cell interconnection structures (see previous posts here and here).

The cases involve four patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,635,810, entitled “Substrate and collector grid structures for integrated photovoltaic arrays and process of manufacturing such arrays” (’810 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 7,868,249, entitled “Substrate and collector grid structures for integrated series connected photovoltaic arrays and process of manufacture of such arrays” (’249 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 8,076,568, entitled “Collector grid and interconnect structures for photovoltaic array and modules” (’568 Patent); and

U.S. Patent No. 8,110,737, entitled “Collector grid electrode structures and interconnect structures for photovoltaic arrays and methods of manufacture” (’737 Patent).

The court denied the parties’ motion under Federal Rule 54(b) to certify for appeal a stipulated judgment of non-infringement of the ’810 and ’249 Patents. Because claim construction has not yet occurred for the ’568 and ’737 Patents, the court held it was premature for appeal of the rulings on the ’810 and ’249 Patents:

Claim construction for the ’568 and ’737 patents has not yet taken place. If the court were to certify the claim construction of the ’810 and ’249 patents, it is likely that the parties would appeal claim construction of the same terms at a later date, requiring the appellate court to decide the same issues – or at least similar – more than once. Because this is exactly the type of piecemeal appeal Rule 54(b) was designed to prevent, the parties joint request for entry of judgment and certification must be denied.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Patents

Court Re-Construes GreenShift Ethanol Processing Patents and Defers SJ Motions

February 15th, 2013

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) 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 litigation currently consists of 11 actions consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana in which GreenShift has accused the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent), 8,008,516 (’516 Patent) and 8,283,484 (’484 Patent), entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems” and U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517 (’517 Patent), entitled “Method of recovering oil from thin stillage.” The latter three patents were recently added to the case.

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. The patented methods include mechanically separating the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage and then running the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated byproduct, or syrup. The syrup is fed through a second centrifuge, which separates usable corn oil from the syrup.

Following a mixed claim construction ruling, a number of defendants filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringment of the ’858, ’516 and/or ’517 Patents, and GS filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ’858 and ’516 Patents.

In a recent decision the court revisited its interpretations of a few claim terms and, based on the new constructions, denied the SJ motions all around without prejudice. The key term the court focused on was “substantially free of oil” / “substantially oil free.”

The defendants argued that all of the patent claims require the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil. The court disagreed and held that none of the claims of the ’858 Patent have this requirement and only claim 7 of the ’516 Patent and claim 8 of the ’484 Patent require that the post-oil recovery step syrup stream be substantially oil free.

Another issue in interpreting the “substantially oil free” term was whether it should be defined as a comparison between the oil concentration in the incoming thin stillage stream and the outgoing remaining-concentrate stream. The defendants also contended that the term should mean the post-oil recovery thin stillage stream contains 5% or less of the oil in the incoming stream.

The court agreed with the comparison but declined to impose a quantitative requirement for the percentage of oil. Accordingly, the term “substantially oil free” was interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of largely and mostly oil free but is measured by a comparison of the oil concentration in the incoming thin stillage and the oil concentration in the resulting syrup:

[T]he Court concludes that the “substantially oil free” limitation in claim 7 of the ’516 Patent and claim 8 of the ’484 Patent means the syrup exiting the centrifuge is substantially oil free compared to the incoming thin stillage, where substantially has its ordinary meaning of largely or mostly.

The court went on to dismiss all of the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and with leave to re-file. In view of the new claim construction and the recent addition of three patents to the litigation, the court decided the parties would need more time to develop their arguments on infringement:

[T]he Court recognizes that the decisions in this Order will have an impact on the parties’ positions with respect to infringement. In addition, as discussed in the introduction, since the date the parties filed their summary judgment motions the Court has allowed CleanTech to amend its complaints against each Defendant such that nearly all patents in the ’858 patent family are asserted against each of them. For both of these reasons, the currently-briefed summary judgment motions likely do not address all the arguments the parties wish to raise with respect to CleanTech’s allegations of infringement and, to resolve the infringement issues fairly, the Court will require the parties to address the allegedly infringing processes under the new claim construction.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Clean Tech In Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

January 24th, 2013

A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of biofuels, compressed air turbines, and LEDs.

Biofuels

Neste Oil, OYJ v. Dynamic Fuel, LLC et al.

Filed on December 20, 2012 in the District of Delaware, Neste Oil’s complaint alleges direct and induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,212,094 (’094 Patent).

The ’094 Patent is entitled “Process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons.” The patent relates to a process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons from a biological feedstock where the feed is hydrotreated and isomerized.

Dynamic Fuels is a joint venture of Syntroleum and Tyson Foods that operates refineries capable of producing allegedly infringing synthetic renewable diesel fuels.

This is the second patent infringement suit Neste has filed against Dynamic Fuels in the past year (see coverage of the first one here).

Compressed Air Turbines

PowerPHASE, LLC v. Nakhamkin, et al.

Filed December 11, 2012 in the Southern District of Florida, PowerPHASE’s complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of two of Nakhamkin’s patents, both relating to combustion turbine power plants using compressed air to help the turbines operate at maximum power.

According to the complaint, Nakhamkin accused PowerPHASE of infringing his patents through its ABI and TurboPHASE technologies.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 5,934,063, entitled “Method of operating a combustion turbine power plant having compressed air storage,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,305,158, entitled “Combustion turbine power plant operable at full power using supplemental compressed air.”

LEDs

Kadence Designs LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. et al.

Kadence Designs recently sued Osram Sylvania and Artison LLC for infringement of three patents. The complaint was filed in the District Court of Nevada on Dec 13, 2012.

All three of the assered patents involve a combination of lights (two of the patents involving LEDs) and sound speakers. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 7,535,341, entitled “Combination speaker / light fixture,” U.S. Patent No. 7,817,016, entitled “Screw-in LED light and sound bulb,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,299,903, entitled “Screw-in LED light and sound bulb.”

The accused products are light speaker products sold by Sylvania.

Lexington Luminance, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Lexington Luminance, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Lexington filed two suits (Lexington-Amazon Complaint; Lexington-Google Complaint) on November 29, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851 (’851 Patent). The defendants are Amazon and Google.

The ’851 Patent is entitled “Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing same” and is directed to an LED comprising a plurality of textured district defined on the surface of the substrate, which reduce defect density and are useful in the fabrication of semiconductor light emitting devices in misfit systems.

The accused products are e-reader devices and tablet computers.

Trustees of Boston University v. Epistar Corp. et al.

Trustees of Boston University v. Lite-On, Inc. et al.

A previous update reported on Boston University’s suits against Everlight Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor.

In an expansion of its patent enforcement activity, Boston University has again asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (’738 Patent), this time against Epistar and Lite-On. The complaints (BU-Epistar Complaint; BU-Lite-On Complaint) were filed December 14, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts.

The ’738 Patent is entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and is directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.

The accused products include LEDs containing a gallium nitride thin film semiconductor.

Light Transformation Technologies, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp. et al.

Light Transformation Technologies, LLC v. General Electric Co. et al.

Light Transformation Technologies (“LTT”) recently filed two separate complaints (LTT – LSG Complaint; LTT – GE Complaint) on December 28, 2012 in the Eastern District of Texas against a number of defendants, including Lighting Science Group, Home Depot, General Electric (and its affiliates), and Wal-Mart. The complaints allege infringement of three patents held by LTT.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 8,220,959, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,951,418, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,543,911, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore.”

The accused products include LED light bulbs for home use.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of America, Inc.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. CRS Electronics, Inc.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. MSI, LLC

On December 28, 2012, GE Lighting Solutions filed six separate complaints in the Northern District of Ohio against various defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,999 (’999 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,799,864 (’864 Patent).

The ’999 Patent is entitled “LED-based modular lamp” and directed to a lamp with a plurality of LEDs for emitting light of three different colors and a heat sink thermally coupled to the LEDs.

The ’864 Patent is entitled “High power LED power pack for spot module illumination” and directed to a light emitting diode assembly including a generally planar front side light emitting diode array, and a rear side that is in thermal communication with a thermally conductive spreader.

The accused products include LED lamps.

Wyatt Glynn is an associate at McKenna Long & Aldridge in their San Diego, Downtown office. He received his J.D. from the University of California – Berkeley, where he was the Senior Executive Editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation, LED Patents

Court Bounces Danisco DJ Premised on Pre-Patent Proclivities

January 16th, 2013

A previous post reported on a declaratory judgment action brought by DuPont-owned biopharmaceutical company Danisco against Novozymes. The two companies are both Danish and appear to be arch rivals. As the court described it, they 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.”

Filed in federal court in San Francsico, Danisco’s complaint 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.

Last week the court dismissed the case, holding there was no justiciable controversy between the parties in connection with the ’573 Patent because Novozymes had not engaged in any affirmative acts to enforce its patent rights against Danisco nor had Novozymes made any statements that it believed Danisco was infringing the ’573 Patent.

Danisco argued that Novozymes pursued the application that issued as the ’573 Patent with the specific intent to sue Danisco for infringement, noting that Novozymes added the position 188 proline substitution to a claim late in prosecution after learning that Danisco’s ’240 Patent would granted with such a claim. Danisco asserted that under “all the circumstances” it should be obvious that Novozymes was positioning itself to charge Danisco’s RSL enzyme products with patent infringement.

Although the court conceded that the circumstances might reasonably suggest that Novozymes does want to enforce the ’573 Patent against Danisco at some point, it ultimately disagreed with Danisco and held that events occurring prior to patent grant alone cannot support declaratory judgment jurisdiction:

The circumstances to which Danisco points, including the parties’ status in the industry, past litigation, and the prosecution history and timing, may all very well support a reasonable inference that Novozymes pursued the E118P claim in the ’573 patent with the hope of wielding it against the RSL products, and even that Novozymes may still be harboring the intent to pursue infringement claims at a time of its own choosing. Nevertheless, Danisco has not shown any affirmative act by Novozymes to enforce its patent rights. While matters such as a prior litigation history and statements made during prosecutions sometimes support a conclusion that an actual controversy exists, there is no precedent for finding jurisdiction based on such pre-patent issuance events alone, without any affirmative act of attempted enforcement.

The court also found declaratory judgment jurisdiction problematic because the filing date of the complaint preceded the issue date of the patent by a day, stating “jurisdiction is also lacking for the more technical (but related) reason that Danisco filed this action prior to the time the patent even issued.”

Though Danisco quibbled over this point based on the date and time the court clerk processed the complaint and placed the ”received” stamp on it, the court brushed aside such details as inconsequential:

Regardless of the precise sequence of events, or what filing date the complaint should have been given, it is clear that Danisco filed this action no later than virtually simultaneously with issuance of the patent. There is no indication that Novozymes did, or even could have, issued some implied or express enforcement threat so closely upon issuance of the patent such that it could be said to have taken any affirmative act to enforce its patent rights prior to the time the complaint was filed. Accordingly the motion to dismiss must be granted.

This is not the first litigation victory for Novozymes over its arch rival. Last year, Novozymes won an $18 million jury verdict against Danisco for infringement of another patent directed to certain alpha amylase variants.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Federal Circuit Denies Butamax’s Bid to Revive Preliminary Injunction

December 4th, 2012

Previous posts (e.g., here, here and here) discussed the continually expanding green patent war between advanced biofuels startup Gevo and a BP-DuPont joint venture called Butamax Advanced Biofuels (Butamax).

There are at least 17 patents at issue in the various actions brought by both parties. The patents relate to methods of production of biobutanol and enzymes used in the production processes.

In the first appellate court ruling of the litigation, Butamax lost its bid to obtain a preliminary injunction against Gevo.

Butamax had requested that a Delaware district court enjoin Gevo from selling biobutanol which allegedly infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889, entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols” (’889 Patent). The ’889 Patent is directed to a more cost efficient method of producing isobutanol directly from pyruvate via a particular production pathway using recombinant microbial host cells.

The Delaware district court denied Butamax’s motion because Gevo’s strong non-infringement position made it unlikely that Butamax would prevail on infringement, and there was doubt as to the validity of the ’889 Patent as some claims had been preliminarily rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in reexamination proceedings.

Butamax appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. On appeal Butamax had to show the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion and that the validity question raised by Gevo “lacks substantial merit.”

The Federal Circuit found Butamax failed on both counts, though the decision focused primarily on the validity issue:

Based on the record and this standard of review, this court affirms the denial of the preliminary injunction. Gevo, Inc. raised a substantial question of validity concerning the asserted patent, a question which Butamax has failed to show “lacks substantial merit.”

However, the appeals court did call into question a claim construction ruling of the district court which was favorable to Gevo. More particularly, the district court had construed an enzyme recited in a ’889 Patent claim relatively narrowly as being defined with respect to only one of two possible cofactors, i.e., as only NADPH dependent.

The Federal Circuit indicated it disagreed with this claim construction and advised the district court to reconsider at the claim construction hearing:

this court’s affirmance should not be read to endorse the trial court’s very questionable construction of the claim term “acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase” – that is “as an enzyme that is solely NADPH dependent.” The trial court should reconsider its construction when it holds a Markman hearing.

So the case will move forward, and Gevo may continue to sell its bio-based isobutanol while the litigation is pending.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

October 18th, 2012

Several green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of biofuels and LEDs.

Biofuels

The big story in biofuels patent litigation is the rapidly expanding patent war between advanced biofuels companies Gevo and BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax. Since our last update, these biobutanol rivals have added five more actions to the mix, all in the District of Delaware.

On September 25, 2012, Gevo filed a complaint accusing Butamax of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,273,565 (’565 Patent). The suit was filed the day the ’565 Patent issued.

The ’565 Patent is entitled “Methods of increasing dihydroxy acid dehydratase activity to improve production of fuels, chemicals, and amino acids” and directed to a recombinant yeast microorganism comprising a recombinantly overexpressed polynucleotide encoding a dihydroxy acid dehydratase (DHAD) and methods of using the microorganism to produce beneficial metabolites derived from DHAD-requiring biosynthetic pathways.

The same day Butamax fired back with a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and invalidity of the ’565 Patent and a new patent infringement suit of its own. The Butamax infringement complaint accused Gevo of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,273,558, entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols” (’558 Patent).

Also issued on September 25, 2012, the ’558 Patent is directed to a recombinant yeast host cell comprising genes encoding an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway that increases the production of isobutanol. The recombinantly expressed enzymes used in the pathway are expressed in the cytosol, and the recombinant yeast host cell is capable of producing isobutanol through certain substrate to product conversions.

Two weeks later, on October 9, 2012, Butamax filed another infringement complaint, by which it asserted another new patent - U.S. Patent No. 8,283,144 - which is related to the ’558 Patent and also entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols.”

The same day, Butamax launched another preemptive strike with a declaratory declaratory judgment action relating to Gevo’s brand new U.S. Patent No. 8,283,505 (’505 Patent).

According to the complaint, the ’505 Patent is related to U.S. Patent No. 8,101,808, which Gevo has accused Butamax of infringing. Both patents are entitled “Recovery of higher alcohols from dilute aqueous solutions” and relate to methods of recovering C3-C6 alcohols from dilute aqueous solutions such as fermentation broths.

This mega-litigation now involves 17 different actions and 14 patents.

LEDs

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. E&S International Enterprises, Inc. et al.

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al.

In two complaints filed September 13, 2012 in the Eastern District of Virginia (Bluestone-E&S Complaint; Bluestone-Acer Complaint), Florida-based patent licensing company Bluestone Innovations has accused E&S International (ESI) and Acer of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,163,557.

The ’557 Patent is entitled “Fabrication of group III-V nitrides on mesas” and directed to group III-V nitride films fabricated on mesas patterned either on substrates such as sapphire substrates or on group III-V nitride layers grown on substrates. The mesas provide reduced area surfaces for epitaxially growing group III-V nitride films to reduce thermal film stresses in the films to minimize cracking.

The accused devices are ESI’s Viore and iSymphony LED backlit televisions and Acer’s S231HL LED backlit monitors.

LED Tech Development, LLC v. The Coleman Company

LED Tech Development, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

On October 3, 2012, LED Tech sued the Coleman Company and Home Depot alleging infringement of two patents relating to LED lighting.

The Coleman complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,808,287, entitled “Method and apparatus for a pulsed L.E.D. illumination source” (287 Patent) and directed to a hand held portable LED device that maintains a predetermined light output level by selectively applying pulsed power from a DC voltage source to the LED units. The accused device is Coleman’s Exponent 2 CR123A Lithium flashlight.

The Home Depot Complaint alleges infringement of the ’287 Patent as well as U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661, a parent of the ’287 Patent entitled “Method and Apparatus for an L.E.D. Flashlight.” The accused product is the Fenix 72 Lumens Max Performance Cree XP-G R4 LED flashlight.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation, LED Patents

Enzyme Distributor Admits Infringement As Novozymes Wins Injunction

October 3rd, 2012

In a previous post, I discussed Novozymes’ patent infringement complaint against CTE Global in which the Danish biopharmaceutical company accused the Illinois enzyme distributor of infringing 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.

The parties recently settled the case and the court entered a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction ending the lawsuit.

Per the Settlement Agreement and as reflected in the court’s order, CTE acknowledged distributing and selling the accused products and infringing the patents-in-suit:

4.     CTE acknowledges that it has distributed and sold in the United States glucoamylase products designated GLUCOAMYL L 706+ and GLUCOAMYL LG20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Glucoamylase Products”), and that at least some of the Glucoamylase Products distributed and sold in the United States by CTE contained a glucoamylase enzyme having the amino acid sequence attached to this Consent Judgment as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused Products”).

*     *     *

7.     CTE acknowledges that it has infringed the Patents-In-Suit by importing the Accused Products into the United States and by using, offering to sell and selling the Accused Products within the United States.

The court order imposes a permanent injunction prohibiting CTE from making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing into the U.S. the Accused Products.

Novozymes has had previous success in major green patent litigation, winning an $18 million infringement verdict against rival Danisco.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 18th, 2012

A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of biofuels, LEDs, and solar mounting systems.

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.

Add another two actions to the mega-litigation between these advanced biofuels rivals. On August 13, 2012 Gevo filed another declaratory judgment action, this time for invalidity and non-infringement of Butamax’s U.S. Patent No. 8,241,878 (’878 Patent).

The ’878 Patent is entitled “Recombinant yeast host cell with Fe-S cluster proteins and methods of using thereof” and directed to methods for the conversion of 2,3-dihydroxyisovalerate to alpha-ketoisovalerate using recombinant yeast host cells expressing a heterologous dihydroxy-acid dehydratase (DHAD) protein. Gevo’s complaint was filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas.

Butamax fired back the next day with a patent infringement complaint in the District of Delaware asserting the ’878 Patent.

These latest complaints bring the total number of actions between Gevo and Butamax to 12, with 10 patents asserted.

Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes A/S

Filed August 27, 2012 in the Northern District of Iowa and the Northern District of California, Danisco’s complaint (see the Cal complaint here) seeks a declaratory judgment that the company’s Rapid Starch Liquefaction alpha-amylase products do not infringe Novozymes’s U.S. Patent No. 8,252,573 (’573 Patent) and that the ’573 Patent is invalid.

In the alternative, Danisco is asking the court for a determination that its U.S. Patent No. 8,084,240 (’240 Patent) has priority over the ’573 Patent. 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 substitution of glutamic acid for proline at position 188.

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 containing a substitution of glutamic acid for proline at position 188 and exhibiting increased viscocity reduction in a starch liquefaction assay.

Danisco asserts that the named inventors on the ’240 Patent conceived of and reduced to practice the invention before Novozymes filed any patent claim to the Geobacillus stearothermophilus alpha-amylase variant.

Last year, Novozymes won an $18 million jury verdict against Danisco for infringement of a patent directed to certain alpha amylase variants.

LEDs

Lexington Luminance LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp.

Lexington Luminance LLC v. Osram Sylvania Inc.

Lexington Luminance LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

In three actions filed on August 21, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts, Lexington Luminance accuses Lighting Science Group (Lexington-LSG Complaint), Osram Sylvania (Lexington-Osram Complaint) and Feit Electric Company (Lexington-Feit Complaint) of patent infringement.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851, is entitled “Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing same” and directed to an LED device having a lattice mismatch system of etched trenches in the substrate and a layer including inclined lower portions to guide lattice defects away from propagating into the active layer of the LED.

The accused products are Lighting Science’s EcoSmart 8-watt GP19 and A19 LED bulbs, Sylvania’s 8-watt A19 LED bulb, and Feit’s 7.5 watt A19 and Utilitech Pro LED bulbs.

Cooper Lighting, LLC v. Cree, Inc. et al.

Georgia-based Cooper Lighting filed this patent infringement action against North Carolina LED maker Cree and Wisconsin-based Ruud Lighting on September 7, 2012 in federal court in Atlanta.

The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,210,722, entitled “LED device for wide beam generation” and directed to an LED apparatus including an LED in a plane, an optic having a first lobe and a second lobe wherein the optic is oriented with respect to the LED such that the first lobe is on a first side of the plane and the second lobe is on the second side of the plane, wherein the optic is operable to receive light emitted by the light emitting diode and is operable to form the received light into a three-dimensional distribution of light that the plane intersects.

Solar Mounting Systems

Sunmodo Corp. v. Unirac, Inc.

This declaratory judgment action was filed by a Washington state solar rack and mounting company called Sunmodo against its New Mexico competitor Unirac. The complaint, filed August 8, 2012 in federal court in Tacoma, Washington, requests a declaratory judgment that Sunmodo’s Ez Roof Mount does not infinge U.S. Patent No. 8,128,044 (’044 Patent) and that the ’044 Patent is invalid.

The ’044 Patent is entitled “System for mounting a photovoltaic module to a surface” and directed to a system for mounting a photovoltaic module to a surface comprising a rail with at least two tracks, each having a channel, the rail being removably mountable to a footing grid, a plurality of keepers on which to mount the rail, and one or more clamps for connecting a photovoltaic module to the rail.

According to the complaint, Unirac’s counsel sent Sunmodo a letter in May entitled “Infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 8,128,044″ in which Unirac alleged that the Ez Roof Mount infringes the ’004 Patent, and the letter included a claim chart comparing elements of the product with claims of the ’044 Patent.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation, LED Patents, Solar Patents

« Older Entries