A number of new green patent infringement complaints were filed in May and June in the areas of green cleaning solvents, LEDs, lighting control technology, smart thermostats, smart meters, and water meters.
Green Cleaning Solvents
GreenEarth Cleaning, LLC v. Kings Park Green Cleaners, LLC
This action for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and breach of contract was filed June 21, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The ‘007 Patent is entitled “Dry cleaning method and solvent” and directed to dry cleaning methods comprising the steps of immersing clothes in a dry cleaning fluid including a cyclic siloxane composition, agitating the clothes in the composition, and then removing the cyclic siloxane composition by centrifugal action and air circulation.
According to the Abstract of the ‘007 Patent, the “cyclic-siloxane-based solvent allows the system to result in an environmentally friendly process which is, also, more effective in cleaning fabrics and the like than any known prior system.”
GreenEarth alleges that Kings Park, which had a license from GreenEarth, continues to use liquid silicone as a dry cleaning solvent though it is no longer a licensee.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Hubbell Inc. et al.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. American De Rosa Lamparts, LLC
Lighting Science filed both of these lawsuits in federal court in Orlando, Florida on June 21, 2016.
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.
The ‘518 Patent and the’ 844 Patent are entitled “Low profile light and accessory kit for the same” and relate to LSG’s disc light LED devices.
Nichia Corporation v. Mary Elle Fashions, Inc.
Nichia Corporation v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.
These three actions, filed June 13, 2016, accuse each defendant of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,530,250 (‘250 Patent).
Entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body,” the ‘250 Patent is directed to a method of manufacturing an LED such that the optical reflectivity at a wavelength of 350-800 nm after thermal curing is 70% or more.
The method includes the steps of sandwiching a leadframe with a notched section, transfer-molding a thermosetting resin containing a light-reflecting substance, forming a resin-molded body on the leadframe, and cutting the resin-molded body and the leadframe along the notched section.
The Mary Elle Fashions complaint lists as accused products the Meridian CFL Plus and the LED Night Light, the Lowe’s complaint lists the Utilitech Pro 24-in Strip Light and LED Bulb, and the Feit Electric complaint lists the BPOM60/830/LED Bulb and the LG2560/CL/LEDG2 Bulb.
DeNovo Lighting, LLC v. Norman Lamps, Inc.
DeNovo sued Norman Lamps for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,729,809, entitled “Voltage regulating devices in LED lamps with multiple power sources” (‘809 Patent).
The ‘809 Patent is directed to an LED lamp having three voltage reducing devices, a voltage regulating circuit for providing linear current, the circuit not dependent on a voltage or electromagnetic induction power;,and at least two LEDs connected in series across the voltage regulating circuit.
The complaint, filed June 7, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that Norman’s Hybrid T8 lamps infringe the ‘809 Patent.
Philips Lighting North America Corporation et al. v. ikan Int’l, LLC
Philips has asserted more of its LED patents, this time against iKan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In a complaint filed May 31, 2016, Philips accused iKan of infringing the following patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,692,136, entitled “LED/phosphor-LED hybrid lighting systems”
U.S. Patent No. 6,788,011, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”
U.S. Patent No. 7,014,336, entitled “Systems and methods for generating and modulating illumination conditions”
U.S. Patent No. 7,180,252, entitled “Geometric panel lighting apparatus and methods”
U.S. Patent No. 7,255,457, entitled “Methods and apparatus for generating and modulating illumination conditions”
The accused products include various bi-color flood lights including the iLED 144, iLED 312-v2, IB-508-v2, StudioPRO 600, and Multi-K XL products.
Golight, Inc. v. Oracle Lighting, L.L.C.
Filed May 19, 2016 in the U.S.District Court for the District of Colorado, Golight’s lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,255,687, entitled “LED system and housing for use with halogen light fixtures” (‘687 Patent).
The complaint alleges that Oracle’s 20W 4D Optic LED Square Spot and and 50 W LED portable search lights infringe the ‘687 Patent.
The ‘687 Patent is directed to an optical projection lens for mounting in front of LEDs. The lens has a plurality of protrusions of varying thickness wherein the outermost edges of each protrusion has the thickest measurement, the center of each protrusion has the thinnest measurement, and the protrusions merge individual beams of light into a single beam of light.
LEDsOn et al. v. Qtran, Inc.
In an action for design patent infringement, LEDsON sued QTran, on May 3, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,683, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,684, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,681, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
The accused products are QTran’s IQA-RECD, IQA-45DN, and IQA-Flat LED-based lighting apparatus.
FTC Sensors, LLC v. ecobee Inc.
In this action, filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas on June 1, 2016, FTC Sensors asserts three related sensor and transmission control patents.
According to the complaint, ecobee’s smart thermostat devices, including the Ecobee3 Thermostat, contain systems that infringe the three patents.
The Sensor Patents are directed to a sensor system with a plurality of sensor modules. In a first mode, a linear voltage regulator provides a relatively small amount of power which allows a sensor module to output a signal responsive to detecting an environmental condition.
The interface module can switch the linear voltage regulator to a second mode in which the linear voltage regulator ramps up the amount of power provided to a detecting sensor module. The sensor module can then provide a level indicative of a concentration or intensity of the environmental condition. If the level surpasses a predetermined threshold, the sensor pack can output an alert signal to security server.
TransData, Inc. v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC et al.
TransData has sued another utility, once again in federal court in Tyler, Texas on May 11, 2016.
The now-familiar (see previous posts, e.g., here and here) asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,181,294 (‘294 Patent)and 6,462,713 (‘713 Patent), each entitled “Antenna for Electric Meter and Manufacture Thereof.” The third patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,903,699, entitled “Wireless Communication Device for Electric Meter and Method of Manufacture Thereof,” is a continuation-in-part of ‘713 and continuation of ‘294.
These patents describe an electric meter capable of bi-directional communication over a wireless network. The meter is equipped with wireless communication circuitry and an antenna allowing the meter to wirelessly send usage data to a remote location and wirelessly, receive operational instructions from the remote location.
The complaint lists as accused products the Itron OpenWay Centron electric meter, the Landis+Gyr Focus AX electric meter, the General Electric I-210c electric meter, and the General Electric kV2c electric meter.
Badger Meter, Inc. v. Sensus USA Inc.
Sensus USA Inc. v. Badger Meter, Inc.
In a game of dueling lawsuits, Sensus filed a complaint on June 16, 2016 against Badger seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,827 (‘827 Patent), and Badger sued Sensus a week later alleging infringement of the ‘827 Patent.
Sensus sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California while Badger filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The Badger complaint alleges that Sensus’s Ally water meter infringes the ‘827 Patent, entitled “Water meter with integral flow restriction valve.
The ‘827 Patent is directed to a water meter and a flow control valve housed in a common pressure vessel, in which the flow control valve restricts flow through a metering chamber to less than the normal flow, while still permitting a flow sufficient for basic human needs, rather than completely interrupting supply of the utility.
SIPCO, LLC v. Acuity Brands, Inc. et al.
Filed June 23, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the SIPCO complaint asserts six patents against Acuity.
SIPCO alleges that Acuity’s XPoint Wireless sensors and controllers infringe the patents.