Archive for the ‘Energy Efficiency’ category

« Older Entries

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

January 29th, 2012

There have been a few green patent complaints filed in the last several weeks in the areas of LEDs, solar power, and biofuels.

 

LEDs

Fiber Optic Designs, Inc. v. Seasons 4, Inc.

Filed December 16, 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Fiber Optic Designs’ (FOD) complaint (FiberOptic_Complaint) alleges that Seasons 4 is infringing two patents directed to light strings containing light emitting diodes. 

The two asserted patents are of the same family, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,220,022 and 7,934,852, both entitled “Jacketed LED assemblies and light strings containing same.”

 

Solar

Zep Solar Inc. v. Westinghouse Solar Inc.

In the latest missive in this growing legal battle, Zep has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,592,537 (’537 Patent) against Westinghouse (formerly Akeena Solar).  The ’537 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for mounting photovoltaic modules” and is directed to an interlocking PV module array.

Although the complaint is not publicly available, we have this Filing Report (Zep-Westinghouse_Report) and Westinghouse’s Answer (Westinghouse_Answer) in the case, filed December 20, 2011 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The accused device is Westinghouse’s Andalay Groove Interlock product, and other named defendants are Andalay Solar, Lightway Green New Energy, Brightway Global, Morrison Supply Company, Sky Solar Solutions, and Alternative Power & Electric. 

This lawsuit follows other actions between these two competing solar installers (see more details in a previous post here), which now have cross claims of patent infringement in multiple forums.

 

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

Another growing patent dispute is the one between Butamax, a BP-DuPont joint venture, and Colorado advanced biofuels startup Gevo (read prior posts about the dispute here and here), which now includes cross claims of patent infringement in multiple forums.

In the latest complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint), filed in the District of Delaware on January 24, 2012, Gevo accuses Butamax of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,101,808 (’808 Patent) by performing certain isobutanol production processes.

The ’808 Patent, granted on January 24, 2012, is entitled “Recovery of higher alcohols from dilute aqueous solutions” and directed to methods of recovering C3-C6 alcohols from a fermentation broth.

Interestingly, I believe the Gevo-Butamax litigation is the first instance of biofuels patent litigation involving one of the oil majors.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

TransData Transferred and Consolidated; Philips and Seoul Settle

January 13th, 2012

A couple of significant green patent lawsuits saw major developments last month.

First, in what might have become an epic battle, Philips Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor ended a two-way infringement suit involving six LED and semiconductor patents (Philips-Seoul_Dismissal) after settling their claims, including entering a cross-license agreement. 

The accused products included Seoul’s Acriche, Top View, High Flux, Side View and Z-Power LEDs.

A previous post discussed this suit, which was filed by Philips in March of last year.  Philips asserted infringement of five LED patents and requested a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Seoul’s U.S. Patent No. 5,075,742 (’742 Patent). 

The ’742 Patent is entitled “Semiconductor structure for optoelectronic components with inclusions” and is directed to a structure having plural layers in semiconductor material.  One of the layers includes stacked sub-layers, with each sub-layer having three dimensional “inclusions” – improved electron-hole areas – and a narrow band gap. 

Philips had alleged that it had a reasonable apprehension of being sued for infringement of the ’742 Patent because of press releases and public statements by Seoul calling the patent “fundamental to indium gallium nitride-based light emitting device technology,” and characterizing a recent court decision as holding that it would be “impossible for LEDs that use InGaN in their active layers” to avoid infringement of the ’742 Patent.

Second, at least seven patent suits filed by Texas smart meter company TransData filed in courts across a wide swath of the southern U.S. have been consolidated in the Western District of Oklahoma (see previous posts about these cases here, here, here and here).  TransData had moved to centralize the litigation, but argued for transfer to the Eastern District of Texas. 

In a recent Transfer Order (TransData_Transfer), the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) agreed that centralization was warranted but held the Western District of Oklahoma was the most appropriate location for the convenience of the parties and judicial efficiency. 

This is because of its convenient, central location, its relatively light docket, and the lack of opposition by the parties to the district:

We are persuaded that the Western District of Oklahoma is the most appropriate transferee district.  It is near Texas, where many of the parties are located; is in a geographically central location for this nationwide litigation; and an action is already pending in that district.  Most responding defendants support or do not oppose centralization in the Western District of Oklahoma, and the relative docket conditions in this district are more favorable than other proposed transferee forums.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 6,181,294 (’294 Patent), 6,462,713 (’713 Patent) and 6,903,699 (’699 Patent), which relate to antennas and wireless communication devices for use with electric meters.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Smart Grid

Green Patent Profile: Nanosys IP Covers Lots of Dots

December 2nd, 2011

 

Nanosys is a Palo Alto company that develops advanced architected nanomaterials technology, including quantum dots for LEDs and silicon nanowire composites for advanced batteries. 

Quantum dots are nano-sized semiconductors which emit light when excited.

Nanosys’s quantum dot phosphors convert blue light from a standard GaN LED into different wavelengths.  Depending on the size of the dots used, LED light that passes through a film containing the dots can adjust the spectrum to convert the emitted light to various colors, including the white light the human eye is used to.

I recently spoke with Andrew Filler, Vice President of Intellectual Property, about the company’s patent portfolio.  Filler told me that Nanosys owns and/or exclusively controls over 750 U.S. patents and pending applications, with about 235 issued U.S. patents and another approximately 200 issued international patents.

A search in Cleantech PatentEdge™ yields 201 U.S., international and European patents and published applications listing Nanosys as owner and assignee.

Filler said that Nanosys’s patents comprise several technology or product families, including, for example with respect to its quantum dot technology, the core material of the quantum dots, the material for the shell that surrounds the core, ligands to put the dots in a matrix, quantum dot films, various quantum dot combinations, and devices such as light sources with quantum dots for producing white light.

One substantial patent family relating to core-shell material is entitled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective Nano-crystalline materials” which has been exclusively licensed to Nanosys from MIT and, according to Cleantech PatentEdge™, includes at least 8 issued U.S. patents and 4 or more pending/allowed U.S. applications (Nano Matrix Patents).  

For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,322,901 (’901 Patent) is the parent patent in this family and was recently successfully defended in an ex parte reexamination proceeding instituted by Nanoco in the United Kingdom. 

According to Filler, on October 1, 2010 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Notice of Intent to Issue in the ‘901 patent Reexamination, thereby validating all of the original broad core-shell quantum dot claims in their originally issued form, as well as the 19 new claims added during reexamination.

Nanosys also owns or controls exclusive rights to over 125 issued U.S. patents and pending patent applications (and over 150 corresponding foreign applications) covering all aspects of the QD-LED technology and applications, as illustrated in the sample patents provided below in Figure 1. 

 

FIG. 1:  Summary of exemplary Nanosys patents covering QD-LED technology

 

The  ‘901 patent represents just one of several fundamental patents covering core-shell quantum dot compositions and manufacturing techniques. 

In addition, Nanosys IP provides comprehensive coverage of nanocrystals, core-only quantum dots, nanocrystal/quantum dot synthesis, integration techniques, ligand and matrix materials and chemistries, quantum dot composites, and applications and devices including white light devices and other specific QD applications.

Some of Nanosys’s patents relate to fundamental small molecules for use with nanocrystals.  One example is U.S. Patent No. 6,949,206, granted in 2005 and entitled “Organic species that facilitate charge transfer to or from nanostructures” (’206 Patent).

The ’206 Patent is directed to conductive compositions for modification of charge transport across a nanostructure-containing matrix and claims a number of different molecules. 

These molecules are coupled to a nanostructure via a binding group, cause an exciton in the nanostructure, and facilitate the injection and/or extraction of charge with respect to the nanostructure.

By searching in Cleantech PatentEdge™, I found as one example of a patent family relating to LED devices “Light-emitting diode (LED) devices comprising nanocrystals,” which includes at least two published U.S. applications.

An example is Application Publication No. 2010/0110728 (’728 Application), which is directed to an LED device having nanocrystals in a hermetically sealed container. 

LED device (700) comprises LED (702) on a substrate (706).  A hermetically sealed container (708) contains a plurality of luminescent nanocrystals (710) and is optically coupled to the LED (702).

 

A light guide (712) is optically coupled to the hermetically sealed container (708).  A first portion of the light emitted from the LED (702) is down-converted by the luminescent nanocrystals (710), and this down-converted light along with a second portion of LED light are emitted from the light guide (712).

FIGS. 14A and 14B illustrate the down-converted light (1414, 1416) and the second portion of light (1412) in more detail in LED devices (1400, 1401) with luminescent nanocrystals (710) dispersed in a region (1404, 1404′) within the light guide (712). 

According to the ’728 Application, hermetically sealing luminescent crystals allows for increased usage lifetime and luminescent intensity.

The business based on Nanosys’ patent-protected technology seems to be working well.  Filler told me that Nanosys made a “multi-prong” deal with Samsung worth up to $80-90 million, cutting across different products including flash memory devices, solar cells, film transistor displays, and LED lighting.its U.S. Lumidots business.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents

Green Patent Acquisitions: Buying Up Energy Management and Distribution and Green Chemistry

November 29th, 2011

 

There have been a few interesting acquisitions this month.  First, energy efficiency solutions provider Serious Energy bought Agilewaves, a Silicon Valley startup that specializes in energy data storage and retrieval.

Agilewaves owns at least one published U.S. patent application, Application No. 2010/0211618, entitled “Efficient storage of data allowing for multiple level granularity retrieval” (’618 Application). 

The ’618 Application is directed to methods for storing and retrieving data at multiple levels of granularity.  In the described methods, time series data are organized based on associated time stamps corresponding to a timeline (202). 

The data also may be sorted at multiple resolutions, including rows (212, 218, 222, 224) representing the highest resolution storage of time series data down to the lowest resolution view of the data.  Each level of resolution has values stored in segments (204-211, 213-216, 219-220).

According to the ’618 Application, the invention is superior to prior art systems, which stored individual readings over long periods of time and required a lot of time to retrieve it all. 

This system makes data retrieval more efficient than those prior systems because data can be retrieved from individual segments:

Storing the time series data in the format illustrated by FIG. 2 allows for efficient retrieval of data.  For example, if a user requests time series data over the time period from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., a processor may simply retrieve the data value associated with segment 219 from a database instead of having to retrieve and add the data values associated with segments 204-207.  This saves time and processing resources at the time the data is requested.

According to this Greentech Media story, the deal brings Serious Energy “a whole new level of granular building energy data.”

 

Another notable acquisition is power and automation technologies giant ABB’s purchase of Australian renewable power automation company Powercorp (see Powercorp’s press release here).  Powercorp makes controls to manage renewable energy in isolated grids and allow grid penetration of wind and solar power.

Powercorp owns at least one international patent application, WO 2004/027959, entitled “System and method for stabilising a power system” (’959 Application).

The ’959 Application is directed to systems and methods involving a power system stabilizer (19) for stabilizing a power generation system (9) having a grid (11) supplying power to numerous loads (17). 

The power generation system (9) comprises a renewable energy generator (13) using a renewable energy source and a conventional energy generator (15) using a conventional energy source.

The power system stabilizer (19) includes a link (29) for electrically connecting the grid interface (21) and the load interface (25). 

Control means responds to data from sensors to control of the flow of electrical energy between the grid interface (21) and the load interface (25) to maintain the property of the power generation system (9) at a predetermined value to stabilize the system.

This deal shows that renewables integration is a priority for ABB.

Finally, Fremont, California, biofuels company Amyris bought green chemical startup Draths, which makes bio-based nylon and polyester. 

The company provides a convenient summary list of its IP, which includes two U.S. patents and several published patent applications.  One example is U.S. Patent No. 7,399,855, entitled “Synthesis of caprolactam from lysine” (’855 Patent). 

The ’855 Patent is directed to methods of making caprolactam, one of the company’s product offerings.  According to Draths’ product web page, the caprolactam monomer can be used to make 100% bio-based nylon.

 

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, Smart Grid

Taiwan Supremes Affirm Revocation of Nichia Design Patent

November 4th, 2011

 

In previous posts (e.g., here, here and here) I’ve written about Nichia’s LED patent enforcement activity, including a now-settled global patent war with its Korean rival Seoul Semiconductor.

Another long-standing dispute with Taiwanese LED packaging manufacturer Everlight Electronics (Everlight) recently reached its ultimate resolution when Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court (TSAC) dismissed Nichia’s appeal of a lower court decision holding Nichia’s Taiwanese Design Patent No. 089036 (’036 Patent) invalid.

The TSAC decision is reported in this Taiwan Economic News article, and a case study by the Transworld IP firm provides a good discussion of the ruling below by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IP Court).

The TSAC upheld the IP Court’s decision recognizing the revocation of the ’036 Patent on the ground that the claimed design lacked creativity. 

According to the Transworld piece, in Taiwan any design, including a shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof, with “eye-appeal” is eligible for design patent protection.  However, a certain level of creativity beyond that of the person of ordinary skill in the art is required for the design patent to be valid.

The Transworld article says the IP Court found that creativity lacking in Nichia’s ’036 Patent and revoked the patent:

Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Court finally upheld that even [though] the design patent at issue differs from the prior art, it can . . . easily be accomplished by any ordinary skilled person in the field of Light Emitting Diode (LED). Hence, the design patent issue is revoked by having no creativity.

With the ’036 Patent revoked, the accused Everlight products obviously were not found to infringe the patent.

Nichia has asserted LED design patents before.  The U.S. litigation with Seoul centered on four design patents. 

Although the patents were held to be infringed, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Nichia’s motion for an injunction because there were only de minimis sales of what had become an obsolete accused product.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation

New Intematix LED Patent Has its Customers Covered

October 14th, 2011

Intematix, a Fremont, California, company, has developed LED lighting technology that involves separating the LED chips from their complementary phosphors.  This approach differs from that of conventional LEDs in which the phosphor is incorporated in the LED chip package and close to or in contact with a light emitting surface of the LED. 

Phosphors are the chemical powders that coat LED chips, fluorescent light bulbs, and other devices.

Intematix phosphors convert blue light emitted from the LED chips to the white light that shines from LED bulbs. 

One of the company’s recently granted patents is U.S. Patent No. 7,972,030 (’030 Patent), entitled “Light emitting diode (LED) based lighting systems” and directed to an LED lighting system in which the phosphor is incorporated in or on a surface of a shade that surrounds the LED.  The ’030 Patent issued in July.

The ’030 Patent describes and claims a lighting fixture (18) having a shade (4) and an LED (5) mounted within the fixture.  A layer of phosphor (16) is provided on an inner surface of the shade (4).

Different arrangements of reflectors (21a, 21b) can be used to reflect emitted radiation from the LED (5) toward the shade (4). 

Blue light emitted from the LED (5) in combination with yellow light generated by the phosphor (16) provides emitted radiation (22) which appears white to the eye.

According to the ’030 Patent, an advantage of the invention is enhanced efficiency:

A particular advantage of the present invention is in the use of a phosphor which enhances the efficiency in terms of brightness for a given LED input power level as compared to known lighting systems which filter (selectively block) selected colors of transmitted light.

I spoke with Julian Carey, Director of Marketing at Intematix, who told me the ’030 Patent protects the company’s customers, who buy phosphors and phosphor components from Intematix and use them in various LED lighting applications.

For example, the embodiment shown in Figure 3 above is a pendant light fixture hanging from a cable (19).

Figure 4 illustrates a wall, or sconce, lighting fixture (23) embodiment.

But the “real highlight,” according to Carey, is the embodiment shown in Figure 5.  This is a round lighting fixture or bulkhead light (25) having a circular housing (26). 

According to Carey, this embodiment is “a very common type of lighting system” and is a highlight of the patent because it is “applicable to very widely implemented lighting systems.”

With the ’030 Patent providing protection for its customers, Carey told me it is an important patent that ”extends our IP in a very useful and strategic way.”

In this era of hyperactive LED patent litigation (see, e.g, previous posts here and here) LED components and materials makers filing for patents that would extend protection to their customers is probably good strategy.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 30th, 2011

 

Several green patent lawsuits have been filed in the last two weeks in the areas of biofuels, energy storage, smart grid, LEDs and environmental remediation.

 

Biofuels

Genifuel Corporation et al. v. Oyler

This is an inventorship dispute over numerous patent applications relating to production of fuel and fertilizers from algae, including two that have issued as U.S. Patents Nos. 7,905,930 and 7,977,076.

In the complaint (Genifuel-Complaint), filed September 15, 2011 in the District of Utah, the Salt Lake City biomass-to-fuels company Genifuel requests an order declaring the defendant is not an inventor of the disputed IP.

 

Energy Storage – Batteries and Fuel Cells

Lester Electrical Inc. v. Diversified Power Int’l

The complaint (LesterElectrical-Complaint) was filed September 26, 2011 in the District of Nebraska.

Lester Electrical, a Nebraska industrial battery charger company, accuses Diversified Power of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,114,833 (’833 Patent).  The ’833 Patent is entitled “Monitoring and controlling system for battery and battery charger” and is directed to battery charging and control technology for battery-operated vehicles.

 

Limnia, Inc. v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. et al.

By this complaint (Limnia-Complaint), filed September 13, 2011 in the Central District of California, San Francisco-based hydrogen fuel cell maker Limnia asserts four patents (and, oddly, one pending patent application) against Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), United Technologies and AeroVironment.

The patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 7,011,768, entitled “Methods for hydrogen storage using doped alanate compositions,” 7,169,489, entitled “Hydrogen storage, distribution, and recovery system,” 7,279,222, entitled “Solid state hydrogen storage systems,” and 7,399,325, entitled “Method and apparatus for a hydrogen fuel cassette distribution and recovery system.”

The accused products are ECD’s metal hydride storage containers and solid hydrogen storage canisters, United Technologies’ alanate hydrogen storage systems, metal hydride systems and polymer-dispersed metal hydride systems, and a host of AeroVironment’s energy systems, electric vehicle charging solutions, and passenger and fleet electric vehicle charging systems.

 

LEDs

Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC v. Cree, Inc.

In this declaratory judgment action (Dow-Cree_Complaint), filed September 27, 2011 in the Eastern District of Michigan, DCCSS requests judicial declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of three Cree patents relating to silicon carbide wafers used as precursors for semiconductors.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,294,324, entitled “Low basal plane dislocation bulk grown SiC wafers,” U.S. Patent No. 7,314,520, entitled “Low 1c screw dislocation 3 inch silicon carbide wafer,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,314,521, entitled “Low micropipe 100 mm silicon carbide wafer.”  The patents are directed to silicon carbide wafers having certain diameters and dislocation densities and methods of making such wafers.

 

Smart Grid

 TransData, Inc. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.

This complaint (TransData-Oklahoma_Complaint), filed September 16, 2011 in the Western District of Oklahoma, is the latest in a flurry of lawsuits by Texas smart meter company TransData against a number of utilities in the southeastern United States.  Details on the other TransData suits can be found in a previous post.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 6,181,294 (’294 Patent), 6,462,713 (’713 Patent) and 6,903,699 (’699 Patent), which relate to antenna and wireless communication devices for use with electric meters. The ’294, ’713 and ’699 Patents are related patents which trace back to an original 1998 filing date.  They describe early solutions for wireless transmission of electrical consumption data.

 

Environmental Remediation

Atlantis Holding Company, LLC et al. v. Pine Environmental Services, Inc.

Atlantis, Summit Holding Company and Aquarius Holdings Company (d/b/a Proactive Environmental Products) sued environmental monitoring solutions provider Pine Environmental Services (PES) on September 28, 2011 in the District of Maryland (Atlantis-Complaint).

Proactive makes replaceable stainless steel motors for groundwater sampling equipment, and the plaintiffs accuse PES of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,584,785, entitled “Groundwater sampling device” (’785 Patent).  The ’785 Patent is directed to a replaceable internal electric motor for a groundwater sampling device, the motor including means to align it with an alignment pin of the groundwater sampling device.

The complaint also includes allegations of trademark infringement and counterfeiting based on U.S. trademark registrations for several marks, including PROACTIVE, PROACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS, MONSOON, TYPHOON and HURRICANE for motors and pumps.

 

Recycling & Waste Management

R360 Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Scott Environmental Services, Inc.

From the Sow’s Ear to Silk Purse Department comes this suit involving U.S. Patent No. 8,007,581 (’851 Patent), entitled “Incorporation of drilling cuttings into stable load-bearing structures” and directed to processes for recycling drill cuttings from oil drilling equipment and converting them into high-load-bearing civil engineering structures such as vehicle roads and drilling pads.

By its complaint (R360-Complaint), filed September 16, 2011 in the Southern District of Texas, R360 requests a decaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’581 Patent.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Smart Grid

Building Immunity: Are Green Skills Certifiers Untouchable After LEED Win?

September 20th, 2011

 

Last year several individuals, including a green building consultant, an architect, and an engineer, sued the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in federal court in New York, alleging that the organization made false or misleading statements in connection with its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system for green buildings.

Specifically, Henry Gifford and the other plaintiffs accused the USGBC of making false statements regarding the energy and money-saving aspects of LEED certification in a 2008 press release, which says the results of a 2008 study:

indicate that new buildings certified under the [USGBC's] LEED certification system are, on average, performing 25-30% better than non-LEED certified buildings in terms of energy use

The plaintiffs brought a federal false advertising claim under the Lanham Act and state claims under the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

Both the federal and state claims were based on the premise that the plaintiffs were harmed by the allegedly misleading statement because it diverted customers from the plaintiffs’ business to LEED-accredited professionals.

The court disagreed and last month dismissed the suit. 

In a 9-page Order (Gifford-USGBC_Order), Judge Leonard B. Sand held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the USGBC for the alleged false advertising because they could not demonstrate that their businesses were damaged by the statements at issue.

To show standing for a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act in the Second Circuit (which includes New York federal courts), a plaintiff must (1) be a competitor of the defendant, or (2) show a reasonable interest to be protected against the alleged false advertising and that the interest is likely to be damaged by the alleged false advertising.

The court held that the plaintiffs are not competitors of the USGBC because plaintiffs provide advice on the design and construction of energy efficient buildings while the USGBC reviews and rates designs created by others.

As to the reasonable interest prong, the court held the plaintiffs had failed to establish a causal nexus between the USGBC’s alleged false statement and clients of the plaintiffs supposedly lost to LEED-accredited professionals:

With the exception of Gifford, each Plaintiff designs and consults on specific elements of individual buildings, including heating and cooling systems, moisture and mold remediation, and architectural design.  Plaintiffs do not allege that LEED certified buildings do not require such services or that those services must be provided by a LEED-accredited professional in order to attain certification.  Because there is no requirement that a builder hire LEED-accredited professionals at any level, let alone every level, to attain LEED certification, it is not plausible that each customer who opts for LEED certification is a customer lost to Plaintiffs.

While the plaintiffs here took on a certifiying organization directly, most greenwashing cases are brought against manufacturers and sellers of products for alleged false or misleading acts or statements made in connection with their own products.

This decision should keep it that way, at least for organizations that certify green skills and services, because it makes establishing the requisite standing to get into court very difficult for putative challengers.  

For green skills certifiers the universe of direct competitors is rather small, and non-competing plaintiffs are likely to have a hard time showing causal links between false or misleading statements and damage to their businesses.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Buildings, Greenwashing

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 16th, 2011

Several new green patent complaints have been filed recently in the areas of biofuels, smart grid, LEDs, solar manufacturing materials, and waste water treatment.  Here’s a run down:

 

Biofuels

Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo

The complaint (Butamax-Gevo_DJComplaint) was filed August 9, 2011 in the District of Delaware.

Butamax, a joint venture between BP and DuPont, accuses Gevo of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889, entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols,” and directed to methods for producing isobutanol by fermentive growth of a recombinant yeast microorganism.

This is the second patent infringement suit filed by Butamax against Gevo.  I covered the first complaint here.

 

Smart Grid

Nxegen v. Sensus USA

The complaint (Nxegen-Complaint) was filed July 29, 2011 in the District of Connecticut.

Nxegen asserts two related patents against Sensus, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,633,823 and 7,135,956, entitled “System and method for monitoring and controlling energy use” and directed to systems and methods for monitoring and controlling power use among a number of facilities to reduce a real-time aggregate power load across the facilities.

The accused products include the FlexNet Advanced Metering re Infrastructure (AMI) solution.

 

IP Co. (Intus IQ) v. Ingersoll-Rand et al.

The complaint (Intus-Ingersoll_Complaint) was filed August 25, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Intus asserts two related patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,044,062 and 6,249,516, 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.

The other named defendants are Schlage Lock Company, Trane and Schneider Electric

Intus is a patent licensing company and appears to b e related to Sipco, which has been a patent enforcement spree, including suits against utilities, smart meter companies, and EV charging companies.

 

ICH Intellectual Capital Holdings v. Badger Meter et al.

The complaint, filed September 8, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, accuses a host of smart meter players of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,248,181, entitled “Automated meter reading system” and directed to an automated meter reading system adapted to facilitate readings by an operator walking or driving close to the system at a low power level and at a frequency in an unlicensed frequency band.

The other named defendants are Mueller Water Products, Transparent Technologies, Metron-Farnier, Tantalus, ESCO Technologies, Aclara Power-Line Systems, Landis+Gyr, Trilliant, Tropos, and the City of Winnsboro, Texas.

ICH appears to be a non-practicing patentee.

 

LEDs

SemiLEDS v. Cree

The complaint (SemiLEDS-Complaint) was filed August 15, 2011 in the District of Delaware.

SemiLEDS accuses Cree of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,615,789, entitled “Vertical light emitting diode device structure” and directed to a vertical light-emitting diode structure utilizing a spacer to separate the p-doped layer from the active layer and U.S. Patent No. 7,646,033, entitled “Systems and methods for producing white-light emitting diodes” and directed to a vertical light-emitting diode structure having a wafer level phosphor layer parallel to a gallium nitride layer.

In the increasingly common tit-for-tat LED patent litigation wars, SemiLEDS fights back here after being sued by Cree in April for alleged infringement of “flip-chip” mounted LEDs.

 

Waste Management / Water Filtration

Salsnes Filter v. M2 Renewables

The complaint (Salsnes-Complaint) was filed August 18, 2011 in the Central District of California.

Salsnes asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,942,786, entitled “Cleaning device for waste water” and directed to a waste water cleaning device having an endless filtering belt and a blowoff device to remove contamination from the belt.

The named defendants are M2 Renewables and Nepsus Environmental, and the accused devices are the M2 Microscreen and Nepsus CBUM Process at the Adelanto, California waste water treatment plant and the M2 Microscreen at the ProLogis-Fontana, California Kaiser Steel waste water treatment plant.

 

Solar

du Pont v. Heraeus

The complaint (DuPont-Heraeus_Complaint), filed September 2, 2011 in the District of Delaware, asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,767,254, entitled “Paste for solar cell electrode and solar cell” and directed to a method of making an electrode for a solar cell by applying a conductive paste comprising silver particles.

du Pont alleges that Heraeus’s manufacture and use of its H94XX and H92XX series of pastes infringes the ’254 Patent.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Smart Grid, Solar Power, Water Filtration

TransData Doubles Smart Meter Suits as Patent Enforcement Heads East

September 1st, 2011

 

In a previous post, I wrote about Texas smart meter company TransData‘s patent infringement suit against CoServ, a Texas utility.

TransData recently extended its patent enforcement activity from Texas in an easterly direction through the southeastern United States, filing complaints against utilities in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.

The targets are the Alabama Power Company (TransData-AlabamaPower_Complaint), the Georgia Power Company (TransData-GeorgiaPower_Complaint), and the Mississippi Power Company (TransData-MissPower_Complaint).

Each complaint asserts U.S. Patents Nos. 6,181,294 (’294 Patent), 6,462,713 (’713 Patent) and 6,903,699 (’699 Patent), which relate to antenna and wireless communication devices for use with electric meters.

The ’294, ’713 and ’699 Patents are related patents which trace back to an original 1998 filing date.  They describe early solutions for wireless transmission of electrical consumption data. 

In particular, the patents are directed to electric meters (100) and an antenna (170, 270) for use with the electric meters.  The antenna includes antenna elements (172, 174, 272, 274) located within a dielectric housing (120, 220) and a balance circuit (176, 276).

The balance circuit (176, 276) mechanically supports the antenna elements (172, 174, 272, 274) so the antenna elements can cooperate and act as a dipole. 

According to the patents’ specification:

The present invention . . . introduces the broad concept of outfitting an electric meter with an internal, wireless communications antenna, allowing the electric meter circuitry within the meter to communicate via a data network wirelessly couplable thereto.

According to the complaints, the devices that infringe or may infringe the asserted patents are Sensus iCon electric meters, Elster Alpha A3 and REX electric meters, and meters with SmartSynch wireless modules.

With these three new complaints, there are now at least six pending TransData infringement suits involving the same patents.  In addition to the CoServ case, the new complaints list two other cases in the Eastern District of Texas against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and Tri-County Electric Cooperative.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Smart Grid