A number of new green patent complaints were filed in the last two months in the areas of energy storage, LED lighting, and smart grid (including lighting control).
Power Regeneration, LLC v. Siemens Corporation et al.
A Texas company call Power Regeneration has accused Siemens of infringing a patent relating to energy storage systems. Filed April 6, 2015 in federal court in Tyler, Texas, the complaint alleges that Siemens’ SITRAS energy storage systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,085,123 (‘123 Patent).
The ‘123 Patent is entitled “Power supply apparatus and power supply method” and directed to a power supply apparatus and method wherein the non-polar characteristics of the electrodes of a capacitor are used to improve the energy utilization efficiency of a battery through reciprocating switches of polarity connection between the battery and the capacitor. The capacitor allows for reverse charging, and the apparatus delivers a stable power output.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Troy-CSL Lighting, Inc.
On March 20, 2015, Philips sued Troy-CSL for infringement of seven patents relating to LEDs and LED lighting devices. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,013,988, entitled “Circuit arrangement, and signalling light provided with the circuit arrangement”
U.S. Patent No. 6,094,014, entitled “Circuit arrangement, and signaling light provided with the circuit arrangement”
U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire”
U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690, entitled “Luminaire based on the light emission of light-emitting diodes”
U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing power to lighting devices”
U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, entitled “LEDs driver”
U.S. Patent No. 7,325,138, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing power to lighting devices”
The accused products are Creative Systems Lighting (CSL) and Troy branded interior and exterior LED lighting products. Philips has asserted several of these patents before (see previous posts, e.g., here and here).
Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. Synapse Wireless, Inc.
Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. Tantalus Systems, Inc.
On March 25, 2015, Endeavor MeshTech (a wholly-owned subsidiary of patent monetization firm Endeavor IP) filed two more patent infringement complaints. One was filed against Synapse Wireless in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Endeavor v. Synapse), and the other against Tantalus Systems in the Eastern District of North Carolina (Endeavor v. Tantalus).
The complaints accuse each defendant of infringing three patents in a family – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,379,981, 8,700,749, and 8,855,019, each entitled “Wireless communication enabled meter and network.” The patents-in-suit relate to a self-configuring wireless network including a number of vnodes and VGATES.
The accused products are systems, modules, devices, and services under Tantalus’s TUNet brand and Synapse’s SNAP brand.
Sunrise Technologies, Inc. v. Cimcon Lighting, Inc.
Sunrise Technologies, Inc. v. Selc Ireland Ltd.
On April 8, 2015, a Massachusetts company called Sunrise Technologies filed suit against two competitors (Sunrise v. Cimcon; Sunrise v. Selc) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,825, 793, entitled “Remote monitoring and control system” (‘793 Patent).
The ‘793 Patent is directed to a communication system that communicates information between an end user device and a remote end user via a communication node mounted on the upper part of a utility pole. The communication node is capable of communicating with a nearby user device using a low-power communication protocol such as the Zigbee protocol and transmits the communication to the end user via a neighborhood mesh network of nodes mounted on utility poles.
The accused products are Cimcon’s iSLC’s line of intelligent wireless controllers and Selc’s Wireless Central Monitoring Systems.
Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. v. Control4 Corporation
Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. v. Acuity Brands, Inc.
Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. v. AMX LLC
Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. v. Crestron Electronics, Inc.
Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. v. United Technologies Corporation et al.
Texas-baseed Intuitive Building Controls (IBC) fired off five complaints asserting infringement of one or more of three patents relating to lighting control systems. The lawsuits were all filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas on April 14, 2015.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,118,230, entitled “Lighting control system including server for receiving and processing lighting control requests”(‘230 Patent), 6,160,359, entitled “Apparatus for communicating with a remote computer to control an assigned lighting load” (‘359 Patent), and 5,945,993, entitled “Pictograph-based method and apparatus for controlling a plurality of lighting loads” (‘993 Patent).
The complaints against Control4 (Intuitive v. Control4), AMX (Intuitive v. AMX), and Crestron (Intuitive v. Crestron) assert all three patents. The complaints against Acuity Brands (Intuitive v. Acuity) and United Technologies (Intuitive v. United Technologies) list only the ‘230 Patent.