Archive for the ‘Green Patents’ category

Federal Circuit’s Four Factor Fiddle Raises the Bar for Patent Injunctions

May 17th, 2017

LED colossus Nichia (the world’s largest supplier of LEDs) accused Everlight of infringing three patents relating to tiny LEDs used in LCD backlights, video displays, automobiles, an general lighting:

U.S. Patent No. 8,530,250, entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,432,589, entitled “Semiconductor device”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,462,870, entitled “Molded package and semiconductor device using molded package”

The district court found the patents to be valid and that Everlight infringed all three patents.  However, the court denied Nichia’s request for a permanent injunction.  Everlight appealed on infringement and validity, while Nichia appealed the injunction decision.

On appeal, the important part of the Federal Circuit opinion relates to the law on injunctions in patent cases.

Current law on permanent injunctions for patent infringement comes from the Supreme Court’s eBay v. Mercexchange decision, which established the following four-factor test for determining whether to grant a permanent injunction:

(1) the patentee suffered an irreparable injury;

(2) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury;

(3) considering the balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendant, an equitable remedy is warranted; and

(4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Since the eBay decision, courts have typically granted a permanent injunction upon a determination that a balancing of all four factors weighed in favor of injunctive relief and the patentee proved either irreparable injury (factor 1) or no adequate remedy at law (factor 2).

Here, however, the Federal Circuit held that proof of irreparable injury is required for a permanent injunction, regardless of whether the patentee has an adequate legal remedy, elevating factor 1 above all the others.

The court of appeal did not find “clear error in the district court’s finding that Nichia failed to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction.”

“Because Nichia failed to establish one of the four equitable factors,” the Federal Circuit continued, “the [district] court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nichia’s request for an injunction.”

And with that conclusion, the Federal Circuit ended its analysis, declining to review the district court’s findings on monetary damages (factor 2):

Because we affirm the court’s conclusion on irreparable harm, we do not reach the adequacy of monetary damages.

This may represent a significant change in the law, where instead of considering and balancing all four factors, the courts require the patentee to satisfy all four elements to obtain injunctive relief.

Such a shift would make it more difficult for a patentee to get an injunction after proving infringement.

Brookings Institution Report Highlights Green Patent Problems

May 10th, 2017

A new report by the Brookings Institution notes a troubling recent reversal in U.S. green patenting activity.

Specifically, the report found that the total number of clean tech patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between 2014 and 2016 declined by nine percent each year.  This after a long stretch of growth –  thirteen years of patent grants growing at a rate of seven percent annually between 2001 and 2014.

Here’s a graph from the report, based on data from the Cleantech PatentEdge database, run by our friends at IP Checkups:

Entitled “Patenting invention” Clean energy innovation trends and priorities for the Trump administration and Congress,” the report examined patterns in clean tech patenting since 2001, both nationally and by metropolitan area.

According to a Brookings Metro press release, the authors, Devashree Saha and Mark Muro, hope the report’s “baseline look at the pace and geography of cleantech innovation” will inform federal and local decision-making with respect to innovation policy.

The authors highlighted five key findings.  First, while green patenting has grown significantly since 2001, it may be slowing now.  This trend could be a result of funding declines by the federal government and venture capitalists over the past several years.

Second, green patenting is concentrated in a small group of technologies.  In particular, the report identifies advanced green materials, energy efficiency, and transportation (each accounting for 18% of the total) as having higher proportions of patents.

As for geography, the report concludes that green patenting is widely distributed across the United States, but large metropolitan areas are the source of a disproportionate share of the patenting activity.  Large and small metro areas show distinctive profiles in green patenting, varying in their specializations, the report found.

Finally, the report found that the share of clean tech patents owned by companies based outside the United States has grown over the years.  According to the Executive Summary, this trend reflects the globalization of clean tech industries, particular in Asian economies.

What does this mean for clean tech innovation and green patenting going forward?  Saha was quoted by Greentech Media, saying the data “raises concerns about the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. cleantech sector.”

Saha also said that the Trump administration’s plans to cut budgets for clean energy “could make this flattening a more permanent downward trend in the next few years.”

Muro commented on Trump’s budget proposal that would eliminate certain programs such as ARPA-E, the U.S. government’s energy innovation program, noting that “[t]here are critical [federal] programs that have major impacts on these industries and ecosystems.”

The report warns against the U.S. falling behind in clean tech innovation:

Given the size of the global clean energy economic opportunity, the United States can ill afford to relinquish its lead on innovation in the burgeoning global cleantech market to China or other countries.

The authors recommend that the U.S. maintain clean energy R&D appropriations at viable levels, maximize the impact of the national energy labs, preserve ARPA-E, and maintain and scale up U.S. energy innovation hubs.

Hybrid Vehicle Litigation Report: Paice’s Patent Progress

April 6th, 2017

l_paice

With its seminal patents and continual patent enforcement activity, hybrid vehicle technology company Paice has been a frequent subject of discussion in this space.  In fact, my first post almost ten years ago was about the company’s litigation with Toyota.

There have been a few recent developments to report.

First, in January Paice announced that it had settled its patent litigation with Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche.  The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential, though Paice said it resolved all legal issues.  Paice had filed an infringement complaint against the German automakers in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in April 2016.

After that, Paice turned its attention back to Ford, filing a complaint against the American car manufacturer in the ITC in February.

The ITC complaint asserts that Ford’s hybrid vehicles infringe the following patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347, entitled “Hybrid vehicles” (‘347 Patent)

U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388, entitled “Hybrid vehicles” (‘388 Patent)

U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

The patents are directed to a hybrid electric vehicle controller and related methods for coordinating the operation of the electric motor and gasoline engine of a hybrid vehicle to maximize performance, fuel economy, and emissions efficiency.

Paice alleges that Ford’s hybrid vehicle powertrains and components in the Fusion Hybrid, Fusion Plug-in Hybrid, and Lincoln MKZ Hybrid infringe one or more claims of each of the patents.

Paice and Ford have been involved in hybrid vehicle patent litigation in the past (see, e.g., a prior post here), and Ford has fought back on various fronts, including challenging the ‘347 Patent and the ‘388 Patent in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

After the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidated several claims of each patent in separate decisions, Paice appealed those decisions.

Last month, Paice suffered two setbacks when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decisions on both the ‘347 Patent and the ‘388 Patent (347 Patent Opinion; 388 Patent Opinion).

In each case, the Federal Circuit rejected nearly all of Paice’s arguments regarding interpretation of certain key claim terms, disclosure of the prior art, and obviousness determinations, finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings and there was no error in its conclusions.  For the ‘388 Patent, however, the Federal Circuit reversed as to claim 3, finding the dependent claim did not need to fall with the independent claims.

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

March 29th, 2017

Several new green patent complaints were filed in January and February in the areas of advanced batteries, waste-to-energy feedstocks, energy-efficient exercise equipment, and LEDs.

 

Advanced Batteries

Advanced Electrolyte Technologies LLC et al. v. ESDI LLC et al.

Advanced Electrolyte Technologies (AET) sued ESDI and several divisions of Samsung in a complaint filed January 18, 2017 in federal court in Austin, Texas.

AET alleges that the defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,033,809 (‘809 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,927,001 (‘001 Patent), which relate to electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries.

The ‘809 Patent is entitled “Lithium secondary battery and electrolyte thereof” and directed to non-aqueous electrolyte lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising an electrolyte dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent, wherein the solvent contains a cyclic carbonate, a linear carbonate, and a sultone derivative.

Entitled “Non-aqueous electrolyte solution and lithium secondary battery,” the ‘001 Patent is directed to non-aqueous electrolytic solution composed of two or more organic compounds dissolved in a solvent composed of a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in which both of the organic compounds have a reduction potential higher than those of the cyclic and chain carbonates, and in which one of the organic compounds has a reduction potential equal to that of another organic compound or has a reduction potential lower or higher than that of another organic compound.

The complaint contains a long list of accused products including batteries used in the Samsung Chromebook 3 and 7 Spin, as well as batteries used in several Samsung Galaxy devices.

 

Somaltus LLC v. Cummins, Inc. et al.

Somaltus LLC v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Somaltus LLC v. Minn Kota, Inc.

Somaltus LLC v. Pro Charging Systems, LLC

Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, filed four new lawsuits on January 12, 2017, all federal court in Marshall, Texas, against Cummins (Somaltus v. Cummins), Honeywell (Somaltus v. Honeywell), Minn Kota (Somaltus v. Minn Kota), and Pro Charging Systems (Somaltus v. Pro Charging Systems).

Each suit asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, entitled “Integrated battery service system (‘386 Patent).

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

The accused products are the Cummins Energy Command (EC-30) power generation system, Honeywell’s 2.1 Amp Dual USB AC Charging Adapter, the 2.1 Amp Single USB AC Charging Adapter, and the Ovale 4.2 Amp Smart Charging Station, the Minn Kota Digital Onboard Charger, and the Pro Charging Systems Dual Pro Eagle Chargers.

 

Waste-to-energy Feedstocks

Accordant Energy, LLC v. Vexor Technology, Inc. et al.

In this lawsuit Accordant Energy accuses Vexor of infringing two patents relating to engineered feedstocks.

The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,062,268 and 9,523,051, each entitled “Engineered fuel feed stock” and directed to feed stocks for use as gasification and combustion fuels and methods of making the feed stocks.  Components derived from processed MSW waste streams are used to make the feed stocks, which are substantially free of glass, metals, grit and noncombustibles.

Filed February 28, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the complaint names Vexor Engineered Fuel as the accused product.

Energy-Efficient Exercise Equipment

Green Fitness Equipment Co. v. Precor Inc.

It’s not every day you see patent litigation involving green exercising technology, but this one is about exactly that.

In a complaint filed February 8, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Southern Distric of California, Green Fitness alleges that Precor has incorporated its patented invention into its EFC Elliptical Cross-trainer products that include Active Status Light technology.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,884,553, entitled “Current monitor for indicating a condition of attached electrical apparatus” (‘553 Patent).

The ‘553 Patent is directed to a current monitor that indicates a condition of attached electrical equipment.  The current monitor can determine a predetermined range in which current being withdrawn by the attached electrical apparatus lies.  Based on the determined range, corresponding display electronic elements, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs), can be activated.

The commercial embodiment of Green Fitness’s patented invention is its Treadmill Saver product.

LEDs

Metrospec Technology LLC v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed February 3, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaint asserts three patents relating to high intensity flexible light circuits.

The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,143,631, 8,525,193 and 9,341,355, each entitled “Layered structure for use with high power light emitting diode systems.”

The asserted patents are directed to a layered structure comprising an electrically insulating intermediate layer interconnecting a top layer and a bottom layer.  The top layer, the intermediate layer, and the bottom layer form an at least semi-flexible elongate member which is bendable laterally to a radius of at least 6 inches, twistable relative to its longitudinal axis up to 10 degrees per inch, and bendable to conform to localized heat sink surface flatness variations having a radius of at least 1 inch.

Metrospec alleges that the NorFlex product offered by Hubbell’s Thomas Research Products division infringes the patents.

Unity Opto Technology Co. v. Cree, Inc.

Unity Opto Technology Co. v. Cree, Inc.

Unity Opto Technology (UOT) sued Cree twice in January, seeking a declaratory judgement that Cree’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,596,819 (‘819 Patent), 8,628,214 (‘214) Patent),  8,998,444 (‘444 Patent) and 9,052,067 (‘067 Patent) are invalid and that UOT does not infringe the ‘067 Patent.

The ‘819 and ‘214 Patents are entitled “Lighting device and method of lighting” and directed to a lighting device which emits light with an efficacy of at least 60 lumens per watt, and up to at least 300 lumens in some embodiments, where the output light has a CRI Ra of at least 90.  The lighting device comprises at least one solid state light emitter, e.g., one or more light emitting diodes, and optionally further includes one or more lumiphor.

The ‘444 Patent is entitled “Solid state lighting devices including light mixtures” and directed to a solid state lighting apparatus including at least a first LED and a second LED.  The first LED emits light in the blue portion of the visible spectrum and red light in response to the blue light. The second LED emits light having a color point that is above the planckian locus of a 1931 CIE Chromaticity diagram, and in particular may have a yellow green, greenish yellow or green hue.

Entitled “LED lamp with high color rendering index,” the ‘067 Patent is directed to an LED lamp that can emit light with a color rendering index (CRI) of at least 90 without remote wavelength conversion.

The first complaint was filed January 3, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The second complaint was filed January 6, 2017 in the same court.

Solar Mounting Systems

Rillito River Solar, LLC v. Bamboo Industries LLC

In a lawsuit filed January 26, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Rillito sued Bamboo Industries LLC dba SolarHooks for alleged infringement of three patents relating to solar mounting systems.

The complaint lists SolarHooks’ Composition Flashing Kit as the accused product.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,153,700 (‘700 Patent), 9,134,044 (‘044 Patent) and 9,447,988 (‘988 Patent).

Entitled “Roofing system and method,” the ‘700 Patent is directed to a roof mounting system which includes a roof substrate and flashing supportable on the substrate and an outwardly extending projection having a concave interior side and an aperture extending through the projection between top and bottom surfaces of the flashing. A seal is provided that is conformable with the concave interior side and can define a seal aperture substantially aligned with the flashing aperture.

The ‘044 and ‘988 Patents are entitled “Roof mount assembly” and directed to a mount assembly which includes a flashing including an aperture, a bracket including a first portion and a second portion, the first portion having an opening and a countersink extending around the opening, the second portion extending at an angle away from the flashing, the second portion including a slot configured to be coupled to the structure, a fastener, and a seal extending around the aperture and positioned between the flashing and the first portion of the bracket, the seal engaging the countersink of the bracket and being compressed against the flashing.

Battery Conference to Offer a Full Day Battery IP Workshop

February 22nd, 2017

The 2017 National Battery (“NAAtBatt”) Annual Meeting and Conference, being held March 14-16 in Litchfield Park, Arizona, will include a full day session (“the first workshop its kind”) devoted to IP issues in advanced batteries.

The Workshop on Intellectual Property Issues in Advanced Battery Technology will cover several topics, including establishing an IP culture at advanced battery companies, patent prosecution in energy storage, licensing battery IP, patent pools and aggregators, advanced battery patent litigation, and big data in advanced battery IP.

The panelists include IP professionals from advanced battery technology companies as well as representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Technology Transfer, ARPA-E, several national laboratories, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the European Patent Office.

The workshop web page notes that “[t]he advanced battery industry relies heavily on intellectual property rights” and:

The ability of innovators to protect and monetize their discoveries through intellectual property rights is essential for moving innovations from the laboratory into commerce.

The workshop will run for one day, Tuesday, March 14, concurrently with the first half day of the NAATBatt conference.  CLE credit is available for attorneys.

Attendees may register for the workshop only or for the entire conference.  Registration information can be found here.

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

February 13th, 2017

LED technology continues to dominate green patent litigation, with at least 18 new lawsuits filed in November and December of 2016.  Solar mounting systems and waste management each saw one new lawsuit during this period.

 

LEDs

OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Filed November 3, 2016 in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, OptoLum’s complaint asserts three patents against Cree.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,573,536, 6,831,303 and 7,242,028, each entitled “Light emitting diode light source.”  They relate to early (their priority date is May 2002) LED technology designed to provide sufficient light output to be used as a general lighting source rather than a signaling source.

The patents are directed to LEDs that emit white light.  The diodes are mounted on an elongate member which is thermally conductive and is utilized to cool the diodes.

The accused products are Cree LED bulbs from 2013 and 2014 that are replacements for 60W and 100W incandescents.

Analog Integrations Corporation v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation

In this lawsuit, Analog Integrations sued MagnaChip for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,049, entitled “LED driving circuit having a large operational range in voltage” (‘049 Patent).

The ‘049 Patent is directed to an LED driving circuit including a current selecting circuit that controls the current transmission path in a plurality of LEDs according to respective threshold voltages of corresponding LEDs and a plurality of current limits.

Filed November 6, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint accuses MagnaChip’s driving circuit Product Model No. MAP9000 of infringing the ‘049 Patent.

The Regents of the University of California v. Zlight Technology LLC

The University of California has sued Zlight Technology in a case involving transparent LED technology to enable LED filament-style light bulbs.

UC alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,789, entitled “Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode” (‘789 Patent).

The ‘789 Patent is directed to an (Al, Ga, In)N LED in which multi-directional light can be extracted from one or more surfaces of the LED before entering a shaped optical element and subsequently being extracted to air.  The optical element is molded into a sphere or inverted cone shape, wherein most of the light entering the inverted cone shape lies within a critical angle and is extracted.

The invention also minimizes internal reflections within the LED by eliminating mirrors and/or mirrored surfaces, in order to minimize re-absorption of the LED’s light by the emitting layer (or the active layer) of the LED.

Filed November 7, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint lists a host of Zlight LED filament products alleged to infringe the ‘789 Patent.

Cree, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.

Cree, Inc. v. Maxbrite LED Lighting Technology, LLC

Cree has asserted five utility patents and one design patent against E. Mishan & Sons in a lawsuit filed November 11, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,013, entitled “Integrated heat spreaders for light emitting devices (LEDs)

U.S. Patent No. 7,858,998, entitled “Semiconductor light emitting devices including flexible silicone film having a lens therein

U.S. Patent No. 8,167,463, entitled “Power surface mount light emitting die package”

U.S. Patent No. 8,622,582, entitled “Power surface mount light emitting die package”

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,850, entitled “Light emitting diode package and method for fabricating same”

U.S. Patent No. D615,504, entitled “Emitter package”

The accused products include flashlights such as the TACLIGHT tactical flashlight product.

The lawsuit against Maxbrite was filed November 18, 2016 in federal court in Oakland, California for both patent and trademark infringement.  For some reason, I haven’t been able to track down the complaint, but it appears to be, at least in part, a counterfeiting case (see LED Inside article here).

Tseng v. BBC International LLC et al.

On December 25, 2016, Shen Ko Tseng, an individual, filed this complaint in federal court in San Francisco against BBC International, Concept Technology, and Terry Electronics alleging infringement of an LED circuit patent.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,452,106, and 7,405,674, each entitled “Circuit device for controlling a plurality of light-emitting devices in a sequence” and directed to a circuit device for controlling light-emitting devices disposed in a sequence including a motion activated switch.  The controller is capable of driving the light-emitting diodes lighting up on the basis of a first predefined sequence and a consequent second predefined sequence when triggered by a motion-actuated switch.

The accused products are Batman, Thomas, Peanuts, and Spiderman branded LED illuminated shoes.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Feit Electrical Company, Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Hyperikon, Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Letianlighting, Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Halco Lighting Technologies, LLC

Blackbird Tech LLC v. CleanLife Energy LLC

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Evergreen LED, LLC

Blackbird Tech initiated several new lawsuits in the last two months of the year.  The first, against Letianlighting, was filed November 9, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747, entitled “Low-voltage apparatus for satisfying after-hours light requirements, emergency light requirements, and low light requirements” (‘747 Patent).

The ‘747 Patent is directed to an energy efficient lighting apparatus wherein the circuit board is positioned adjacent the ballast cover so that the plurality of light-emitting diodes protrude through the plurality of ballast cover holes in the ballast cover, the lighting apparatus is coupled to a wall switch, and the illumination of the light-emitting diodes is controllable based upon the position of the wall switch.

The other seven complaints were filed December 8 and December 28, 2016, also in Delaware.  The patent in those suits is U.S. Patent No. 7,114,834 (‘834 Patent).  Entitled “LED lighting apparatus,” the ‘834 Patent is directed to a light comprising a housing, a plurality of LED lights coupled in an array inside of the housing, and a reflective protrusion for reflecting light from the LED lights out of the housing.

The LED array receives a consistent flow of DC current that will not result in the LED lights burning out. To prevent the LED array from burning out there is also a current regulator for controlling a current flowing through this LED array.

The accused product in the Feit complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Feit Electrical Company, Inc.) is the 60 Watt Equivalent Dimmable G25 Bulb; the Home Depot complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.) lists the Ecosmart 60W LED Replacement bulbs and the Hampton Bay LED Low Voltage 20W Equivalent Spotlight; the accused product in the Hyperikon complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Hyperikon, Inc.) is the Daylight Glow Par 16 bulb, and the Sunco complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.) lists the 6 Watt Pure Efficiency Spot Light.

The accused products listed in the Evergreen complaint (Blackbird Tech v. Evergreen) are the Yigeda Solid State Lighting Chandelier bulbs.  The Cleanlife Energy complaint (Blackbird Tech v. Cleanlife Energy) lists the CleanLife 7W LED MR16 Spot Light, and the Halco complaint (Blackbird Tech v. Halco Lighting Technologies) lists the Halco Solid State Lighting Chandelier bulbs.

 

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Halco Lighting Technologies

Halco was also sued by LSG for allegedly infringing three patents whose commercial embodiment is LSG’s GLIMPSE lighting family of products.

The lawsuit asserts the following three patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (‘968 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 (‘844 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 (‘518 Patent).

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.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Orlando, Florida on December 21, 2016.

 

Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

Nichia Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.

Nichia Corporation v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited et al.

Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.

Nichia filed four lawsuits in federal court in Marshall, Texas on December 27, 2016, each asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411 (‘411 Patent) (Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.; Nichia Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.Nichia Corporation v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited et al.Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.).

The ‘411 Patent is entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body” and directed to an LED manufacturing method in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface, including sandwiching a lead frame provided with a notch part, transfer-molding a thermosetting resin containing a light reflecting material in a mold to form a resin-molded body in the lead frame, and cutting the resin-molded body and the lead frame along the notch part.

The accused Feit products include the Feit Electric 800 Lumen 3000K Dimmable LED, the LED Shop Light, the Dimmable Warm White LED Bulb, and the 40 W Equivalent Soft White Smart LED Bulb.

The accused Lowe’s products include the Utilitech 75 W Equivalent Par38 Warm White LED Flood Light Bulb, the 65 W Equivalent Dimmable Daylight LED Flood Light Bulb, and the 65 W Eqivalent Dimmable Soft White LED Flood Light Bulb.

The accused TCL and Vizio products are certain LED televisions.

 

Solar Mounting Systems

Rillito River Solar, LLC v. IronRidge Inc.

Rillito River Solar (dba EcoFastenSolar) sued IronRidge December 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The complaint alleges that IronRidge’s FlashFoot2 roof mounting system infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701 (‘701 Patent).

Entitled “Roof mount,” the ‘701 Patent is directed to a roof mount including a base member, an attachment mount, and a spacer extending the base member to a roof surface. The base member has a protrusion, and the attachment mount defines a hollowed region for receiving the protrusion to form a compression fitting.  A substantially leak proof assembly is formed when the attachment mount is placed against the base member with a sealing material therebetween.

 

Waste Management

Pannell Manufacturing Corp. v. Smoker et al.

Pannell sued two individuals, Phillips Mushroom Farms, and E&H Conveyors for alleged infringement of three patents relating to mushroom composting.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,069,608, 8,205,379 and 8,561,344.  They are entitled “Mushroom compost compacting system and method” and are directed to systems and methods for compacting mushroom compost using a roller assembly mounted to a compost receptacle to form a nip, along with a web or conveyor to convey mushroom compost to and through the nip.  Mushroom compost is compacted to a particular height that can be adjusted by the user by adjusting the space between the roller and compost receptacle.

The complaint was filed December 2, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Book Review: Intellectual Property and Climate Change, Edited by Josh Sarnoff

January 27th, 2017

ip-and-climate-change

Despite its title, this book is about much more than intellectual property and climate change.  While it does, of course, provide detailed treatments of IP and climate change law and policy, the topics covered in the new “Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Climate Change” are diverse and far-ranging, even touching on food (for the body) and religion (food for the soul, for some).

Editor and contributor Joshua D. Sarnoff has organized the book into five general categories:  basic information on climate science and environmental and IP treaties and geopolitics; philosophical perspectives on IP and climate change including human rights, religion, and development; approaches to development and transfer of green technologies; specific IP doctrines; and contexts where climate change-IP considerations arise.

The first few chapters provide the reader with a solid introductory grounding in climate science, climate treaties, and IP treaties.

Then Carlos Correa gets into the developing countries’ perspective on IPR, reviewing familiar proposals such as compulsory licensing, excluding green technologies from patent protection, revoking patent rights in green technologies, and limiting terms of patents directed to green technologies.  Mostly non-starters, these policy tools have been detailed and advocated more forcefully elsewhere.  Nevertheless, their inclusion is essential for any compendium on IP and climate change.

Chapter 10 on developing country viewpoints stands out as providing particularly useful context.  Instead of simply saying the current state of affairs is inadequate and we need better technology transfer, Dalindyebo Shabalala lays out helpful and meaty (you can really sink your teeth into them!) definitions of technology transfer.  Those are followed by a useful review of IP and tech transfer developments in climate change treaty discussions over the years.

Sarnoff himself provides a taxonomy of choices for government funding of innovation and university research (Chapter 11) as well as a discussion on how the UNFCCC and other treaties relate to green patents in Chapter 16 on patents and climate change.

From there, the doctrinal IP section continues with a chapter on trade secrets and climate change (Chapter 17).  In it, Sharon K. Sandeen and David S. Levine propose changes to the law that would increase disclosure of trade secret information relating to climate change.

They make the point that heightening the disclosure requirements in this area might drive businesses away from relying on trade secrets toward more patent protection.  In view of the trade secret policies discussed here and the aforementioned proposals to weaken or eliminate patent protection on green technologies, one wonders where green tech innovators would turn to protect their technologies if all of these policies were enacted.

The copyright chapter by Estelle Derclaye discusses questions of access, dissemination, interoperability and pricing of copyrighted works relating to environmental issues (Chapter 18).  Such works might include green buildings and architectural plans, charts, maps, photographs, films, software, and databases.

After providing some context on eco-marks (including certification marks), green consumers and greenwashing, Christine Haight Farley suggests improvements to the certification mark registration process such as greater transparency in the certification standards, periodic review of those standards, and clearer terminology of the terms used for certification.

The book does suffer from what almost any such compilation would – patches of redundancy.  A reader of the full volume is treated to the basic principles of the UNFCCC treaty and the conflict between developed and developing countries not only in the introductory chapter on IPR under the UNFCCC treaty (Chapter 5) but also in the IP enforcement piece (Chapter 7), and Chapter 10 on tech transfer.   This is just one example.  In these chapters and others, the different authors go over the same principles, the same perceived barriers to tech transfer, and the same old proposed patent policy solutions.

Moreover, the compendium would have benefited from a chapter on green patent litigation.  There’s been so much of it over the last couple of decades, including some involving critical patents and substantially impacting some areas of green technology.  Hybrid vehicle technology company Paice’s enforcement efforts against Toyota and other automakers, GE’s two sets of litigation centered on a seminal variable speed wind turbine patent, and the Gevo-Butamax case come to mind, among others.

As mentioned above, one of the book’s strengths is that it goes well beyond the subject of intellectual property.  One of the novel contributions is an interesting chapter by Robert K. Musil on religious environmentalism in America, including religious climate activism (Chapter 9).

Another welcome perspective is the antitrust chapter by Michael Carrier discussing issues such as how to define the relevant market in green technology sectors, monopoly concerns such as refusing to license green technologies (though refusing to license is typically legally permissible and the prerogative of the patent owner), technical standards such as those in the smart grid sector, and how patent pools might be treated under antitrust law (Chapter 13).

On the whole, Sarnoff’s “Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Climate Change” is packed with varied perspectives and essential information and is therefore a very useful guide for anyone interested in IP and climate change (and beyond!).  To have all this packed tightly into one book is a great thing.  I’m quite pleased to have it on my bookshelf.

Patentes Permanentes Verdes in Brazil; Battery Battles at the Board and Border

January 18th, 2017

Before turning to 2017 news, we’ll first briefly catch up on a few stories from December.

In early December, the Brazilian green patent priority examination program (see my original post here and a subsequent critique of the program here) became a permanent service.

Started as a pilot program by the National Institute of Industrial Property in April 2012, Resolution No. 175/2016 made the program permanent on December 6, 2016.

The requirements to participate in the program remain the same:

The application is a utility patent application;

The application is a national application (resident or non-resident);

The application was filed with INPI on or after January 2, 2011; and

The application contains a maximum of 15 claims in total, with up to three independent claims.

Eligible green technologies fall under the following categories: alternative energy, transportation, energy conservation, waste management and agriculture.

During the pilot phase, 325 of 480 applications were accepted and expedited with an average prosecution time of about two years.  The Clarke Modet law firm reported on this here.

LG Chem logo

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) discussed the litigation between Celgard, a North Carolina company that manufactures specialty membranes and separators for lithium ion batteries, and LG Chem.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 (’586 Patent), entitled “Separator for a high energy rechargeable lithium battery” and directed to a separator including a ceramic composite layer and a polyolefinic microporous layer.  The ceramic layer has a matrix material and is adapted to block dendrite growth and prevent electronic shorting.

After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office invalidated claims 1-11 of the ‘586 patent in an inter partes review, Celgard appealed.

In a one-line per curiam order handed down December 13, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision.

 

There was a major development in the litigation between chemical giant BASF and UChicago Argonne LLC (Argonne), on the one hand, and Belgium-based Umicore and Japan-based Makita Corporation involving two patents relating to cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries.

As reported in a previous post, BASF and Argonne filed a complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commisson (ITC) in February 2015 asking the ITC to investigate whether Umicore, Makita and their U.S. subsidiaries imported and sold in the United States lithium ion cathode materials and batteries that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (’082 Patent) and 6,680,143 (’143 Patent).

In a December 16, 2016 order, the ITC found that Umicore induced infringement of the asserted patents through conduct relating to imports of the battery materials.

The order expanded upon a prior determination by an ITC administrative law judge that Umicore was liable for contributory infringement of the patents.  The ITC also issued a limited exclusion order banning importation of Umicore’s lithium ion cathode materials into the United States.

The ‘082 and ‘143 Patents are both entitled “Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries” and directed to a lithium metal oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous lithium cell.

Read BASF’s press release about the ITC decision here.

Know No Truth: Federal Circuit Reversal of Hearsay Ruling Saves Biofuel Patent

December 7th, 2016

reg-logo-no-tm41e6f4d64b166625b27fff0000bf73c1

REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (REG) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,231,804, entitled “Even carbon number paraffin composition and method of manufacturing same” (‘804 Patent).

The ‘804 Patent is directed to paraffin compositions containing primarily even carbon number paraffins and methods of making them.  Made from bio-renewable feedstocks, these saturated hydrocarbon chains are useful as phase change materials and can be used for home insulation.

Neste Oil Oyj (Neste), a Finnish oil refining company with a focus on advanced, low-emission transportation fuels, petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review of the ‘804 Patent.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 invalid as anticipated by a first prior art reference (Craig) and also found claims 1-3, 5 and 8 invalid as anticipated by a second prior art reference (Dindi).  REG appealed.

The statutory classification of the Dindi reference is crucial here:  it is a published patent application that qualified as prior art because it was filed before the ‘804 Patent application’s filing date.  This means that REG could remove Dindi as prior art if REG could marshal the requisite documentary evidence to show that the inventor of ‘804 Patent conceived of the invention before the Dindi filing date and was diligent in reducing the invention to practice.

Turns out REG did have such evidence, but the Board excluded critical portions of it as inadmissible hearsay.

On appeal, REG argued that the Board was incorrect to exclude the evidence, in particular Exhibit 2071 which consisted of emails between the inventor and third parties, in one of which the inventor stated:

[He has] had more difficulty than [he] expected trying to recover a 90+% purity nC18 product using [his] lab distillation glassware (80% purity C18 is the best [they] got).

This is significant because the claimed invention of the ‘804 Patent includes an 80 wt% purity C18 product.

The Board considered Exhibit 2061 to be hearsay because it did not verify the actual creation of the 80 wt% C18 product.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed this evidentiary ruling of the Board because Exhibit 2061 was not introduced into evidence for the truth of the statement therein.  Rather, the email itself provides evidence that the inventor conceived of the invention, irrespective of whether he actually created the product:

We find that the Board erred to the extent that it excluded the content of  Exhibit 2061 based on hearsay because REG offered Exhibit 2061 for the non-hearsay purpose to show that [the inventor] thought he had achieved 80 wt% purity C18 product. The act of writing and sending the email is, by itself, probative evidence on whether [the inventor] recognized – at the time that he had written the email – that the sum of the weight percentages of even-carbon-number paraffins in his compositions was at least 80 wt% and communicated this to a third party.

The court held, together with two other exhibits, Exhibit 2061 shows that the inventor of the ‘804 Patent “could create a composition with the claimed property of at least 80 wt% even-carbon-number paraffins” and was able to do so before the Dindi reference’s filing date:

[The email in Exhibit 2061] expressly states that he could achieve at least 80% purity C18 product, which was new in April 2008 because this product did not exist in the prior art, given the record before us.

So the Federal Circuit reversed the Board on conception of the invention and the admissibility of the Exhibit 2061 and sent the case back to the Board to determine whether the inventor was diligent in reducing the invention to practice, and REG and its ‘804 Patent survive to fight another day.

Exploring the Carbon Royalty Model

November 27th, 2016

In a previous post, John D. Vandenberg, a patent litigator in Portland, Oregon, laid out his vision of a carbon royalty:  using patents directly for the public good, by imposing a royalty to reduce carbon emissions.

A detailed discussion of the model can be found here in his Carbon Royalty Slide Deck and is illustrated below.

picture1

If you’re interested in exploring this idea please e-mail Mr. Vandenberg at patentsforthepublicgood@gmail.com.