Archive for the ‘Green Patents’ category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

First Open Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbine Showcases Flotation Principles

December 19th, 2011

 

Principle Power is a Seattle, Washington-based renewable energy technology company that developed WindFloat, an offshore wind power turbine and platform.  The platform can be assembled on shore and then towed to a site offshore where it is moored and connected to a power station. 

Principle Power recently deployed its first WindFloat system off the coast of Portugal, the first offshore turbine to be located in open Atlantic waters (read more about the first deployment here and here).

The WindFloat technology is described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0037264, entitled “Column-stabilized offshore platform with water-entrapment plates and asymmetric mooring system for support of offshore wind turbines” (’264 Application).

The platform comprises columns (102, 103) interconnected with a truss structure composed of main beams (115), bracing beams (116), and cross beams (117).  A wind tower (111) is attached to one of the base columns (102, 103).

A wind turbine (125) is attached to the wind tower (111).  At the base of the columns are horizontal water-entrapment plates (107).  The submerged plates (107) are designed to provide hydrodynamic added-mass and dampening, resulting in reduced platform motion - particularly in heavy seas. 

The turbine platform can also include active ballast systems for stabilization.  The columns (102,103) can be hollow and and house the active ballast system, which transfers water between tanks within the columns.  The active ballast system is designed to keep the mean position of the platform horizontal and to keep the turbine as upright as possible.

According to Principle Power, unlike conventional offshore wind turbines, the stabilization features of the WindFloat allow the platform to withstand the high wind and wave energy found in deeper waters.  Wind turbines located far from shore overcome disadvantages of their close-to-shore counterparts because they do not block the shore view and lessen navigational obstructions and potential hazards to water vessel and aircraft while tapping into previously inaccessible wind resources.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Wind Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent (and Copyright) Complaint Update

December 16th, 2011

Several green patent lawsuits (and one green copyright suit) have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of LEDs, hybrid vehicles, wastewater treatment, energy management, and biodegradable materials.

 

LEDs

Bluestone Innovations Florida, L.L.C. v. Formosa Epitaxy

Bluestone Innovations (Bluestone), a Florida-based patent licensing company, recently filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Formosa Epitaxy (Formosa), a Taiwanese corporation.

Bluestone alleges that Formosa engaged in the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, and sale of LED semiconductor devices and other optoelectric devices, such as gallium nitride (GaN) LED wafers and chips, and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) LED wafers and chips.

The complaint alleges these activities infringe U.S. Patent Number 6,605,832, entitled “Semiconductor Structures Having Reduced Contact Resistance”.  Bluestone is seeking a permanent injunction and damages, including treble damages and attorney fees.

 

Wastewater Treatment

Polylok, Inc. v. Bear Onsite

A recent post discussed a suit between wastewater treatment rivals Polylok and Bear Onsite in Connecticut in which Polylok asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Number 6,129,837, entitled “Waste water treatment filter including waste water level control alert device” (’837 Patent). 

The ’837 Patent is directed to a filtration device for a waste water treatment tank with a level alert device to provide an alarm when the filter becomes plugged.  The claims are directed to particular means for mounting the alert device to the filter.

Bear Onsite recently responded with a declaratory judgment action (Petition for Declaration of Rights).  Specifically, Bear Onsite is seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of the ’837 Patent.

 

Hybrid Vehicles

KGR IP L.L.C. v. Ford Motor Company
KGR IP L.L.C. v. Honda Motor Company

KGR recently filed two complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (KGR_IP-Ford_Complaint; KGR_IP-Honda_Complaint). 

The complaints allege that both Ford and Honda are infringing U.S. Patent Number 6,639,614, entitled “Multi-variate data presentation method using ecologically valid stimuli” (’614 Patent).  The ’614 Patent relates to visual display of data using “ecologically valid” icons.

KGR alleges infringement of the ’614 Patent in the Ford Fusion Hybrid vehicles and Honda vehicles that utilize the Eco Assist function.  KGR is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

 

Fernandez v. Toyota Motor Corporation

Dennis Fernandez, an individual inventor, recently filed a Complaint against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A and Toyota USA (collectively “Toyota”), alleging patent infringement.
Fernandez alleges Toyota is infringing U.S. Patent Numbers 7,374,003, 7,575,080, and 7,980,341, each entitled “Telematic Method and Apparatus with Integrated Power Source”.

The complaint states that Toyota is using the accused devices in its Prius II hybrid vehicle. The complaint seeks damages and attorney fees.

 

Biomaterials; Recycling & Waste Management

Frito-Lay North America v. Innovia Films Limited

Frito-Lay filed a Complaint against Innovia Films, Inc. (Innovia), a manuafcturer of bio-based films, on November 23, 2011 seeking declaratory relief over Frito-Lay’s ownership of two patents and two patent applications.

The complaint relates to recent actions commenced by Innovia against Frito-Lay in both the U.K. and Europe.  In that litigation, Innovia claims that Frito-Lay breached a confidentiality agreement and used information gained during confidential meetings to develop biodegradable packaging.  Innovia claims the technology led to Frito-Lay’s U.S. Patent Numbers 7,951,436 and 7,943,218 and U.S. Patent Applications 11/848,775 and 12/716,033.

Frito-Lay contends that it did not acquire any technology from Innovia and that development of its degradable bags was conducted independently.  Frito-Lay states that its “scientists and engineers discovered and invented novel flexible film packaging that maintains certain barrier properties and is made up of several layers of films, including a biodegradable ‘bio-based’ layer.”

 

Smart Grid / Energy Management

Opower, Inc. v. Efficiency 2.0, LLC

In a rare clean tech copyright dispute, Opower, Inc. (Opower) recently filed a copyright infringement Suit against Efficiency 2.0, LLC (Efficiency 2.0), a New York energy efficiency software company.

Opower produces Home Energy Reports, paper reports mailed to residents which show their home energy consumption in relation to similarly situated neighbors.  Opower’s Home Energy Reports were registered with the Copyright Office in September 2009 as Registration No. VA0001692228 and in October 2011 as Registration No. TX0007435604.

According to the complaint, Efficiency 2.0′s Energy Savings Reports are nearly identical to Opower’s copyrighted reports.  Opower claims the similarities include “overall layout and blocking, use of open space, use of language, use of font, bolding, accents and color, as well as selection and presentation of specific graphics and information.”

Opower is seeking damages, and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Efficiency 2.0 from using Opower’s copyrighted reports.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Copyrights, Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Smart Grid, Water Filtration

Green IP Litigation Is A Black Cloud Over Wind Turbine Makers

December 11th, 2011

 

In addition to the high legal fees and exposure to potentially hefty damages payouts that accompany allegations of intellectual property infringement, such lawsuits can also be dark clouds over defendants, hampering their ability to do business.

A salient example of this in clean tech is the news that Mainstream Renewable Power (MRP) has ditched Chinese wind turbine maker Sinovel and is looking to alternative turbine suppliers for the 1GW of wind farm projects it has planned in Ireland.

The move by MRP comes in the wake of two IP infringement lawsuits filed by American Superconductor (AMSC) against Sinovel in China.  

In that litigation AMSC has accused Sinovel of copyright infringement and theft of trade secrets in connection with allegedly stolen wind turbine control source code.

This Recharge News piece notes that an MRP spokesman said the company is “fully aware” of the legal dispute, and the article attributes the switch by MRP to the litigation:

MRP’s decision is the clearest evidence yet of the potential damage Sinovel faces in Western markets as a result of its legal battle with AMSC, which is pursuing the turbine supplier in several Chinese courts for $1.2bn in compensation and damages over alleged intellectual property (IP) infringement and unpaid bills.

This is the not the first time allegations of IP infringement have hurt the business of a wind turbine supplier.  Mitsubishi has claimed that GE’s accusations of infringement of several variable speed wind turbine patents virtually shut down its U.S. business.

According to Mitsubishi’s court filings (mitsubishi_antitrust_complaint.pdf), its $2 billion in annual U.S. sales of variable speed wind turbines dropped to zero after initiation of the first patent infringement suit by GE in early 2008.

Mitsubishi may have begun to recover, however.  Windpower Monthly recently reported that utility Duke Energy has ordered 202 MW of the accused 2.4 MW turbine from Mitsubishi for a wind project in Texas (see my previous post here). 

The article says the Duke order is the first since the advent of the patent dispute with GE.

But it’s clear that even before any ultimate infringement verdict, pending green patent litigation can have serious ramifications outside the courtroom.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Wind Power

Fraunhofer’s Mobile Wave Energy Harvester Barges In

December 8th, 2011

 

Some recent green tech articles (e.g., this Ecogeek piece) have covered a mobile wave power system being developed by the Fraunhofer Center for Manufacturing Innovation (FCMI), a Boston applied research institution.

FCMI’s system is a large ship or power barge fitted with a vast amount of storage capacity such as advanced batteries integrated with wave energy generators.  The barge would go out to sea, deploy the wave energy generators in the water to charge the batteries, then withdraw the generators and return to port to connect the fully charged batteries to the grid.

FCMI and Boston University co-own International Application WO 2011/060183, entitled “System for wave energy harvesting employing transport of stored energy” (’183 Application).

The ’183 Application is directed to systems and methods of wave energy harvesting comprising a vessel (10-I) having a vessel body (33), which includes the basic ship features as well as a wave energy harvesting apparatus carried by the body (33).

The wave energy harvesting apparatus includes buoys (34) and mechanical linkages (36) connecting the buoys (34) to the vessel body (33).  In certain embodiments, the buoys (34) are “heaving” buoys which float in the water and rise and fall with the movement of the waves (arrow 38 indicates wave direction).

The vessel (10-I) is anchored or otherwise moored at a harvesting location.  The heaving of the buoys (34) is translated by linkages (36) to corresponding mechanical motion on the vessel body (33), which is then converted into a form of storage in the batteries carried by the vessel body (33).

Figure 1 below shows an overview of the method, which includes several modes.  In the harvesting/storing mode (12), wave energy is absorbed and converted into stored energy. 

In the transporting mode (14), the vessel travels to a releasing location, where, in releasing mode (18), the stored energy is used to generate electricity provided to an electrical grid (20).

Finally, in the returning mode (24), the vessel (10) returns to the harvesting location to start another cycle of operation.

According to FCMI’s web site, the mobile wave energy harvesting system has several advantages including obviating the need for expensive undersea power cables, ability to move the system safely to port during stormy weather, and avoiding regulatory hurdles associated with permanent structures.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Water Power

Guest Post: Green IP Litigation in the Great White North

December 6th, 2011

 

A recent decision in the Federal Court of Canada spotlights green IP litigation in Canada.

On October 5, 2007 Hollick Solar Systems Limited (Hollick) and Conserval Engineering Incorporated (Conserval), which specializes in solar air heating technology, commenced a patent and trade-mark infringement proceeding against several parties, including Matrix Energy Incorporated, a distributor of renewable energy equipment.

Hollick and Conserval claimed infringement of claims 1 and 10 of Canadian Letters Patent 1,326,619, entitled “Method and apparatus for preheating ventilation air for a building” (’619 Patent).

As to the trade-mark, Hollick and Conserval alleged infringement and depreciation of the value of the goodwill of their trade-mark SOLARWALL® by the sale of the Matrixair system and the use of “mur solaire” and passing off by Matrix for the systems of Conserval.

The ’619 Patent is directed to a method of preheating ventilation air and an apparatus for preheating ventilation air by solar means. 

More particularly, according to the Abstract of the ’619 Patent, ventilation air for a building is preheated by providing on a wall of the building a solar-energy absorbent collector panel with a plurality of air-inlet openings which communicate with air collection channels behind the panel.

 

Outside air passing upwardly along the panel is heated by the heat of the panel, which itself is heated by a combination of solar radiation and heat being lost from the interior of the building.

The case focused on whether the term describing the location of the inlet “at the top” was an essential element of the claims at issue. 

Matrix asserted non-infringement of claims 1 and 10 of the ’619 Patent because the inlet of the accused system was at the bottom, or at least not at the top.

Matrix also contended non-infringement of the trade-mark SOLARWALL® on the ground that the trade-mark was outside the scope of a distribution agreement between Matrix and Hollick.

The Federal Court, in construing the claims at issue, concluded:

the location of the inlet in the Matrix system (at the bottom or at least below the midpoint) had a material effect upon the way the invention worked and did not perform essentially the same as the invention of the ’619 Patent;

that it would have been obvious to an expert in the field that drawing air from the bottom or at least below the midpoint of the panel would have a material effect upon the invention; and

the person skilled in the art would have understood that strict compliance with the term “at the top” was an essential element of the invention.

The court further noted the contradictory testimony of an expert for Hollick and Conserval, whose statements in another case directly conflicted with his testimony in this case.

The court also determined non-infringement of the trade-mark because Hollick and Conserval failed to prove loss of sales from use of the trade-mark by Matrix.

Marcelo König Sarkis, P. Eng., FIPIC, is a Senior Patent Agent and Professional Engineer with Heenan Blaikie LLP.  He is a member of Heenan Blaikie’s Intellectual Property as well as Climate, Cleantech and Sustainability Groups.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

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

Too Mod for Batteries: Ioxus Introduces iMOD Ultracaps

November 23rd, 2011

Ioxus is a manufacturer of premium performance ultracapacitor technology for transportation, alternative energy, medical, industrial and consumer markets.  Ioxus has focused on improving capacitor technology, specializing in electric double layer capacitors (EDLC).

The Oneonta, New York, company recently announced the release of its 16V/58F iMOD Ultracapacitor Module Series for alternative energy markets (pictured below).

The iMOD is an ultracapacitor comprising a plurality of in-line high voltage capacitors which provide power for such green technologies as wind turbine pitch control systems, start and drive systems on hybrid vehicles, and power conditioning for renewable energy systems.  The iMOD allows for in-line high voltage capacitors sized to parallel or replace common battery sizes.

According to Cleantech PatentEdge™, Ioxus currently owns one U.S. utility patent and has at least four pending U.S. patent applications, all relating to ultracapacitor technology.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0053844 (’844 Application) is entitled “High voltage EDLC cell and method for the manufacture thereof” and directed to an EDLC having a unit cell structure with alternately interleaved electrodes formed lithographically and a separator between the electrodes and impregnating an electrolyte therein.  The ’844 Application also describes a manufacturing process for the EDLC cells.

U.S. Patent No. 7,830,646, is entitled “Multi electrode series connected arrangement supercapacitor” and directed to an EDLC series stack formed into a single electrolyte cell structure.  The figure below shows a complete 12-volt EDLC in a poly bag package. 

An EDLC device (10) includes five concatenated electrode assemblies (34-38).  Voltage monitor/control tabs (39-42) extend external to poly bag (31), which provides a lightweight, puncture resistant, air-tight seal for the cell stack.  The power tabs (32, 33) and voltage monitor/control tabs (39-42) provide the complete electrical interface.

Ioxus ultracapacitors have many applications in green technology. For example, they have previously been used on wind turbines to control the pitch of rotor blades relative to wind speed in order to maximize efficiency. Rotor blade pitch control is also used as a safety feature to slow or stop the turbine when wind speeds are too high or in the event the turbine loses connection to the grid.

Compared to batteries, ultracapacitors are preferred for use in wind turbines due to their light weight, solid state design, and ability to operate in cold conditions. Ultracapacitors also require very little maintenance and have an approximate ten-year life span – twice as long as most batteries.

According to Ioxus’ press release, the iMOD modules deliver easy to install, ready to use, and durable ultracapacitor modules at a lower price and with improved cell balancing.

According to Chad Hall, Ioxus Founder and Vice-President of Sales, “This is a complete, ready to install package. You can go up to 750V without any external management, you can run parallel to a 12V battery or replace a 12V battery. It’s ruggedized to handle insustrial environments.”

While ultracapacitors charge quickly, they are limited in application as they also discharge quickly. They are ideal when relatively short bursts of electricity are needed. As this technology improves, its application will undoubtedly increase.

Are ultracapacitors the new battery? Due to their lack of long term power delivery, ultracapacitors are not ready to replace batteries yet, however, they are certainly preferred in some situations.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Comments Off »

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

Guest Post: Is GE’s Wind Patent Portfolio Sustainable Without Future Licensing?

November 21st, 2011

 Part II:  Cost Estimation

Analysis and cost estimation of GE’s patent portfolio suggests a bubble… but will it break?

Part I of this article analyzed GE’s industry-leading wind patent portfolio. 

Part II asks whether the pace of growth of GE’s patent portfolio is sustainable, since each application has a certain cost associated with it and the revenue generated from licensing must exist in order to justify the continued scope of the portfolio. 

 

The spike in GE’s patent filings starting in 2003 after the Enron Wind acquisition and again in 2008 with a focus on future licensing is reminiscent of the huge increase in the pace of filings from Aloys Wobben, Chairman of Enercon GmbH, in 2002 – 2003 after the settlement of the International Trade Commission (ITC) matter in which Kenetech/Zond/Enron Wind/GE effectively denied Enercon entry into the US market.

The portfolio of Enercon patent filings proved to be unsustainable as is evidenced by the sharp drop-off in their number of filings per annum in the past few years, in spite of new innovation being developed on their liquid cooled generator.

Based on a patent budget calculator which we developed to assess the year-over-year costs for cultivation and maintenance of a patent portfolio, we have been able to determine the approximate costs for maintaining their portfolio.  Certain assumptions had to be made in this analysis, so there is likely some variability in the cost, however we believe it to be accurate within an order of magnitude.

Even though the patent landscape we have analyzed covered only the US, we know GE uses the US as their primary priority filing locale and their foreign filing strategy can be inferred from a look at the family members of their US patents. 

Assumptions are as follows:

  • The majority of their filings are US, CN, and EP.
    • Filings which were categorized as L or M will follow this protocol for cost calculation.
    • Important inventions get filed in a broader scope of countries, specifically US, CN, EP (note: sometimes DK and DE are used explicitly instead of an EP filing, especially if the invention originated from their German R&D/Engineering center), IN, MX, JP, KR, CA, BR and AU.
      • Filings which were categorized as M/H or H will follow this protocol for cost calculation.
      • Filings per annum used in the calculation from 2001 – 2010 were actual numbers.
        • Filings prior to 2001 were not very significant and were excluded from the calculation for simplicity.
        • Filings from 2010+ were assumed at the same average rate per annum from 2008 – 2010 for filings out until 2020.

The results of this calculation based on the scope of GE’s portfolio and following the protocol outlined above shows that the cost is quite substantial particularly in the out years.  In 2020 alone they will spend US$31M on prosecuting and maintaining their portfolio.

Continued turbine sales as well as licensing will clearly be necessary to support that size of portfolio. 

With the expiration of a core patent in February of this year, US5083039 (‘039), which covered field oriented control of an induction generator as well as dynamic VAR control at the turbine, a new suite of technologies has emerged technologically, but not necessarily on the assertive license front.

GE’s recent acquisition of Converteam also adds to their portfolio of full power conversion and permanent magnet generator technology.  This architecture is quickly becoming the most pervasively deployed platform amongst the wind turbine supply base. 

It remains to be seen if this technology architecture will be part of the next wave of assertion and licensing.  If history has anything to say, then you can bet on future licensing.

However, the scope of those efforts may be affected by the outcome of the ongoing Mitsubishi litigation.  If GE is successful in upholding the validity of their patents against Mitsubishi then one will presume they will be emboldened to pursue licenses on the new technology platform. 

If Mitsubishi prevails, then we could see another round of lawsuits from the licensees of ‘039 and the other DFIG related technologies demanding their royalty payments back.  This could leave GE gun-shy to broadly license the way they did with ‘039 and other related patents.

Whatever the future holds, GE now holds a substantial lead while the rest of the industry struggles to catch up.

Philip Totaro is the Principal at Totaro & Associates, a consulting firm focused on innovation strategy, competitive intelligence, product development and patent search. 

To get a deeper look into the patent landscape of the horizontal axis, utility-scale wind industry please visit www.totaro-associates.com and ask about Wind Patent Watch™, a subscription service providing a weekly digest and analysis of the published patents and applications from General Electric and the rest of the industry.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Wind Power

Advanced Battery Patent Suit Ends in Cross-Licensing Deal

November 18th, 2011

 

Previous posts (here and here) discussed the patent litigation involving A123 Systems Inc. (A123), a Boston area lithium ion battery maker, Canadian utility Hydro-Quebec (H-Q), the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,910,382, 6,514,640, 7,955,733, 7,960,058 and 7,964,308 (collectively “Cathode Materials Patents”),and the Board of Regents of the University of Texas (UT), the owner of the patents, as well as H-Q’s recent complaint adding Valence Technology and Segway to the dispute.

The parties recently announced they had settled their disputes and entered into a settlement agreement and patent sublicense deal (see the A123 press release here).

Some details of the Patent Sublicense Agreement have been made public.  Actually a cross-licensing deal, A123 has taken, or will take, a license to lithium metal phosphate patents developed at UT, a family of electrode metal carbon-coating patents, and several lithium metal phosphate patents licensed to H-Q by Nippon Telephone and Telegraph.

A Swiss-based alliance called LiFePO4+C Licensing AG, formed by H-Q, Sud-Chemie, Universite de Montreal and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, has taken, or will take, a license to two recently-issued battery patents owned by A123.  A123′s original Nanophosphate patents, developed at MIT, are not part of the settlement.

The Cathode Materials Patents are entitled “Cathode materials for secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries” and relate to host materials for use as electrodes in lithium ion batteries.  The patented materials provide a larger free volume for lithium ion motion that allows higher conductivity and therefore greater power densities.

Both sides called the resolution a victory for the advanced battery market.  Elie Saheb, Executive Vice President, Technology, for H-Q said the agreement “will help accelerate broad-based market penetration of lithium metal phosphate products.”

A123′s CEO, Dave Vieau, called the agreement “a win-win for the entire industry by paving the way for faster adoption” of phosphate-based lithium ion technology.

I’m sure we’re going to see much more cross-licensing activity in clean tech as green patent infringement suits continue to proliferate, move forward and reach resolution.  The LED lighting sector, in particular, with companies patenting different features and components and litigation on the rise, is a likely candidate for cross licensing arrangements.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Energy Storage, Green Patents, IP Litigation