A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several months in the areas of hybrid electric vehicles, ethanol production, LEDs, water treatment, and exhaust treatment catalysts. This post covers new lawsuits filed from late 2013 to the end of March 2014.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company
After major success asserting its patents against Toyota, the HEV development and licensing company Paice is at it again. On February 19, 2014, Paice sued Ford Motor Company for patent infringement in federal court in Baltimore.
The rather lengthy complaint accuses Ford of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, 7,559,388, 8,214,097, and 7,455,134. These patents are part of a large family tracing priority all the way back to 1999. Each patent is entitled “Hybrid vehicles” and relates to hybrid vehicles and associated control systems.
In its complaint, Paice lays out the details of, among other things, its collaborative relationship with Ford and how it soured. The accused products are Ford’s Fusion hybrid and plug-in hybrid, C-Max hybrid and plug-in hybrid, and Lincoln MKZ.
Biofuels (Ethanol Production)
GS Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol Stockton LLC
GS Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley, LLC et al.
GS recently initiated two new lawsuits involving its patented ethanol production processes. A complaint filed March 17, 2014 in federal court in Sacramento, California accused Pacific Ethanol Stockton of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems” (’858 Patent).
The next day, GS sued Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The Idaho complaint asserted the ‘858 Patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,516 and8,283,484, each entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems,” and as U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517, entitled “Method of recovering oil from thin stillage.”
The patents relate to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production using the process of dry milling, which creates a waste stream comprised of byproducts called whole stillage.
GS has been on an aggressive patent enforcement campaign over the last several years. Multiple actions were consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana, where the asserted patents were construed and re-construed.
Luminus Devices, Inc. v. LED Engin, Inc.
Making its first green patent litigation appearance (to my knowledge), Massachusetts based Luminus Devices sued LED Engin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Filed back in November 2013, the complaint accuses LED Engin of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,170,100 (‘100 Patent). Entitled “Packaging designs for LEDs,” the ‘100 Patent is directed to an array of LEDs and an LED package.
The package includes a layer configured so that at least about 75% of the light that that emerges from the LED and impinges on the layer passes through the layer. The layer is disposed such that a distance between the surface of the LED and a surface of the layer nearest to the surface of the LED is from about five microns to about 400 microns.
The accused products are several LED emitters allegedly made and sold by LED Engin.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Cooper Lighting, LLC
On February 6, 2014 Florida LED lighting company Lighting Science Group (LSG) sued rival Cooper Lighting for patent infringement in federal court in Orlando.
The complaint alleges that Cooper infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (‘968 Patent) by its manufacture and sale of the Halo LED Recessed White Surface Disk Light products.
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.
Envirogen Technologies, Inc. v. Maxim Construction Corporation
Envirogen Technologies, a Texas company that makes water purification systems, recently filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and patent infringement against Maxim Construction.
Filed March 25, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint lists three patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,309,436 (‘436 Patent), 6,878,286 (‘286 Patent) and 7,041,223 (‘223 Patent).
Entitled “High efficiency ion exchange system for removing contaminants from water,” the ‘286 and ‘223 Patents are related and are directed to a fixed bed ion exchange water purification system that combines features of single fixed bed ion exchange systems with those of a moving bed system.
The ‘436 Patent is entitled “Process for removing perchlorate ions from water streams” and directed to methods and systems for removing perchiorate from water.
According to the complaint, Maxim failed to make all payments under a contract to purchase an Envirogen water purification system, and therefore its use of the system is unlicensed and infringing.
Exhaust Treatment Catalysts
EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
EmeraChem Holdings, a Tennessee-based company that creates catalysts for gas and liquid fuels, sued Volkswagen in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee on March 31, 2014.
The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.:
5,451,558, entitled “Process for the reaction and absorption of gaseous air pollutants, apparatus therefor and method of making the same”;
5,599,758, entitled “Reduction of absorbed nitrogen oxides by reaction with gas flow containing hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide”;
5,953,911, entitled “Regeneration of catalyst/absorber”;
6,037,307 , entitled “Catalyst/sorber for treating sulfur compound containing effluent”: and
7,951,346, entitled “Methods and systems for reducing particulate matter in a gaseous stream”.
According to the complaint, Volkswagen’s diesel powered vehicles equipped with exhaust treatment systems, NOx storage catalyst, and other exhaust treatment catalysts infringe one or more of the patents.