Green Patent Blog®

covering intellectual property issues in clean technology

Archive for the ‘Hybrid and Electric Vehicles’ category

New Prius Has Silicon Sun Roof By Kyocera

June 18th, 2009

Kyocera recently announced that it is supplying solar modules for Toyota’s new solar ventilation system, an optional feature on the new Prius introduced in Japan last month.

The modules will be made using the company’s Reactive Ion Etching (RIE) technology, which creates microscopic ridges on the surface of the solar cell using plasma and reductive gases. According to Kyocera’s press release, the ridges enhance output and conversion efficiency by facilitating better absorption of sunlight.

The process also yields a “high level of aesthetic quality” and “stylish appearance” by providing a uniform dark navy blue color.

This RIE process is covered by Kyocera’s U.S. Patent No. 7,128,975 (’975 patent), entitled “Multicrystalline silicon substrate and process for roughening surface thereof.” The ’975 patent is directed to a multicrystalline silicon substrate and a process for roughening the substrate’s surface using an alkaline aqueous solution etching step and a dry etching step.

According to the ’975 patent, this process overcomes the challenge of forming uniform textures in the irregular crystal orientation of multicrystalline substrates and reduces reflectance:

By this method, fine textures can be uniformly formed independent of the irregular orientation of the crystals of multicrystalline silicon. In particular, reflectance can be more effectively reduced in solar cells using multicrystalline silicon.

The ’975 patent describes a silicon substrate (1) formed by the patented RIE process as having textures (2), or fine textures (22). According to the ’975 patent, the ratio of line a (connecting individual peaks of the fine textures (22)) and line b (connecting the two end points 23 and 24) is less than 1.1, which indicates that the heights of the peaks of the fine textures (22) are even.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, Solar Power

Court Quadruples Ongoing Royalty for Toyota’s Infringing Hybrids

May 8th, 2009

In a previous post, I wrote about Toyota’s infringing hybrid drive train and the Federal Circuit’s order for the district court to reassess its ongoing royalty rate of $25 per infringing vehicle.

That decision affirmed a $4.3 million jury verdict that Toyota’s hybrid drive trains infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970, owned by hybrid technology company Paice LLC (Paice), as an equivalent system but vacated the district court award of a $25 per vehicle ongoing royalty.

Last month, after considering new evidence on damages, Judge David Folsom of the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas ordered the rate increased to about $98 per infringing vehicle, or 0.48% on each Prius, 0.32% on each Toyota Highlander and 0.26% on each Lexus RX400h.

Before stepping in to reset the ongoing royalty rate, the court allowed the parties to go through mediation and exhaust their efforts to set a rate themselves.

According to the court order (paice_royalty_order.pdf), when an injunction is not proper, the question that should guide a court’s determination is ”what amount of money would reasonably compensate a patentee for giving up his right to exclude yet allow an ongoing willful infringer to make a reasonable profit?”

Judge Folsom decided to raise the rate for several reasons: Toyota is now an adjudged infringer; higher oil and gas prices have made Paice’s hybrid technology more valuable and increased Toyota’s hybrid sales; Toyota’s hybrid vehicles help it meet the increased U.S. fuel efficiency standards; and the popularity of the infringing vehicles has enhanced Toyota’s reputation as a green company.

The court’s final calculation was based on application of a 25% “rule of thumb” to Toyota’s profit margin of 9%, which yields an initial figure of 2.25%. The court then reduced that figure by one-third to 1.5% in view of the jury’s award for past damages and because Toyota makes less profit on its hybrid vehicles than its non-hybrids.

Finally, the court excluded the value of the internal combustion engine (ICE) from the royalty base because it is not a core component of Paice’s invention. Taking 1.5% of $6,500 (the value of the hybrid drive train less the ICE as determined by one of the economics experts in the case), the court arrived at a per-vehicle ongoing royalty of $98.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, IP Litigation

A Truly Electric Car Company Files A Truly Unusual Lawsuit

April 28th, 2009

A rather unusual lawsuit was filed last month in San Francisco by a patent attorney named Edward Durney. Mr. Durney is the sole shareholder of a company called A Truly Electric Car Company (ATECC), the plaintiff in the suit.

ATECC names Magna International, Inc. (Magna), Bluwav Systems, LLC (Bluwav) and Paperboy Ventures, LLC (Paperboy) as defendants and requests that a bunch of U.S. patent applications directed to electric vehicle technology be corrected to list Mr. Durney as a co-inventor.

Those applications are:

U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0021437, entitled “Adaptive electric motors and generators providing improved performance and efficiency”

U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0052080, entitled “Adaptive electric car”

U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0045392, entitled “In-wheel electric motors”

U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0046375, entitled “Software-based adaptive control system for electric motors and generators”

U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0127856, entitled “Low-voltage electric motors”

U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0263099, entitled “Electric propulsion system”

According to the complaint (truly_electric_complaint.pdf), Magna, Bluwav and Paperboy misused ATECC’s confidential information to effect a sale of Bluwav to Magna. I spoke to Mr. Durney, who told me that ATECC was set up for the purpose of buying Bluwav, but Magna used the due diligence he performed to step in and buy Bluwav itself.

The most unusual aspect of the case is Mr. Durney’s claims of copyright infringement. Mr. Durney apparently holds copyright registrations for the patent applications at issue: U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TXu1-209-372 covers the work “Four Patent Applications About Electric Motors and Vehicles” and Reg. No. TXu1-256-390 covers “Adaptive Electric Motors and Generators Providing Improved Performance and Efficiency: A Patent Application”.

It seems to me that success on the copyright claim would have no effect on the patent rights because copyright protects only the expression of the idea (i.e., the text of the application), not the idea itself (i.e., the intangible patentable invention). So even if the published patent applications infringe Mr. Durney’s copyrights, the defendants would still own the intangible patented ideas (should the applications issue) and the right to exclude others from practicing the patented inventions.

When I asked Mr. Durney about this, he told me he believes that his copyrighted expression has been violated by the defendants filing the patent applications he prepared (and made inventive contributions to) and having them published. This is an additional way for him to seek the compensation he says was denied him for his work on the applications.

Truly fascinating.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, IP Litigation

Italian Scooter to be First (Affordable) Plug-in Hybrid in U.S.

April 11th, 2009

This Gas 2.0 story reports that Piaggio, an Italian motorbike and scooter manufacturer, will launch its MP3 hybrid 3-wheeler in the U.S. in early 2010.

According to the article, the MP3 would be the first “affordable” plug-in hybrid vehicle of any kind available in the U.S. (I guess that excludes the Tesla Roadster, which sells for over $100K).

The unusual 3-wheel design of the scooter is protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D547,242 (’242 patent). A design patent only protects the ornamental features of a device and primarily consists of figures, like this one in the ’242 patent:

The MP3 hybrid will offer several operating modes, including electric only and three other hybrid modes – one designed to maximize performance, one to minimize fuel consumption and one to quickly recharge the batteries.

U.S. Patent No. 7,351,265 (’265 patent) covers Piaggio’s scooter-size hybrid technology. Entitled “Hybrid drive assembly for a vehicle, in particular a scooter,” the ’265 patent is directed to a compact hybrid drive assembly that can be used in small, low-cost road vehicles but still provides a number of different operating modes.

The ’242 patent describes a hybrid drive assembly (1) for a scooter having a rear drive wheel (2). The drive assembly includes an internal combustion engine (3) having a drive shaft (4). The drive shaft axis (B) is parallel to the drive wheel’s axis of rotation (A).

The transmission unit (5) is located between the drive shaft (4) and a propeller shaft (6). The propeller shaft axis (C) also is parallel to axes A and B. The transmission unit (5) comprises a continuously variable transmission (7).

The drive assembly (1) also has an electric motor (32), which is connected to the vehicle battery (not shown).

A control unit responds to input signals and controls the operating mode of the drive assembly. An all combustion mode provides high performance, and an all-electric mode minimizes fuel consumption.

The internal combustion engine and electric motor also can be adjusted by the control unit to be connected in series (the combustion engine is only used to charge the battery) or in parallel (both the combustion engine and the electric motor provide drive power).

The MP3 hybrid can be charged by plugging it into a standard electrical socket. According to the Gas 2.0 article, the MP2 hybrid will be super fuel efficient (141 mpg) with a price tag of only about $8-9,000.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

California Appeals Court Lets Honda Hybrid Greenwashing Case Go Forward

January 21st, 2009

An interesting case right here in San Diego is highlighting the disparities between the EPA’s estimated automobile mileage data and the actual road figures and whether car owners can adjust their driving habits to bridge the gap (see the Law.com article here).

The case involves allegations of false advertising and deceptive claims by Honda about its Civic Hybrid. The plaintiff, Gaetano Paduano, sued Honda in San Diego County Superior Court in 2005 after he became disappointed with the gas mileage of his 2004 Civic Hybrid (he was getting 23-30 mpg while the EPA number was 48). In response to his inquiries, a Honda employee told him he would have to drastically change his driving habits to boost the mpg.

Paduano brought state and federal warranty claims and California state false advertising and deceptive practices claims relating to statements in Honda’s Civic Hybrid brochures about driving habits and fuel efficiency. The brochure tells drivers that they do not have to do “anything special” to get “terrific gas mileage” and instructs them to:

Just drive the Hybrid like you would a conventional car and save on fuel bills.

In 2006, the trial court ruled that Honda was entitled to summary judgment and dismissed all of Paduano’s claims. The court held that the representations in Honda’s brochure complied with the federal regulations on fuel economy advertising disclosures and that the state deceptive advertising claims were preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the federal law that regulates disclosure of fuel estimates.

Last month, California’s 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed the portion of the summary judgment ruling regarding Paduano’s breach of warranty claims, but reversed as to the deceptive practices and misleading advertising claims, ruling that Paduano could go forward on the latter.

In a 2-1 opinion (paduano_opinion.pdf), the appeals court held that Paduano had put forth enough evidence (and Honda had presented no evidence to the contrary) that a jury could find that the statements in the Honda brochure could mislead a reasonable consumer.

Specifically, a Honda representative told Paduano that “you cannot drive in a normal manner in order to get the mileage” – the “normal manner” being accelerating and stopping with the flow of traffic and “accelerating as by law you’re supposed to [do] to get on the highway.” The record showed that one Honda employee had concluded that “you can’t do any of those [usual] things” if you want to “obtain better gas mileage.”

The court found this evidence contradicted the statements in the brochure that a driver need not do “anything special” to achieve superior gas mileage and called into question Honda’s claim that a consumer just has to drive the Hybrid like he would a conventional car:

There is thus evidence that “getting terrific gas mileage” might not be accomplished as easily as Honda suggests to consumers in its brochure.

So Paduano’s case can go to trial in what could further damage Honda’s green cred. Another dissatisified Civic Hybrid owner brought a class action suit in 2007, alleging that the car maker misled consumers by inflating mpg claims.

Thanks to Stu Soffer for bringing this case to my attention.

Comments Off »

Posted in Greenwashing, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, Unfair Competition

Arbitrator Clears Electric Carmaker in Trade Secrets Case

December 7th, 2008

In a previous post, I wrote about a trade secrets case between two rival electric car startups, Tesla Motors (Tesla) and Fisker Automotive (Fisker).

In the lawsuit, filed in April, Tesla accused Fisker along with its CEO, Henrik Fisker, its COO, Bernhard Koehler, and Mssrs. Fisker and Koehler’s design company, Fisker Coachbuild, of stealing Tesla’s confidential design ideas for a hybrid electric sedan.

Tesla had alleged that Fisker Coachbuild, which Tesla hired to help design a high performance electric-hybrid sports sedan, used confidential information acquired during the engagement to secretly design its own directly competing sedan, the Karma.

Last month Fisker announced that an arbitrator issued an interim award decision absolving the carmaker and the design company of any wrongdoing. The arbitrator’s decision is not public so our only source for the details of the decision is Fisker’s PR department, which didn’t release the grounds for the decision.

According to Fisker’s press release, the arbitrator found Tesla’s trade secrets claim “baseless” and “neither brought nor pursued in good faith.”

The good news for Fisker didn’t end there: the electric carmaker also announced last month that it would open an engineering and development facility in Pontiac, Michigan and that it signed an assembly contract with Valment Automotive to manufacture the Karma in Finland.

Comments Off »

Posted in Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, Trade Secrets

Ford to Explore Wind Turbines on Car Roofs

September 17th, 2008

Most solutions for the clean cars of the future focus on plug-in electric vehicles, fuel cells, biofuels or hydrogen. Last month, Ford added a twist to this mix when it agreed to look at a wind turbine and generator system for motor vehicles invented by Edward Deets (see CitizensVoice.com article).

Deets owns U.S. Patent No. 7,135,786 (’786 patent), which covers a wind-driven generator that can use wind power to charge the battery that runs an electric motor. The ’786 patent describes an enclosure with controllable shrouds (16) that can open and close to channel air to turbine (18).

The rotational energy of the turbine causes an alternator or generator to generate electricity, which charges the storage battery (52). A regulator (50) prevents overcharging of the battery.

According to the CitizensVoice article, Deets, who has a pilot license, was inspired by the use of wind to run electric motors on older airplane models.

Deets and Ford aren’t the only ones exploring the possibility of tapping different renewable energy sources for cars – Sunrise Solar is making a solar-collecting sunroof that could charge a battery or power a vehicle’s air conditioner.

Comments Off »

Posted in Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, Solar Power, Wind Power

Patent Attorney Inventor Accuses Toyota of Infringing Self-Drafted Hybrid Vehicle Patent

September 3rd, 2008

Conrad O. Gardner is a Washington state engineer and patent attorney and the named inventor on eight patents, several of which relate to hybrid vehicle technology.

Gardner recently sued Toyota Motor Corp. (Toyota) in federal court in Seattle, accusing the automaker of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,290,627 (’627 patent), entitled “Extended Range Motor Vehicle Having Ambient Pollutant Processing” by making and selling the second generation Prius, the Camry and the Highlander.

Last month Gardner filed a second amended complaint (complaint) in the suit. The complaint (gardnercomplaint.pdf) notes that the ’627 patent has a very early priority date (based on a parent patent application filed back in April 1992) more than two years before Toyota began investigating the development of a commercial hybrid autombile.

Gardner accuses Toyota of having knowledge of his patented technology as early as January 1994. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) cited a Gardner patent against one of Toyota’s hybrid technology patent applications during prosecution of the Toyota application.

The Gardner complaint is interesting in that it provides a user-friendly infringement analysis by going through the ’627 claim limitations and identifying the allegedly corresponding structural or functional elements in the Prius.

The ’627 claims are directed to a hybrid vehicle control system which controls the relative contribution of driving force from an internal combustion engine and an electric motor by sensing the vehicle’s speed and transferring the driving force contributions accordingly.

Although the ’627 claims don’t sound like cutting edge technology today (the patent issued in November of 2007), remember that the original filing date of the ’627 patent family dates back to 1992. As long as the ’627 claim elements were present in the disclosure of that original application and the patent family continuity chain wasn’t broken, then patentability is determined by comparing the claims to the state of the art in 1992.

In that case, all of the technological advances made since are irrelevant to the validity of the ’627 patent claims. On the validity issues, Toyota probably will try to show that the original parent application’s disclosure does not support the ’627 claims and/or try to break the chain of priority that goes back to the 1992 filing date.

As I’ve tried to highlight in the picture above, Gardner drafts and prosecutes his own patents. In addition to Gardner’s potential financial remuneration from a win against Toyota and his inventor’s pride, if the ’627 patent holds up in court Gardner can also take great pride in his patent drafting skills.

Comments Off »

Posted in Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

Global Hydrogen Inc. Turns Water Into Hydrogen

August 19th, 2008

In view of the cross-country hydrogen vehicle tour last week, it seems like a good time for a post on hydrogen technology. Global Hydrogen, Inc. (GHI) is a small Texas company founded by Dr. Linnard Griffin that says it has developed a more efficient, low-voltage hydrogen production process. (see the Matter Network story)

Dr. Griffin is the named inventor on a family of patent applications covering his hydrogen generation equipment and techniques. U.S. Application Pub. Nos. 2005/0042150 (’150 application) and 2006/0180464 (’464 application) are directed to apparatus and methods for producing hydrogen.

Known reactions for producing hydrogen gas from water and metallic compounds either react too quickly or too slowly to be useful or require very expensive metals of intermediate reactivity. According to the ’150 and ’464 applications, Dr. Griffin’s process makes hydrogen efficiently with relatively inexpensive metals.

The process generates hydrogen from water using a special electrolyte. The reaction uses metal catalysts in colloidal form (i.e., composed of very small particles that are dispersed, but not dissolved, in solution). The tiny size of the catalyst particles results in a large effective surface area that increases contact with other molecules and accelerates the rate of reaction.

The ’150 and ’464 applications describe the electrolyte reaction medium and the electrode construction of the reaction vessel (pictured below). The medium comprises water, an acid or base, two colloidal metal catalysts and an ionic salt.

The reaction occurs in a reaction vessel 100 which has an anode 106 (an electrode that attracts negatively charged ions) and a cathode 104 (an electrode that attracts positively charged ions), each in contact with the reaction medium 102. The anode and cathode are connected to a controller 108, which allows the user to select from a range of hydrogen production rates.

The reaction vessel has an inlet 112 for adding water and an outlet 110 for the hydrogen to escape. The resulting hydrogen can be fed to a fuel cell to produce electric energy.

According to GHI’s web site and its white paper on the technology, this process requires substantially less electricty than the best hydrogen generation technique currently known (41.2 kilowatt hours per kg of hydrogen produced versus 53.4 kWh per kg).

The other obvious advantage of Dr. Griffin’s technology is that it could make hydrogen production from water economical. It would be a big step forward if clean hydrogen production becomes commercially viable – currently the raw materials for most industrial hydrogen generation are fossil fuels.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

Paice Targets Toyota Again with New Hybrid Vehicle Patent

July 18th, 2008

The ink had barely dried on Paice LLC‘s (Paice) new hybrid vehicle patent when the Florida-based hybrid technology company once again accused Toyota of infringement. U.S. Patent No. 7,392,871 (’871 patent) issued on July 1st, and Paice filed suit the same day in federal court in Marshall, Texas.

The bare bones complaint (paicecomplaint.pdf) alleges that Toyota directly infringes the ’871 patent by making and selling the Highlander hybrid SUV and the Lexus RX400h hybrid SUV and that the carmaker induces and contributes to infringement by encouraging others to operate the vehicles. The complaint asks the court for an injunction, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement and an award of attorney fees.

The ’871 patent is the latest in a family of patents that cover improvements upon Paice’s U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (’970 patent). The ’871 patent claims a hybrid vehicle having three AC electric motors each with an AC-DC converter.

The patent explains that providing three motors (one is a starting motor, the other two are traction motors) conveys mechanical and efficiency advantages such as eliminating the need for a fore-and-aft driveshaft and allowing traction control to be centrally accomplished by a microprocessor.

Paice’s assertion of the ’871 patent opens a new front in a series of battles with Toyota. Two prior lawsuits involved the ’970 patent.

In one of those suits, the Prius and other Toyota hybrids were found to infringe and Paice was awarded $4.3 million in damages. (see my previous posts on that case here, here and here). Toyota tried to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supremes refused to hear the case. Another suit, also in the Eastern District of Texas, is pending.