Archive for the ‘IP Litigation’ category

Taiwan Supremes Affirm Revocation of Nichia Design Patent

November 4th, 2011

In previous posts (e.g., here, here and here) I’ve written about Nichia’s LED patent enforcement activity, including a now-settled global patent war with its Korean rival Seoul Semiconductor.

Another long-standing dispute with Taiwanese LED packaging manufacturer Everlight Electronics (Everlight) recently reached its ultimate resolution when Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court (TSAC) dismissed Nichia’s appeal of a lower court decision holding Nichia’s Taiwanese Design Patent No. 089036 (’036 Patent) invalid.

The TSAC decision is reported in this Taiwan Economic News article, and a case study by the Transworld IP firm provides a good discussion of the ruling below by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IP Court).

The TSAC upheld the IP Court’s decision recognizing the revocation of the ’036 Patent on the ground that the claimed design lacked creativity.

According to the Transworld piece, in Taiwan any design, including a shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof, with “eye-appeal” is eligible for design patent protection. However, a certain level of creativity beyond that of the person of ordinary skill in the art is required for the design patent to be valid.

The Transworld article says the IP Court found that creativity lacking in Nichia’s ’036 Patent and revoked the patent:

Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Court finally upheld that even [though] the design patent at issue differs from the prior art, it can . . . easily be accomplished by any ordinary skilled person in the field of Light Emitting Diode (LED). Hence, the design patent issue is revoked by having no creativity.

With the ’036 Patent revoked, the accused Everlight products obviously were not found to infringe the patent.

Nichia has asserted LED design patents before. The U.S. litigation with Seoul centered on four design patents.

Although the patents were held to be infringed, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Nichia’s motion for an injunction because there were only de minimis sales of what had become an obsolete accused product.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Will Duke’s Order Blow Away the Cloud Hanging Over Mitsubishi’s 2.4 MW Turbine?

November 2nd, 2011

I’ve written extensively about the patent infringement and antitrust litigation between wind power rivals GE and Mitsubishi (see, e.g., previous posts here and here).

While that legal battle spans multiple venues, encompasses several different patents, and includes many patent and antitrust issues, the heart of the dispute is the allegation that Mitsubishi’s 2.4 MW turbine infringes GE’s patented technologies.

More particularly, GE has asserted infringement of its patented variable speed technology, particularly as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,083,039, a seminal patent relating to methods for enabling turbines to efficiently feed power from wind of variable speeds into the utility grid.

Another key patent asserted by GE is U.S. Patent No. 7,321,221, relating to low voltage ride through technology for stabilizing the supply voltage to a wind turbine after voltage drops without jeopardizing the electrical components of the turbine.

In its antitrust case against GE, Mitsubishi has alleged that GE’s patent infringement claims are baseless and are intended to intimidate Mitsubishi’s potential customers.

According to Mitsubishi, its $2 billion in annual U.S. sales of variable speed wind turbines has dropped to zero since initiation of the first patent infringement suit in early 2008.

In a glimmer of good news for Mitsubishi, Windpower Monthly recently reported that at least one customer is undeterred by the cloud over Mitsubishi’s 2.4 MW turbine.

According to the article, the utility Duke Energy has ordered 202 MW of the controversial turbines for its Los Vientos II wind project in Texas. The article says it is the first order since the advent of the patent dispute with GE.

It will be interesting to see if this vote of confidence by Duke clears away the cloud over Mitsubishi’s 2.4 MW turbine and leads to more orders.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Wind Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

October 28th, 2011

Two green patent lawsuits have been filed in the last few weeks in the areas of smart grid and solar.

Smart Grid

Sensus USA Inc. v. Nxegen LLC

Sensus USA filed a complaint (Sensus-Nxegen_Complaint) against Nxegen on October 19, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Sensus asserts two patents against Nxegen, U.S. Patent No. 5,438,329 (’329 Patent), entitled “Duplex Bi-Directional Multi-Mode Remote Instrument Reading and Telemetry System,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,012,546, entitled “Modular Wireless Fixed Network for Wide-Area Metering Data Collection and Meter Module Apparatus” (’546 Patent).

The ‘546 Patent covers a transmitting device connected to a gas or water meter which transmits signals relaying data related to the meter. The ‘329 Patent covers a receiver designed to receive signals transmitted by a remote transmitter (such as described in the ‘546 Patent).

The receiver described in the ‘329 Patent can be located in either a fixed or remote station, enabling a vehicle to remotely receive utility data by merely driving by a meter. Figure 1 of the ’329 Patent depicts the different possible configurations.

This is the second lawsuit in a growing legal battle in which the two companies are each asserting patents against each other. A previous post discussed a patent infringement complaint Nxegen filed a against Sensus in July.

Solar

HeliOptix LLC v. Enfocus Engineering Corp.

HeliOptix, a New York manufacturer of building integrated solar energy systems, filed a complaint (Helioptix_Complaint) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 14, 2011 accusing its California competitor, Enfocus Engineering (Enfocus), of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,190,531 (‘531 Patent).

The ‘531 Patent is entitled ”Concentrating Type Solar Collection and Daylighting System within Glazed Building Envelopes.” The system utilizes a plurality of miniaturized solar modules, a focusing lens and an activating mechanism attached to the solar modules for actively tracking the sun.

Figure 4A depicts the concentrating lens (220) and the solar cell (202).

The system is designed to utilize concentrated solar energy to provide both electric and thermal energy, and to reduce the solar gain within a building. The system utilizes a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight onto a photovoltaic cell mounted at a distance from the lens. In addition, the collected solar energy can also be used for thermal energy production.

The solar collectors are miniaturized in order to enable them to be mounted in a building façade, preferably between window panes as depicted in Figure 10A.

Due to the size of the solar modules and their spacing, daylight is able to pass through the system to light a room.

The accused product is EnFocus’s Diamond-Power Solar Panel.

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, IP Litigation, Smart Grid, Solar Power

Westinghouse ITC Complaint Against Zep Shines Light on Past Litigation

October 21st, 2011

Previous posts (here and here) discussed the patent litigation pending in federal court between solar installation competitors Akeena Solar (now Westinghouse Solar) and Zep Solar (Zep) involving two Westinghouse patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,406,800 (‘800 Patent) and 7,987,641 (‘641 Patent).

Westinghouse recently opened a new front in this patent battle when it filed a complaint (Westinghouse-Zep_Complaint) against Zep and Canadian Solar (Canadian) with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

The complaint accuses Zep and Canadian of infringing the ‘800 Patent and the ‘641 Patent and licensing the patents to certain unnamed Chinese manufacturers.

Both the patents at issue cover what Westinghouse refers to as the “Andalay System,” a solar power system which includes solar panels with integrated racking, wiring and grounding (DC solar panels), and integrated microinverters (AC solar panels) for residential and commercial customers.

The accused Zep system employs the company’s “Zep Groove,” which makes the panel itself part of the racking hardware via a specially grooved frame. This innovation eliminates rails and uses the module frame as the structural and mounting element.

Westinghouse asserts that Zep has infringed Claims 6 and 10 of the ‘800 patent and Claim 1 of the ‘641 patent. Claims 6 and 10 of the ‘800 patent cover a splice, which connects two solar modules, and a wiring connection that prevents improper wiring. Claim 1 of the ‘641 patent covers another splice connector.

The ’800 Patent describes a mounting system for a solar panel (100). FIG. 2 shows three modules (102A-102C) coupled together to form an integrated system. A splice (104e) mechanically connects one module to another and provides the electrical grounding connection between the solar modules.

In the example shown in FIG. 2B, an east-west splice (104) connects modules (102A and 102B). The splice (104) is a tapered conductive metal to provide the grounding between modules and is grooved for easy screw insertion. The splice (104) precisely aligns the modules and allows for compression of connector sockets to complete the electrical connection between adjacent modules.

According to the ’800 Patent, the splice (104) provides several useful features, including mechanical rigidity between modules, an alignment method between modules and a grounding path that eliminates the need to run a grounding wire between the modules.

Westinghouse Solar’s ITC complaint seeks an investigation into both Zep and Canadian, a permanent exclusion order barring certain of their products from being imported into the United States, and a cease and desist order prohibiting the importation, sale, offer for sale, advertising, or the soliciting of the accused products.

Zep CEO, Mike Miskovshy, stated the claims by Westinghouse are groundless and misleading. Miskovsky also noted that Zep Solar has its own patents for solar installation techniques which predate the Westinghouse patents.

Defending itself in the prior federal court suit, Zep filed a request to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for reexamination of the ‘800 Patent. The USPTO granted the request for reexamination on April 9, 2010 and the court stayed the case five days later, pending the outcome of the USPTO’s reexamination.

As a result of the reexamination, the USPTO canceled 9 of the 12 claims (claims 1-4, 7-9, 11 and 12) of the ‘800 patent. Zep has filed for reexamination of the remaining three claims. The second reexamination is still pending.

Westinghouse moved to lift the stay but the court denied the motion pending results of the second ‘800 patent reexamination.

Zep also filed a request for reexamination of the ‘641 patent. On September 23, 2011, the USPTO cancelled all three claims of the ‘641 patent. No further action has been taken regarding the ‘641 patent claim rejection.

Nevertheless, Westinghouse’s ITC complaint accuses Zep of infringing dependent claims 6 and 10 of the ‘800 patent. Independent claim 1, from which claims 6 and 10 depend, has been canceled and the USPTO is currently reexamining both claims 6 and 10 of the ’800 patent.

The complaint also accuses Zep of infringing claim 1 of the ‘641 patent, which has been canceled.

Westinghouse’s filing with the ITC could be seen as an attempt to seek alternative relief while the federal court case is stalled.

The ITC provides patentees with the potential to stop the importation of the accused devices into the United States under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In particular, Westinghouse may be hoping to take advantage of the ITC remedy of an exclusion order, which stops infringing goods at the U.S. border.

The ITC complaint also suggests the move to the ITC was prompted by Zep’s licensing of the accused technology to foreign manufacturers.

However, it seems unlikely that the ITC would issue a ruling until the USPTO rules on the reexamination of the remaining three claims of the ‘800 patent.

This move by Westinghouse and the internationalization of this patent dispute to include Chinese licensees comes at a time of rising trade tensions between the United States and China as the U.S. Congress is considering taxing Chinese imports, and in light of a recent industrial espionage lawsuit filed against Sinovel, a Chinese wind energy manufacturer.

Treasury Secretary Geithner recently made some public comments accusing China of “systematic stealing intellectual property of American companies.”

The ITC should decide whether to initiate a formal investigation within the next 30 days.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

Court Issues Mixed Claim Construction Ruling in Ethanol Processing Patent Case

October 20th, 2011

A previous post reported on the consolidation of a number of patent infringement suits brought by GreenShift and its New York subsidiary, GS Cleantech, against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States.

GreenShift has accused the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent), entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems.”

The ’858 Patent is directed 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.

According to the ’858 Patent, whole stillage contains valuable oil but prior processes for recovering this oil have been expensive or inefficient.

GreenShift’s patented method includes mechanically separating the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage and then running the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated byproduct, or syrup. The syrup is fed through a second centrifuge, which separates usable corn oil from the syrup.

In September 2010 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted GreenShift’s motion to consolidate the 11 actions in the Southern District of Indiana.

Recently, the court issued a “Markman” decision (GS-Markman-Order), a claim construction order that provides the court’s interpretations of key disputed terms of the patent claims.

There were several terms of the ’858 Patent claims at issue, the most important of which were ”concentrated byproduct”, “concentrate”, “thin stillage concentrate” and ”concentrated thin stillage” (collectively construed by the court as “the Concentrate Terms”), as well as ”mechanically processing”.

In one instance, the court adopted the defendants’ narrower proposed construction. In the other, it went with GreenShift’s broader proposed definition.

The question in interpreting the Concentrate Terms was essentially what the byproduct or concentrated substance is. GreenShift argued that it is any product consisting of water, oil and solids, while the defendants contended it should be limited to a syrup.

The court agreed with the defendants and construed the Concentrate Terms to mean “syrup containing water, oil, and solids resulting from the concentrating or evaporating process.”

According to the court, this interpretation “naturally aligns” the claim language with the description in the ’858 Patent, which uses the terms “concentrate” and “syrup” interchangeably to identify the composition described by the Concentrate Terms.

The court construed the term “mechanically processing” to mean “to subject to a mechanical device (or devices) to effect a particular result.” Despite defendants’ contention that the term means “processing with a centrifuge,” the court agreed with GreenShift that the plain meaning of the term requires a broader construction.

As discussed before in this space, the claim construction phase of patent litigation is extemely important, often leading to settlement or dismissal on summary judgment.

With what appears to be a mixed ruling leaving no clear winner, it will be interesting to see what happens next in this major biofuels litigation.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Green Patents, IP Litigation

TP Tops Despatch as Court Rules Up is Not Down

October 9th, 2011

A previous post discussed a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Despatch Industries (Despatch) against TP Solar (TP) involving manufacturing equipment used for heat-treating silicon wafers for solar cells.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,514,650, entitled “Continuous infrared furnace” and directed to a furnace for treating material with infrared radiation which has a mechanism to allow easy access to interior components (’650 Patent).

In a recent decision (TP_SJ_Decision), U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real granted TP’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case, holding that TP neither literally infringed the ’650 Patent nor infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.

The court construed claim 1 of the ’650 Patent, the only independent claim, according to the plain meaning of the claim terms.

Thus, according to Judge Real, claim 1 required four elements: (1) a heat transfer zone having an upper portion and a lower portion; (2) a conveyor; (3) a jack that allows movement of the lower portion of the heat transfer zone; and (4) a condenser with a removable heat transfer element.

The court held that the TP furnace did not literally infringe the ’650 Patent because it does not satisfy the third element of claim 1.

Specifically, the heat transfer element condenser of the TP device has a top-lift access feature whereas claim 1 requires bottom access by movement of the lower portion.

Further, the court held the TP device did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Despatch argued that the relative movement by a fixed lower portion and a movable top is essentially the same as a fixed upper portion with a movable bottom.

Judge Real disagreed. According to the court, Despatch’s equivalents theory would eliminate the movement of the lower portion required by claim 1 and would impermissibly expand the scope of the claim.

According to TP’s press release (TP-Release), the company’s furnaces are popular in Asia, and this win means the company’s Asian customers will not experience any delivery disruptions.

If nothing else, this decision reaffirms the importance of claim construction to the disposition of patent cases and stands for the unremarkable proposition, noted by both TP and Judge Real, that “up is not down.”

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

In Changing Chinese Wind Market AMSC-Sinovel Dispute Will Test IP Enforcement

October 7th, 2011

In what is emerging as a major green IP story, not just of technology but of international intrigue, American Superconductor (AMSC) recently filed two lawsuits against its erstwhile customer, Chinese wind energy system maker Sinovel.

Both cases involve allegations that a former AMSC employee who was arrested in Austria in July was indirectly paid by Sinovel for portions of AMSC’s wind turbine control software source code. The control software was developed by AMSC for use with Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines.

The employee later pled guilty to charges of passing the code to Sinovel.

AMSC accuses Sinovel of unauthorized use of the turbine control software source code and the binary code, or upper layer, of its software for the PM3000 power converters in the 1.5 MW turbines.

AMSC also believes the former employee illegally used the source code to develop a software modification so Sinovel could circumvent the encryption and remove technical protection measures on certain power converters used with the turbines.

Wind technology and wind patent expert Philip Totaro, principal at Totaro & Associates, said the disputed technology relates to “the low-voltage ride through (LVRT) capability, which provides stability of the wind turbine/farm in case of voltage fluctuation or drop-out on the grid.”

Totaro had this to add about the significance of the technology at issue to Sinovel in the context of an evolving Chinese wind industry:

The Chinese grid requirements related to LVRT capability have evolved due to the large-scale deployment of wind turbines on their grid, and stability has become an increasing issue. Anyone who cannot meet the new grid requirements will not receive permits/approval to deploy their turbines. With the size of a company like Sinovel (named #2 in market share globally based on 2010 sales volume) and the ongoing capital and operating revenue required to sustain their business, they are obligated to maintain their sales volumes or be forced into massive layoffs and downsizing. This challenge was made even more difficult since the Chinese market demand has decreased in the past 10 months and [Sinovel] had a volume supply contract with AMSC for converters with the LVRT capability.

According to a recent AMSC SEC filing, the allegations are the basis of two IP actions AMSC is seeking to file against Sinovel in China. AMSC submitted a first civil action application to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court for copyright infringement and a second civil action application to the Beijing Higher People’s Court for trade secret infringement.

However, in a reflection of the uncertainty surrounding enforcement of intellectual property rights in China, the SEC filing indicates that in each case the court must accept AMSC’s application for the case to proceed, “and there can be no assurance that the court will do so.”

In a related case, AMSC filed a copyright infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court against Dalian Guotong Electric (Guotong) and wind farm operator Huaneng Hainan Power.

According to the SEC filing, this complaint alleges that the defendants replaced AMSC”s PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind turbines with converters produced by Guotong and are using the replacement converters in conjunction with AMSC’s control software.

In light of the volume of clean tech business, technology transfer, and IP licensing done in China, these will be important cases to watch as barometers of IP enforcement there.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made a recent statement about IP theft in China, expressing the importance of the issue and the U.S.’s frustration with this trend.

Comments Off »

Posted in Copyrights, IP Litigation, Trade Secrets, Wind Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 30th, 2011

Several green patent lawsuits have been filed in the last two weeks in the areas of biofuels, energy storage, smart grid, LEDs and environmental remediation.

Biofuels

Genifuel Corporation et al. v. Oyler

This is an inventorship dispute over numerous patent applications relating to production of fuel and fertilizers from algae, including two that have issued as U.S. Patents Nos. 7,905,930 and 7,977,076.

In the complaint (Genifuel-Complaint), filed September 15, 2011 in the District of Utah, the Salt Lake City biomass-to-fuels company Genifuel requests an order declaring the defendant is not an inventor of the disputed IP.

Energy Storage – Batteries and Fuel Cells

Lester Electrical Inc. v. Diversified Power Int’l

The complaint (LesterElectrical-Complaint) was filed September 26, 2011 in the District of Nebraska.

Lester Electrical, a Nebraska industrial battery charger company, accuses Diversified Power of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,114,833 (’833 Patent). The ’833 Patent is entitled “Monitoring and controlling system for battery and battery charger” and is directed to battery charging and control technology for battery-operated vehicles.

Limnia, Inc. v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. et al.

By this complaint (Limnia-Complaint), filed September 13, 2011 in the Central District of California, San Francisco-based hydrogen fuel cell maker Limnia asserts four patents (and, oddly, one pending patent application) against Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), United Technologies and AeroVironment.

The patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 7,011,768, entitled “Methods for hydrogen storage using doped alanate compositions,” 7,169,489, entitled “Hydrogen storage, distribution, and recovery system,” 7,279,222, entitled “Solid state hydrogen storage systems,” and 7,399,325, entitled “Method and apparatus for a hydrogen fuel cassette distribution and recovery system.”

The accused products are ECD’s metal hydride storage containers and solid hydrogen storage canisters, United Technologies’ alanate hydrogen storage systems, metal hydride systems and polymer-dispersed metal hydride systems, and a host of AeroVironment’s energy systems, electric vehicle charging solutions, and passenger and fleet electric vehicle charging systems.

LEDs

Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC v. Cree, Inc.

In this declaratory judgment action (Dow-Cree_Complaint), filed September 27, 2011 in the Eastern District of Michigan, DCCSS requests judicial declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of three Cree patents relating to silicon carbide wafers used as precursors for semiconductors.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,294,324, entitled “Low basal plane dislocation bulk grown SiC wafers,” U.S. Patent No. 7,314,520, entitled “Low 1c screw dislocation 3 inch silicon carbide wafer,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,314,521, entitled “Low micropipe 100 mm silicon carbide wafer.” The patents are directed to silicon carbide wafers having certain diameters and dislocation densities and methods of making such wafers.

Smart Grid

TransData, Inc. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.

This complaint (TransData-Oklahoma_Complaint), filed September 16, 2011 in the Western District of Oklahoma, is the latest in a flurry of lawsuits by Texas smart meter company TransData against a number of utilities in the southeastern United States. Details on the other TransData suits can be found in a previous post.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 6,181,294 (’294 Patent), 6,462,713 (’713 Patent) and 6,903,699 (’699 Patent), which relate to antenna and wireless communication devices for use with electric meters. The ’294, ’713 and ’699 Patents are related patents which trace back to an original 1998 filing date. They describe early solutions for wireless transmission of electrical consumption data.

Environmental Remediation

Atlantis Holding Company, LLC et al. v. Pine Environmental Services, Inc.

Atlantis, Summit Holding Company and Aquarius Holdings Company (d/b/a Proactive Environmental Products) sued environmental monitoring solutions provider Pine Environmental Services (PES) on September 28, 2011 in the District of Maryland (Atlantis-Complaint).

Proactive makes replaceable stainless steel motors for groundwater sampling equipment, and the plaintiffs accuse PES of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,584,785, entitled “Groundwater sampling device” (’785 Patent). The ’785 Patent is directed to a replaceable internal electric motor for a groundwater sampling device, the motor including means to align it with an alignment pin of the groundwater sampling device.

The complaint also includes allegations of trademark infringement and counterfeiting based on U.S. trademark registrations for several marks, including PROACTIVE, PROACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS, MONSOON, TYPHOON and HURRICANE for motors and pumps.

Recycling & Waste Management

R360 Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Scott Environmental Services, Inc.

From the Sow’s Ear to Silk Purse Department comes this suit involving U.S. Patent No. 8,007,581 (’851 Patent), entitled “Incorporation of drilling cuttings into stable load-bearing structures” and directed to processes for recycling drill cuttings from oil drilling equipment and converting them into high-load-bearing civil engineering structures such as vehicle roads and drilling pads.

By its complaint (R360-Complaint), filed September 16, 2011 in the Southern District of Texas, R360 requests a decaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’581 Patent.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Smart Grid

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 16th, 2011

Several new green patent complaints have been filed recently in the areas of biofuels, smart grid, LEDs, solar manufacturing materials, and waste water treatment. Here’s a run down:

Biofuels

Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo

The complaint (Butamax-Gevo_DJComplaint) was filed August 9, 2011 in the District of Delaware.

Butamax, a joint venture between BP and DuPont, accuses Gevo of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889, entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols,” and directed to methods for producing isobutanol by fermentive growth of a recombinant yeast microorganism.

This is the second patent infringement suit filed by Butamax against Gevo. I covered the first complaint here.

Smart Grid

Nxegen v. Sensus USA

The complaint (Nxegen-Complaint) was filed July 29, 2011 in the District of Connecticut.

Nxegen asserts two related patents against Sensus, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,633,823 and 7,135,956, entitled “System and method for monitoring and controlling energy use” and directed to systems and methods for monitoring and controlling power use among a number of facilities to reduce a real-time aggregate power load across the facilities.

The accused products include the FlexNet Advanced Metering re Infrastructure (AMI) solution.

IP Co. (Intus IQ) v. Ingersoll-Rand et al.

The complaint (Intus-Ingersoll_Complaint) was filed August 25, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Intus asserts two related patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,044,062 and 6,249,516, entitled “Wireless network gateway and method for providing same,” and directed to certain wireless network systems having a server providing a gateway between two networks.

The other named defendants are Schlage Lock Company, Trane and Schneider Electric

Intus is a patent licensing company and appears to b e related to Sipco, which has been a patent enforcement spree, including suits against utilities, smart meter companies, and EV charging companies.

ICH Intellectual Capital Holdings v. Badger Meter et al.

The complaint, filed September 8, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, accuses a host of smart meter players of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,248,181, entitled “Automated meter reading system” and directed to an automated meter reading system adapted to facilitate readings by an operator walking or driving close to the system at a low power level and at a frequency in an unlicensed frequency band.

The other named defendants are Mueller Water Products, Transparent Technologies, Metron-Farnier, Tantalus, ESCO Technologies, Aclara Power-Line Systems, Landis+Gyr, Trilliant, Tropos, and the City of Winnsboro, Texas.

ICH appears to be a non-practicing patentee.

LEDs

SemiLEDS v. Cree

The complaint (SemiLEDS-Complaint) was filed August 15, 2011 in the District of Delaware.

SemiLEDS accuses Cree of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,615,789, entitled “Vertical light emitting diode device structure” and directed to a vertical light-emitting diode structure utilizing a spacer to separate the p-doped layer from the active layer and U.S. Patent No. 7,646,033, entitled “Systems and methods for producing white-light emitting diodes” and directed to a vertical light-emitting diode structure having a wafer level phosphor layer parallel to a gallium nitride layer.

In the increasingly common tit-for-tat LED patent litigation wars, SemiLEDS fights back here after being sued by Cree in April for alleged infringement of “flip-chip” mounted LEDs.

Waste Management / Water Filtration

Salsnes Filter v. M2 Renewables

The complaint (Salsnes-Complaint) was filed August 18, 2011 in the Central District of California.

Salsnes asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,942,786, entitled “Cleaning device for waste water” and directed to a waste water cleaning device having an endless filtering belt and a blowoff device to remove contamination from the belt.

The named defendants are M2 Renewables and Nepsus Environmental, and the accused devices are the M2 Microscreen and Nepsus CBUM Process at the Adelanto, California waste water treatment plant and the M2 Microscreen at the ProLogis-Fontana, California Kaiser Steel waste water treatment plant.

Solar

du Pont v. Heraeus

The complaint (DuPont-Heraeus_Complaint), filed September 2, 2011 in the District of Delaware, asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,767,254, entitled “Paste for solar cell electrode and solar cell” and directed to a method of making an electrode for a solar cell by applying a conductive paste comprising silver particles.

du Pont alleges that Heraeus’s manufacture and use of its H94XX and H92XX series of pastes infringes the ’254 Patent.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Smart Grid, Solar Power, Water Filtration

TransData Doubles Smart Meter Suits as Patent Enforcement Heads East

September 1st, 2011

In a previous post, I wrote about Texas smart meter company TransData‘s patent infringement suit against CoServ, a Texas utility.

TransData recently extended its patent enforcement activity from Texas in an easterly direction through the southeastern United States, filing complaints against utilities in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.

The targets are the Alabama Power Company (TransData-AlabamaPower_Complaint), the Georgia Power Company (TransData-GeorgiaPower_Complaint), and the Mississippi Power Company (TransData-MissPower_Complaint).

Each complaint asserts U.S. Patents Nos. 6,181,294 (’294 Patent), 6,462,713 (’713 Patent) and 6,903,699 (’699 Patent), which relate to antenna and wireless communication devices for use with electric meters.

The ’294, ’713 and ’699 Patents are related patents which trace back to an original 1998 filing date. They describe early solutions for wireless transmission of electrical consumption data.

In particular, the patents are directed to electric meters (100) and an antenna (170, 270) for use with the electric meters. The antenna includes antenna elements (172, 174, 272, 274) located within a dielectric housing (120, 220) and a balance circuit (176, 276).

The balance circuit (176, 276) mechanically supports the antenna elements (172, 174, 272, 274) so the antenna elements can cooperate and act as a dipole.

According to the patents’ specification:

The present invention . . . introduces the broad concept of outfitting an electric meter with an internal, wireless communications antenna, allowing the electric meter circuitry within the meter to communicate via a data network wirelessly couplable thereto.

According to the complaints, the devices that infringe or may infringe the asserted patents are Sensus iCon electric meters, Elster Alpha A3 and REX electric meters, and meters with SmartSynch wireless modules.

With these three new complaints, there are now at least six pending TransData infringement suits involving the same patents. In addition to the CoServ case, the new complaints list two other cases in the Eastern District of Texas against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and Tri-County Electric Cooperative.

Comments Off »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Smart Grid

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »