In January and February, there were a number of green patent infringement lawsuits filed in the areas of biofuels, hybrid vehicles, LEDs, smart grid, advanced batteries, solar power, and water meters.
BASF Corporation et al. v. Umicore N.V. et al.
In this lawsuit BASF and UChicago Argonne, LLC accuse Umicore and Makita Corporation of unfair trade practices, antitrust violations, and infringement of two patents relating to cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (’082 Patent) and 6,680,143 (’143 Patent), both entitled “Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries” and directed to a lithium metal oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous lithium cell.
The cell is prepared in its initial discharged state and has a general formula xLiMO2.(1−x)Li2M′O3 in which 0<x<1, and where M is one or more ion with an average trivalent oxidation state and with at least one ion being Mn or Ni, and where M′ is one or more ion with an average tetravalent oxidation state.
According to the complaint, Umicore is selling cathode materials that infringe the ’082 and ’143 Patents, and Makita is one of the companies importing and selling batteries incorporating the materials. The lawsuit was filed February 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
C T E Global, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S
In a complaint filed January 9, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, C T E Global seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two Novozymes patents relating to an enzyme used in biofuel production. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,255,084 (’084 Patent) and 7,060,468 (’468 Patent).
The ’084 and ’468 Patents are entitled “Thermostable glucoamylase” and are directed to an isolated glucoamylase enzyme which has higher thermal stability than prior glucoamylases. The patents also claim starch conversion processes using the enzyme. Glucoamylases are used to convert hydrolyzed corn starch to glucose, particularly in production of ethanol.
Novozymes and C T E previously litigated these patents and settled the case in 2012. According to C T E, the ’084 and ’468 Patents are invalid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court Myriad Genetics decision holding that isolated natural products are not patent eligible subject matter.
Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Solenis Technologies L.P.
This is not a patent infringement suit, but rather a priority /ownership dispute in which Superior Oil claims that the inventors of its patent for a method for recovering oil from the byproducts of ethanol production using various surfactants were the first to invent the technology.
Superior Oil’s patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059, entitled “Bio-based oil composition and method for producing the same” (’059 Patent). In its complaint, Superior Oil requests that the court declare that an interference-in-fact exists between the ’059 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,841,469 (’469 Patent), entitled “Chemical additives and use thereof in stillage processing operations” and owned by Solenis Technologies.
The complaint was filed February 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Somaltus LLC v. Ford Motor Company
Somaltus filed this complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 12, 2015. Somaltus alleges that Ford infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386 (’386 Patent) by selling vehicles equipped with an infringing hybrid battery system.
The ’386 Patent is entitled “Integrated battery service system” and directed to an integrated battery service system that performs a plurality of services related to a battery, such as battery testing, battery charging, and the like. In addition, the integrated service system provides services to devices/components that are coupled to the battery, such as starters, alternators, etc.
Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, has also sued Nissan, Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, Auto Meter Products, and Cadex Electronics.
Cree, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. et al.
North Carolina LED manufacturer Cree sued Feit for alleged infringement of ten utility and design patents relating to LED technologies. The complaint also alleges that Feit has engaged in false advertising in connection with marketing its LED products.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,657,236, entitled “Enhanced light extraction in LEDs through the use of internal and external optical elements”
U.S. Patent No. 6,885,036, entitled “Scalable LED with improved current spreading structures”
U.S. Patent No. 6,614,056, entitled “Scalable led with improved current spreading structures”
U.S. Patent No. 7,312,474, entitled “Group III nitride based superlattice structures”
U.S. Patent No. 7,976,187, entitled “Uniform intensity LED lighting system”
U.S. Patent No. 8,766,298, entitled “Encapsulant profile for light emitting diodes”
U.S. Patent No. 8,596,819, entitled “Lighting device and method of lighting”
U.S. Patent No. 8,628,214, entitled “Lighting device and lighting method”
U.S. Design Patent No. D653,366, entitled “LED lamp”
U.S. Design Patent No. D660,990, entitled “LED lamp”
The complaint includes greenwashing allegations as well, specifically that Feit’s advertising falsely suggests that some of its LED products meet the Energy Star standard relating to Luminous Energy Distribution when the products actually fail to meet this requirement.
Allure Energy, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc.
On January 29, 2015, Allure Energy sued Honeywell in federal court in Austin, Texas, alleging false advertising and infringement of two patents relating to smart thermostat technology.
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,344 and 8,457,797, both entitled “Energy management system and method” and directed to a wireless thermostat responsive to control action data communicated via a mobile app and other home energy management systems.
The accused device is Honeywell’s Lyric smart thermostat product.
Emerson Electric Co. et al. v. SIPCo LLC et al.
In this declaratory judgment (DJ) action, filed January 30, 2015 in federal court in Atlanta, Emerson, one of the defendants in SIPCo’s patent infringement suits, seeks a declaratory judgment that the claims of two SIPCo patents are invalid and not infringed.
The patents listed in Emerson’s complaint are U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062, 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, and U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, which relates to remote monitoring and control systems.
In 2013, Emerson filed a similar DJ suit against SIPCo targeting several patents.
Beacon Power, LLC v. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. et al.
Beacon Power sued SolarEdge for patent infringement on January 9, 2015 in federal court in San Antonio, Texas. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,144 (’144 Patent) and 8,669,675 (’675 Patent), each entitled “Power converter for a solar panel.”
The ’144 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system including a DC-to-DC power converter configured and arranged to convert the raw power output for each solar module to a high voltage and low current output.
The ’675 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system wherein each DC-to-DC power converter is configured and arranged to convert the solar module output power (SOP) for each solar module to a converted solar module output power (COP) having a converted output voltage (COV) that is higher than the SOV and a converted output current (COI) that is lower than the SOI.
The accused products are SolarEdge’s P Series Power Optimizers.
Flow Dynamics, LLC v. Green4All Energy Solutions Inc. et al.
The ’981 Patent is entitled “System for increasing the efficiency of a water meter” and directed to a system and an associated valve assembly adapted to increase the efficiency of an upstream water meter. The valve assembly removes entrained water bubbles from the water supply, increasing the density of the water running through the water meter. This ensures that the water meter is not inaccurately including entrained air as metered water so water readings are more accurate.
Flow Dynamics alleges that Green4All’s H2minusO system infringes the ’981 Patent.