Archive for the ‘Solar Power’ category

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.”

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.

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.

Green Patents for Sale: Evergreen’s String Ribbon PV Process

September 10th, 2011

 

Evergreen Solar (Evergreen), a Massachusetts silicon PV maker, recently announced that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and would try to sell its assets under the reorganization.

According to the Greentech Media report, those assets include “the String Ribbon technology that is at the core of Evergreen’s existence.”  Without String Ribbon, Michael Kanellos wrote, “Evergreen’s assets are more generic,” and if the technology can be sold off, “there won’t be a lot left to reorganize.”

So what is String Ribbon, and what are the technology assets that are up for sale?

According to Cleantech PatentEdge™, Evergreen is the assignee of 59 patents and published patent applications in the U.S. and abroad.

The String Ribbon technology is covered, at least in part, by a family of at least three patents – U.S. Patents Nos. 6,814,802, 7,022,180 and 7,507,291, each entitled “Method and apparatus for growing multiple crystalline ribbons from a single crucible” (collectively “Ribbon Patents”).

The basic ribbon technology, before the invention of the Ribbon Patents, is shown in FIG. 1A.  It involved continuous growth of a single ribbon of silicon sheet material (17) drawn through a single crucible (11). 

Inside the crucible (11) is a melt (12) of silicon and a pair of strings (15) extending through the crucible (11). 

The cooler liquid silicon crystallizes at the top of the meniscus (19), and the strings (15) become incorporated in and define the edge boundaries (18a, 18b) of the crystalline ribbon (17).

According to the Background section of the Ribbon Patents, the continuous growth of silicon ribbon obviates the need for slicing of bulk produced silicon to form wafers.

Instead of just one ribbon at a time, the invention of the Ribbon Patents enables continuous and concurrent growth of multiple semiconductor ribbons from a single crucible.

Figure 2A, for example, shows a continuous two-ribbon dual growth system (20) including a crucible (21) having a melt (22) of silicon and two pairs of strings (25a, 25b) extending through the crucible. 

Each of the pairs of string (25a, 25b) has a fixed distance between the strings.  Two crystalline ribbons (27a, 27b) of silicon are drawn from the melt (22) as the cooler liquid silicon crystallizes at the tops of the menisci (29a, 29b). 

The pairs of strings (25a, 25b) pass through holes in the bottom of the crucible and become incorporated in and define the edge boundaries of the crystalline ribbons (27a, 27b).

Additional embodiments, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, include meniscus shapers (3a, 3b) placed around the two pairs of strings (35a, 35b) to partition the melt (32) to form subregions (3c, 3d) from which two ribbons (37a, 37b) grow.

The Ribbon Patents also teach a nine-ribbon growth system, shown in FIG. 6, which includes nine pairs of strings, nine meniscus shapers (6a-6i), and an afterheater (64).

According to the Ribbon Patents, the disclosed methods and apparatus allow for a substantially better rate of production and efficiency and reduce capital, material, and labor costs. 

But the Greentech Media piece points out that adopting the ribbon technology requires some changes to standard manufacturing processes, and the wafers and cells produced by the ribbon process are sized differently than those made by conventional manufacturing methods.

It will be interesting to see how much green will be offered for these green patents.

Guest Post: Concentrated Solar Energy from a Crystal Ball (Lens)?

July 24th, 2011

 

REhnu (pronounced “renew”) is a company based in Tucson, Arizona that makes and sells concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) solar energy systems.

The company believes that the greatest energy for the least cost may consist in first greatly concentrating solar energy (1200x), and then converting it to electricity utilizing highly efficient triple-junction photovoltaic cells.

The company’s technology is described in at least three pending patent applications:  U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2009/0277440 (‘440 Application), 2009/0277498 (‘498 Application), and 2009/0277224 (‘224 Application).  Rehnu CEO and University of Arizona astronomy professor Dr. Roger P. Angel is a named inventor on each of the applications.

A solar tracker “module” has eight large dish reflectors (1) and 36-cell receivers pointed at the sun by a stiff, lightweight frame. Each of REhnu’s reflectors (1) is made from a single, back-silvered glass sheet, 3.1m per side.

The glass is produced in the factory as flat sheets, 3.3 m square according to processes described in the ’224 Application, allowing for use of economical float glass.

Fig. 1. Full-size two-axis solar tracker module disclosed in the ‘440 Application, entitled “Solar concentrator apparatus with large, multiple co-axial dish reflectors”. The reflectors are manufactured via a process disclosed in the ‘224 Application, entitled “Method of manufacturing large dish reflectors for solar concentrator apparatus”.

Then, each sheet is heated and molded into a paraboloid. After cooling, a reflective film of silver is applied to the back surface, like in ordinary mirrors. With rolled edges for stiffening, the resulting finished product is 3.1m x 3.1m.

Next comes the concentration. Each of the eight dishes reflects light into its own ball lens (5), suspended at the focus.  Each ball lens (5) concentrates the light (3) 400x before passing it on, evenly, to a concave array of 36 optical funnels (45).

Each optical funnel further concentrates the light (3) to 1200x while funneling the solar energy to its own triple-junction photovoltaic cell (15).

Triple-junction cells, unlike single-junction cells, have three different junctions, each of which separately captures solar energy at distinct wavelengths. This results in more than a doubling of conversion efficiency over single-junction cells, such as silicon.

Triple-junction cells are more costly than silicon cells but cost less per unit power generated when used with highly concentrated light.

According to REhnu’s receivers & cooling web page, “when sold in the quantity needed to generate several megawatts, the cost is projected to soon reach $5/cm2, which at 1200x concentration and 30% module conversion efficiency, works out to $0.16/watt.”

This is roughly one-sixth of the cost per unit of power conversion compared to a single-junction photovoltaic cell used without concentration.    

The power produced by triple-junction cells is reduced by 1.35% for every 10°C rise in temperature, though, so cooling is very important. REhnu’s cells are cooled by liquid from a radiator and the radiator is cooled by fans.

Can concentrated solar energy from a ball lens coupled with increasingly efficient energy conversion from triple-junction photovoltaic cells produce cheap electricity from a small footprint on a commercial scale?

According to Rehnu’s web site, the University of Arizona has proven the technology in an 8-cell system, and larger systems continue to be tested to provide the answer to that question. 

Jonah Smith is President of the Notre Dame Intellectual Property Law Society and a J.D. candidate at Notre Dame Law School. Jonah is a contributor to the IP Lawyer Blog.

Alta Solar Cells Up Efficiency by Slimming Down

July 9th, 2011

 

Alta Devices, a Santa Clara, California solar PV company, recently announced that its gallium arsenide solar cells have set a new efficiency record of 28.2%. 

The company’s press release quotes Alta co-founder Eli Yablonovitch, who says the trick to maximizing voltage is to generate more photons inside the solar cell.

According to Cleantech PatentEdge™, a couple of Alta’s patent families relate to a PV cell structure that increases voltage using a thin absorber layer to trap light.

U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2010/0132780, entitled “Photovoltaice device” (’780 Application) and No. 2010/0126570, entitled “Thin absorber layer of a photovoltaic device” (’570 Application) are representative of these patent families. 

Both applications are directed to a PV unit (100) having several epitaxial layers including a buffer layer (102), a release layer (104), a window layer (106), a base layer (108), and an emitter layer (110).  The base layer (108) may comprise n-doped gallium arsenide semiconductor material, and the emitter layer (110) may comprise a p-doped aluminum gallium arsenide semiconductor material.

The combination of the base layer (108) and the emitter layer (110) may form an absorber layer for absorbing photons. 

According to the ’780 and ’570 Applications, this structure provides an absorber layer that is much thinner than those found in conventional solar cells (<500 nm versus up to several micrometers).

This is important because the thickness of the absorber layer is proportional to “dark current” levels in the cell, so a thinner absorber layer reduces dark current levels.  Dark current is the small electric current that flows through a PV cell even when no photons are entering the cell.

According to the ’780 and ’570 Applications, a lower dark current level means higher voltage and greater efficiency:

Because the open circuit voltage (Voc) increases as the dark current is decreased in a photosensitive semiconductor device, a thinner absorber layer may most likely lead to a greater (Voc) for a given light intensity and, thus, increased efficiency. As long as the absorber layer is able to trap light, the efficiency increases as the thickness of the absorber layer is decreased.

Alta’s web site says it is a development stage company.  The company certainly excels at development.

Two More Eco-marks Dinged for Descriptiveness

June 21st, 2011

 

I’ve written before about the increasingly common challenge in obtaining U.S. registrations for eco-marks, i.e., the proscription against registering “merely descriptive” marks (see, e.g., my post about the HYBRID GREEN mark here). 

Often the eco-marks include the term “GREEN,” which has become hopelessly descriptive of environmentally friendly aspects of products, services or practices.  But other terms are not immune from descriptiveness problems.

Kinetic Energy Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of New Energy Technologies (NET), recently saw two trademark applications derailed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board). 

The doomed marks were MOTIONPOWER for, among other things, electricity generators and certain services including converting waste energy into electricity (77707733_App), and SOLARWINDOW for photovoltaic cells and modules as well as films and substrates for PV cells (77738793_App).

NET markets technologies for harnessing kinetic energy from moving vehicles and converting that energy into electricity under the MOTIONPOWER brand

The Board nixed the MOTIONPOWER trademark application based on the meanings of the individual words, their meaning in combination, and the fact that the applicant uses kinetic energy, which is energy from motion (Board-Decision-77707733):

Based on the meanings of the individual words of applicant’s applied-for mark, “MOTION” and “POWER,” as well as the Internet evidence, we find that the combination MOTIONPOWER is merely descriptive of the applicant’s goods and services for use in generating power from motion. The individual merely descriptive terms retain their descriptive character when combined to form the composite MOTIONPOWER. The evidence shows that kinetic energy, the type of energy involved in applicant’s goods and services, is energy associated with motion.

The Board also noted that the construction of the mark MOTIONPOWER is similar to terms such as “solar power” and “wind power,” which describe generation of power from the sun and the wind, respectively, so consumers are likely to perceive the mark as merely descriptive of generating power from motion.

In a separate decision using similar reasoning, the Board rejected the SOLARWINDOW mark because of the definitions of the individual words and the descriptive use of the combined term in the industry (Board-Decision-77738793):

Not only does each element have descriptive significance as shown by the dictionary definitions, but the record establishes that the combination “SOLAR WINDOW” is used in the solar energy industry to describe solar energy-generating and/or solar energy-converting technology used in connection with windows.

The Board found that consumers would find the mark descriptive and noted that applicant’s use of the term on its website is descriptive of NET’s SOLARWINDOW glass and film products:

it is clear that SOLARWINDOW would immediately inform these consumers that applicant’s goods are used to convert existing windows or create windows that are capable of collecting and generating solar energy.  Notably, applicant uses the term “solar window” on its website in a descriptive manner when it states that solar cells and films are used “to produce a transparent solar window.”

So NET will not be able to register the MOTIONPOWER or SOLARWINDOW marks on the Principal Register at this time.  The company may be able to do so down the road after using the marks for a while and can get some protection via Supplemental Registrations in the interim.

No Inverter Required: Analyzing Array’s Patented PAM Current Converters

May 4th, 2011

Array Converter (Array) is a Sunnvale, California, company that designs inverter-less solar power systems to directly convert the direct current (DC) electricity produced by solar modules into alternating current (AC) for the grid.

Array owns several patents relating to its converter technology, including U.S. Patent No. 7,884,500 and a patent family consisting of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,719,864, 7,929,324, and 7,929,326 (collectively “Converter Patents”).

The Converter Patents are directed to a DC to pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) current converter, which is referred to by its acronym, PAMCC, and to electrical power conversion systems comprising arrays of PAMCCs.

A PAMCC (400) receives direct current from a photovoltaic panel (401) through positive and negative input terminals (402, 403), each connected in series with coils L1 (406) and L2 (405), respectively.  These coils comprise a single transformer T1 (407).

A controller (412) controls several independent lines (419-422) of circuits (423-426).  Capacitors (438, 440) are across the input side of coils (430, 432), respectively and a neutral output terminal (432).

Control signals on lines 411 and 419-422 connect and disconnect the current provided by the PV panel (401) in sequence within the PAMCC (400) in such a way as to provide an output whose amplitude is a PAM signal approximating a sine wave.

Several claims of the Converter Patents are directed to a plurality of PAMCCs and recite the following key feature:

the current pulses of at least two converters are out of phase with respect to each other, thereby summing the current pulses of all of the converters such that a signal modulated onto the pulse output of the converters is demodulated

According to the Converter Patents, when an array of PAMCCs are connected in parallel such that the PAMCCs’ output pulses are out of phase with respect to each other, the result is an AC current waveform suitable for both local load use and connection to the utility grid:

An array of PAMCCs constructed in accordance with the present invention form a distributed multiphase inverter whose combined output is the demodulated sum of the current pulse amplitude modulated by each PAMCC. If the signal modulated onto the series of discontinuous or near discontinuous pulses produced by each PAMCC was an AC current sine wave, then a demodulated, continuous AC current waveform is produced by the array of PAMCCs. This AC current waveform is suitable for use by both the “load”, meaning the premises that is powered or partially power by the system, and suitable for connection to a grid.  For example, in some embodiments an array of a plurality of PV-plus-PAMCC modules are connected together to nominally provide split-phase, Edison system 60 cps 240 volt AC to a home.

Other advantages discussed by the Converter Patents include that the high voltage portion of the PAMCC is physically very small (a few square inches) and can be located on the back of a solar panel assembly, making insulation simple and lightweight.

Array’s web site touts the simplicity of the inverter-less technology and notes that it is “less than a quarter of the complexity of the simplest power inverter without the need of short-lived filled or plastic film components.”  

The bottom line, though, is cost:

Simplicity means every cost is reduced while Array Converter improves LCOE by both reducing each cost and increasing energy harvest.

Need to FedEx a Renewable Energy System? Call SkyBuilt

April 28th, 2011

 

SkyBuilt Power, an Arlington, Virginia, company, has won a 2011 Edison Award in the Best Energy and Sustainability Product category for its renewable energy power stations. 

SkyBuilt designs and develops integrated, modular power systems including the first rapidly deployable combined solar and wind power station.

SkyBuilt’s U.S. Patent No. 7,230,819 (’819 Patent), entitled “Mobile power system,” relates to the company’s core technology.  The ’819 Patent is directed to a transportable power system that incorporates two different types of power generating devices.

The mobile power system (10) includes a housing (12) and one or more brackets (14) coupled to the housing.  Solar panel arrays (18) are coupled at one end to the brackets (14) and at another end to adjustable struts (20).

A wind turbine (24) may be mounted on a pole (22), which is mounted to a corner of the housing (12).

According to the ’819 Patent, key advantages of the system include the versatility to add various configurations of different renewable energy sources and ease of transport and assembly, particularly in that the system is the size of a standard ISO freight container.

SkyBuilt sells the mobile power station under the brand name SkyStation, which its web site calls a “complete power station in a standard freight container.”

In PV Furnace Case Green Patent Litigation Moves Upstream

April 21st, 2011

 

Despatch Industries (Despatch) is a Minnesota company which designs and makes industrial ovens and furnaces, including furnaces for use in solar cell manufacturing. 

Despatch owns 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 October of last year, Despatch sued California competitor TP Solar (TP) for patent infringement in federal court in Minnesota, and last month the court transferred the case to Los Angeles (Despatch-Transfer-Order).

According to the complaint (Despatch-TP_Solar-Complaint), TP is selling furnaces that infringe the ’650 Patent, including the Model MD-225 Firing Furnace with Integrated Dryer.

The ’650 Patent describes a furnace (10) having a heat transfer zone (20), a cooling zone (120), and a conveyor (50) to transport the material to be treated.  The heat transfer zone (20) has an upper portion (30) and a lower portion (40).

The lower portion (40) is removable, and can be lowered using a jack (60) to allow access to the interior of the heat transfer zone (20) and the components therein.  According to the ’650 Patent:

The access to the interior of the furnace 10 provided by moving the lower portion 40 of the furnace from the bottom of the furnace may allow for, among other things, maintenance or replacement of insulation, lamps, the conveyor, and other elements not easily accessible without moving the lower portion.

So green patent litigation is moving up the supply chain to the players that manufacture for the clean tech manufacturers.

Solannex Strikes Again, Accuses Nanosolar of Patent Infringement

February 26th, 2011

In a previous post, I wrote about Solannex’s patent infringement suit against Santa Clara, California, thin-film photovoltaic (PV) company MiaSolé.

Solannex struck again earlier this month, this time accusing San Jose-based Nanosolar of patent infringement. 

The complaint is not publicly available, so we don’t know which patent(s) Solannex is asserting, but a report on the filing of a patent or trademark suit (Solannex-Nanosolar_Report) submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office indicates the suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland on February 4th. 

The MiaSolé case involves Solannex’s U.S. Patent No. 7,635,810, entitled “Substrate and collector grid structures for integrated photovoltaic arrays and process of manufacturing such arrays,” (’810 Patent).  

The ’810 Patent is directed to interconnection structures for PV cells including electrically conductive “fingers” that allow electrical communication between the top and bottom surfaces of an interconnect region.

See my post about the MiaSolé case for a more detailed discussion of the ’810 Patent.

It’s hard to predict how wide a net Solannex will cast with its patent enforcement activity.  But one thing is for sure:  if you’re in thin-film, be careful where you point your fingers.