Archive for the ‘Solar Power’ category

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

March 8th, 2012

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past few weeks in the fields of hybrid vehicles, solar power, LEDs, and wastewater treatment.

Hybrid Vehicles

Paice LLC et al. v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

On February 16, 2012, Paice filed suit against Hyundai and Kia in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division. The Paice-Hyundai_Complaint alleges Hyundai and Kia infringed three of Paice’s patents relating to hybrid vehicles.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, and 7,559,388. All three patents are entitled “Hybrid Vehicles”. The patents cover hybrid electric vehicles utilizing an internal combustion engine with series parallel electric motors, regenerative braking, and control circuitry.

Paice claims all three patents are infringed in Hyundai’s Sonata Hybrid and Kia’s Optima Hybrid vehicles and seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

This case is a major return to patent enforcement for Paice. The company settled its litigation with Toyota in 2010 after Toyota agreed to take a license to Paice’s entire patent portfolio.

Solar Power

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole, Inc.

Filed on February 21, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Solannex’s Complaint (Complaint) alleges that Miasole infringes two of its patents relating to photovoltaic cells.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,076,568 entitled “Collector Grid and Interconnect Structures for Photovoltaic Array and Modules:, and U.S. Patent No. 8,110,737 entitled “Collector Grid Electrode Structures and Interconnect Structures for Photovoltaic Arrays and Methods of Manufacture”.

According to the complaint, the two patents relate to “interconnections of multiple photovoltaic cells.” Solannex asserts that several products in Miasole’s MR-Series and MS-Series product lines are infringing. Solannex is seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Solannex sued Miasole in January 2011 over a related patent.

LEDs

Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. v. Formosa Epitaxy, Inc.

On February 21, 2012, Toyoda filed a complaint against Formosa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, alleging infringement of eight patents relating to LEDs.

According to the complaint (Toyoda_Gosei_Complaint), the following three patents describe, among other things, “a light-emitting semiconductor device … designed to improve luminous intensity and to obtain a purer blue color”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,005,258 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using Group III Nitrogen Compound Having Emission Layer Doped with Donor and Acceptor Impurities”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,265,726 entitled “Light-Emitting Aluminum Gallium Indium Nitride Compound Semiconductor Device Having an Improved Luminous Intensity”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,138,286 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using Group III Nitrogen Compound” (‘286 Patent).

The complaint describes the following patent as “a light-emitting semiconductor device having an improved metal electrode and semiconductor structure that lowers the driving voltage of the device”:

U.S. Patent No. 5,753,939 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using a Group III Nitride Compound and Having a Contact Layer upon which an Electrode is Formed”.

The following two patents are described as a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor light-emitting device”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,040,588 entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device”; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,420,733 entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device and Manufacturing Method Thereof”.

Finally, the complaint describes the following patents as “’LED['s] ha[ving] a thin highly resistive or insulative layer formed below an electrode pad in order to divert current flow from the region below an electrode pad’ to obtain better current efficiency”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,191,436 entitled “Optical Semiconductor Device”; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,933,169 entitled “Optical Semiconductor Device”.

Toyoda is seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Solar Power / LEDs

Jiawei Technology (USA) et al. v. Adventive Ideas, LLC.

On February 8, 2012, Jiawei filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement (Jiawei_Complaint) against Adventive in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Jiawei is seeking judgment declaring Adventive’s patents invalid and, in the alternative, that they have not been infringed.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.:

7,196,477, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors”, describing a garden light which has three different colored LEDs that are activated to produce a varying color light;

7,336,157, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which provides for a solar powered visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated pendulum assembly in a wind chime;

7,429,827, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors”, which relates to a garden light which has three LEDs that are activated to produce a varying color light;

7,967,465, entitled “Light Device” which describes a solar powered light enclosed in a translucent housing;

8,077,052, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which describes a solar powered visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated pendulum assembly in a wind chime;

8,089,370, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which provides a visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated wind chime and associated circuitry; and

8,104,914, entitled “Light Device”, which describes a solar powered light device with at least one power storage device and associated circuitry.

Wastewater Treatment

Aero-Stream, LLC v. Septicair Aid, LLC et al.

On February 24, 2012, Aero-Stream filed a complaint for patent infringement (Aero-Stream_Complaint) against Septicair Aid in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Aero-Stream asserts Septicair infringes several of its patents relating to septic wastewater treatment systems by offering for sale a “Quad Diffuser Aeration Kit” and “Economy Diffuser”.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.:

7,264,727, entitled “Septic System Remediation Method and Apparatus,” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system;

7,429,320, entitled “Wastewater Treatment System,” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system;

7,468,135, entitled “Portable Tank Wastewater Treatment System and Method” describing a portable wastewater treatment system comprising a wastewater holding tank and a generator positioned to provide oxygen, or ozone, or a combination of the two to the interior of the holding tank; and

7,718,067 entitled “Septic System Remediation Method and Apparatus” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system.

Aero-Stream is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

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 Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Solar Power

Guest Post: Richard Finch on Stanford’s Solar Work with Nanoshells

March 1st, 2012

A team of engineers from Stanford University in the US has successfully managed to improve the performance of solar PV materials by using a nanomaterial called nanocrystalline silicon, tiny spheres of which have been used by the scientists to improve the light absorption of solar panels.

The process works on the same basis as the acoustics in the famous ‘Whispering Gallery’ in the US Capitol building.

The process involves creating tiny balls of silica and then coating them with silicon to produce lightweight spheres of silicon. They then etch away the silicon centre using hydrochloric acid.

The outer shell prevents the light from escaping after it is absorbed allowing it to circulate freely within the sphere. The longer the sphere can keep the light trapped within it, the better the absorption rate will be.

The material is more cost-efficient than existing PV material as it reduces both the amount of material needed for light absorption and the amount of time spent in manufacturing the material. In fact it uses one-twentieth the amount of crystalline silicon as conventional PV materials.

Three layers of silicon represents an absorption rate of 75 percent while even a single layer is more efficient than existing material.

Furthermore, the silicon spheres can absorb light from different angles, allowing panels to absorb more light from a variety of angles relative to the position of the sun in the sky. This could help in situations where achieving the optimal angle of the sun is not always possible.

Shanhui Fan, an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at Stanford, said “Nanocrystalline-silicon is a great photovoltaic material. It has a high electrical efficiency and is durable in the harsh sun. Both have been challenges for other types of thin solar films.”

Yan Yao, a post-doctoral researcher said that the material could also be used for other applications such as solar fuels and photo-detectors.

Richard Finch is a guest blogger on Green Patent Blog. Richard writes for SolarPages.

Comments Off »

Posted in Solar Power

In Green Brand Battle U.S. Court Bars Chinese SUN-EARTH Eco-mark

February 28th, 2012

SunEarth (owned and operated by the Solaray Corporation since 1992) has been marketing and selling solar thermal collectors and related components under the SUNEARTH brand since 1978.

In 2009, SunEarth filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking federal trademark protection for the SUNEARTH word mark.

The USPTO suspended action on the application in view of an earlier filed application owned by Ningbo Solar Electric Power (Ningbo) for the SUN-EARTH (and Design) mark:

Through a predecessor company, Ningbo had been using its SUN-EARTH design mark in China since 1978 and began using the mark in the U.S. in 2004.

A U.S. trademark application filed in 2006 for the SUN-EARTH design mark went abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use.

In 2008, Ningbo filed a second application to register the SUN-EARTH design mark. This was the application cited against SunEarth.

The USPTO granted Ningbo’s second application and issued it as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,886,941 (’941 Registration) on December 7, 2010. Ningbo changed its name to Sun-Earth Solar Power (SESP) in 2010.

After filing a proceeding in the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the ’941 Registration and trying to negotiate a settlement with Ningbo, SunEarth sued for trademark infringement, cancellation of the registration, and other claims in the Northern District of California in October 2011.

The court recently granted a preliminary injunction against SESP, prohibiting it from using the SUN-EARTH name or mark in the United States.

According to the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, although SESP has a presumption of ownership of the SUN-EARTH mark due to its federal registration, SunEarth “[is] likely to be able to prove a protectable ownership interest in the trade name and mark that is senior to that of [SESP].”

The Court based this on its determination that SunEarth was likely to have been using the SUNEARTH mark in the United States before SESP entered the U.S. market in 2007:

Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish legally sufficient market penetration over their trade name and mark prior to 2007.

The court also noted that SunEarth had produced some evidence of actual consumer confusion:

In addition to several instances of confusion by trade show organizers, Plaintiffs have proffered more than ten examples of actual customer confusion . . .

This case is a good illustration of the “first to use” system of trademark priority in the United States.

A federal trademark registration creates a presumption of trademark ownership. However, that presumption can be rebutted by showing a similar trademark was used by someone else in interstate commerce within the United States before the registered trademark.

This case also highlights the difficulties foreign based clean tech companies may face in protecting their green brands when they decide to enter the U.S. market. We’re likely to see more of these types of cases, particularly from Chinese companies.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency, IP Litigation, Solar Power, Unfair Competition

NREL’s Optical Furnace is Heating Up Solar

January 31st, 2012

The photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing process typically requires solar cells to be heated to extremely high temperatures. Traditional methods for heating involve utilizing conventional electric or infrared furnaces to heat the cells for long periods of time.

The heating process allows for the fabrication of the cells but is very expensive and results in impurities and imperfections in the PV cells.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the only federal laboratory exclusively dedicated to the research, commercialization and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, has developed an optical furnace that may change the solar industry.

The optical furnace is able to heat PV cells more effectively at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods, which may result in a higher quality product at a lower cost.

The optical furnace is described in U.S. Patent Number 5,577,157, entitled “Optical Processing Furnace with Quartz Muffle and Diffuser Plate ” (’157 Patent) and U.S. Patent Application Number 2011/0003485, entitled “Optical Cavity Furnace for Semiconductor Wafer Processing” (’485 Application).

Figure 1 of the ’485 Application depicts an embodiment of the optical furnace. The furnace includes a bank of optical energy sources 12 a-n and reflectors 14 surrounding a transport system 22 enclosed in a cavity 18.

According to both the ’157 Patent and the ’485 Application, it is advantageous if the optical reflectors are made of a diffuse rather than a specular material. A diffuse reflector is advantageous becuase it ensures the optical energy is reflected evenly within the furnace cavity with a minimum of energy loss.

Figure 2 of the ’157 Patent shows another view of the optical furnace. The figure shows a bank of optical energy sources 21 above the furnace cavity 7. The cavity consists of a diffuse reflector box 15, 16, 17, 18 made of quartz, called the quartz box or muffle.

The figure also depicts a diffuser plate 9. The diffuser plate is also made of quartz and is placed on top of the quartz muffle in order to protect the muffle from the high energy released by the optical energy sources.

If the quartz muffle were to be damaged, replacement costs would be very high and the process would be time consuming. The diffuser plate is designed to be quickly and inexpensively replaced when damage occurs.

According to NREL, their optical furnace can potentially increase PV efficiency by four percentage points (from 16 to 20 percent). This would represent a major increase in efficiency.

Further, NREL is working in conjunction with AOS, Inc. to produce a manufacturing sized furnace. NREL anticipates this manufacturing furnace will be able to produce 1,200 highly efficient solar cells per hour. The increase in efficiency and manufacturer-scale production will all occur at a quarter of traditional PV manufacturing costs.

These improvements and reduced costs will hopefully mean better and less expensive PV cells on the market in the near future.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Solar Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

January 29th, 2012

There have been a few green patent complaints filed in the last several weeks in the areas of LEDs, solar power, and biofuels.

LEDs

Fiber Optic Designs, Inc. v. Seasons 4, Inc.

Filed December 16, 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Fiber Optic Designs’ (FOD) complaint (FiberOptic_Complaint) alleges that Seasons 4 is infringing two patents directed to light strings containing light emitting diodes.

The two asserted patents are of the same family, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,220,022 and 7,934,852, both entitled “Jacketed LED assemblies and light strings containing same.”

Solar

Zep Solar Inc. v. Westinghouse Solar Inc.

In the latest missive in this growing legal battle, Zep has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,592,537 (’537 Patent) against Westinghouse (formerly Akeena Solar). The ’537 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for mounting photovoltaic modules” and is directed to an interlocking PV module array.

Although the complaint is not publicly available, we have this Filing Report (Zep-Westinghouse_Report) and Westinghouse’s Answer (Westinghouse_Answer) in the case, filed December 20, 2011 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The accused device is Westinghouse’s Andalay Groove Interlock product, and other named defendants are Andalay Solar, Lightway Green New Energy, Brightway Global, Morrison Supply Company, Sky Solar Solutions, and Alternative Power & Electric.

This lawsuit follows other actions between these two competing solar installers (see more details in a previous post here), which now have cross claims of patent infringement in multiple forums.

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

Another growing patent dispute is the one between Butamax, a BP-DuPont joint venture, and Colorado advanced biofuels startup Gevo (read prior posts about the dispute here and here), which now includes cross claims of patent infringement in multiple forums.

In the latest complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint), filed in the District of Delaware on January 24, 2012, Gevo accuses Butamax of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,101,808 (’808 Patent) by performing certain isobutanol production processes.

The ’808 Patent, granted on January 24, 2012, is entitled “Recovery of higher alcohols from dilute aqueous solutions” and directed to methods of recovering C3-C6 alcohols from a fermentation broth.

Interestingly, I believe the Gevo-Butamax litigation is the first instance of biofuels patent litigation involving one of the oil majors.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Energy Efficiency, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

Painting the Town Green

January 23rd, 2012

A team of researchers at the University of Notre Dame, led by Prashant V. Kamat, has developed a semi-conductive paint that turns surfaces on which it is applied into solar cells.

The solar paint is described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0114273 (’273 Application), entitled “Nanomaterial Scaffolds for Electron Transport”.

Single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) create the scaffold architecture, which allows electrons to move more efficiently than prior art vis-a-vis nanoparticles or quantum dots.

The nanoparticles are coated in titanium dioxide and either cadmium sulfide or cadmium senenide. The particles are then suspended in a water and alcohol mixure to form a paste.

Figure 1 depicts the improvement made in the ’273 Application (Figure 1B) over the prior art (Figure 1A). Figures 10A and 10B depict random electron transport versus direct electron transport utilizing the nanotubes described in the ’273 Application.

According to the ’273 Application, because of the SWCNT’s special properties, it can boost the solar paint’s photoconversion efficiency:

The unique electrical and electronic properties, wide electrochemical stability window, and high surface area render SWCNT beneficial as a scaffold to anchor light harvesting assemblies. In accordance with an embodiment, the electron accepting ability of semiconducting SWCNT thus offers an opportunity to facilitate electron transport and thus increase the photoconversion efficiency of nanostructure semiconductor based solar cells.

See Kamat’s article about the paint, dubbed “Sun-Believable,” here.

The possibilities surrounding an inexpensive and efficient solar paint are clear, as it could be applied on everyday surfaces like fences and homes to generate electricity. This product could be a huge breakthrough for renewable energy production.

See a short video about how solar paint works here.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Solar Power

Appeals Court Affirms Shrink Link in Solar Cell Encapsulant Trade Secret Case

December 13th, 2011

Specialized Technology Resources (STR) is a Connecticut-based company that makes plastic sheeting material for encapsulating solar cells.

In the 1990′s, STR engaged in about five years of intensive R&D to develop a proprietary method to produce a “low-shrink” ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), which avoided shrinkage of the resulting encapsulant.

STR began manufacturing and selling its low shrink EVA in late 1996 and subsequently grew to hold about 25% of the global market for EVA encapsulants.

James P. Galica was the director of STR’s materials science division during the low shrink EVA R&D project and oversaw the project team. Galica left STR in 2005 and joined JPS Elastomerics in 2006.

Shortly thereafter, JPS began producing and selling an encapsulant product using a method substantially identical to the one developed by STR.

STR sued JPS and Galica in state court in Massachusetts for breach of Galica’s employment contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and violation of the state’s unfair trade practices law.

The trial judge, contrary to the jury’s findings, held that JPS and Galica misappropriated STR’s trade secret and thereby engaged in unfair trade practices. The trial court enjoined JPS from producing low shrink EVA for five years, and the defendants appealed the decision.

Recently, a Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed (JPS_Decision) the trial judge’s holding of liability on trade secret misappropriation and violation of the Massachusetts unfair trade practices statute.

The appeals court agreed the evidence demonstrated that it was Galica’s knowledge of the causes of shrinkage, gained from STR’s trade secret method, which yielded the low shrinkage properties in JPS’s process:

Prior to Galica’s employment by JPS, JPS did not manufacture or produce EVA by any means. Prior to development of its trade secret method, STR produced EVA by contentional methods, but the resulting product did not have low shrink characteristics. The trial judge found that, under Galica’s supervision, JPS was able to modify its production processes in a manner which utilized [STR's] discovery about the causes of shrinkage, but which employed adjustments to the production sequences different from those incorporated in the particular method which constituted STR’s trade secret method.

Thus, the 5-year injunction was justified:

Because the method developed by JPS derived from specialized knowledge brought by Galica from STR to JPS, and particularly because the evidence suggested that JPS would not have been able to develop such a method independently, the judge’s order enjoining JPS from production of low shrink EVA by any means for a period of five years (a period equivalent to the time STR spent in development of its trade secret method) was justified.

Comments Off »

Posted in IP Litigation, Solar Power, Trade Secrets

Guest Post: Green IP Litigation in the Great White North

December 6th, 2011

A recent decision in the Federal Court of Canada spotlights green IP litigation in Canada.

On October 5, 2007 Hollick Solar Systems Limited (Hollick) and Conserval Engineering Incorporated (Conserval), which specializes in solar air heating technology, commenced a patent and trade-mark infringement proceeding against several parties, including Matrix Energy Incorporated, a distributor of renewable energy equipment.

Hollick and Conserval claimed infringement of claims 1 and 10 of Canadian Letters Patent 1,326,619, entitled “Method and apparatus for preheating ventilation air for a building” (’619 Patent).

As to the trade-mark, Hollick and Conserval alleged infringement and depreciation of the value of the goodwill of their trade-mark SOLARWALL® by the sale of the Matrixair system and the use of “mur solaire” and passing off by Matrix for the systems of Conserval.

The ’619 Patent is directed to a method of preheating ventilation air and an apparatus for preheating ventilation air by solar means.

More particularly, according to the Abstract of the ’619 Patent, ventilation air for a building is preheated by providing on a wall of the building a solar-energy absorbent collector panel with a plurality of air-inlet openings which communicate with air collection channels behind the panel.

Outside air passing upwardly along the panel is heated by the heat of the panel, which itself is heated by a combination of solar radiation and heat being lost from the interior of the building.

The case focused on whether the term describing the location of the inlet “at the top” was an essential element of the claims at issue.

Matrix asserted non-infringement of claims 1 and 10 of the ’619 Patent because the inlet of the accused system was at the bottom, or at least not at the top.

Matrix also contended non-infringement of the trade-mark SOLARWALL® on the ground that the trade-mark was outside the scope of a distribution agreement between Matrix and Hollick.

The Federal Court, in construing the claims at issue, concluded:

the location of the inlet in the Matrix system (at the bottom or at least below the midpoint) had a material effect upon the way the invention worked and did not perform essentially the same as the invention of the ’619 Patent;

that it would have been obvious to an expert in the field that drawing air from the bottom or at least below the midpoint of the panel would have a material effect upon the invention; and

the person skilled in the art would have understood that strict compliance with the term “at the top” was an essential element of the invention.

The court further noted the contradictory testimony of an expert for Hollick and Conserval, whose statements in another case directly conflicted with his testimony in this case.

The court also determined non-infringement of the trade-mark because Hollick and Conserval failed to prove loss of sales from use of the trade-mark by Matrix.

Marcelo König Sarkis, P. Eng., FIPIC, is a Senior Patent Agent and Professional Engineer with Heenan Blaikie LLP. He is a member of Heenan Blaikie’s Intellectual Property as well as Climate, Cleantech and Sustainability Groups.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

November 12th, 2011

Several green patent lawsuits have been filed in the last two weeks in the areas of smart grid, wastewater treatment, and emissions reduction technology.

In addition, the U.S. International Trade Commission decided to move forward with an important investigation regarding solar panel mounting systems.

Smart Grid

TransData, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

TransData, Inc. v. Wisconsin Power & Light Company

These complaints (TransData-SDG&E_Complaint / TransData-WP&L_Complaint), filed October 31, 2011 in the Southern District of California and November 1, 2011 in the Western District of Wisconsin, respectively, add to a host of recent lawsuits by Texas smart meter company TransData against a number of regional utilities.

Details on the other TransData suits can be found in previous posts here and here.

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 antennas 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.

The accused products are electric meters deployed by the utilities, including certain Elster meters using Sensus wireless modules and certain Itron meters.

Mesh Comm LLC v. Trilliant Networks, Inc.

Mesh Comm, an Atlanta, Georgia, company filed a complaint (MeshComm-Trilliant_Complaint) November 4, 2011 in the Western District of Kentucky against Redwood City, California-based smart grid communications company Trilliant.

Mesh Comm, apparently a non-practicing patentee, is asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,019,836 (’836 Patent) relating to a system for enabling wireless communication between meters so utilities can remotely monitor and control energy usage.

A previous post discussed Mesh Comm’s patent infringement suit against Potomac Electric Power Company and Silver Spring involving a related patent.

Wastewater Treatment

Polylok, Inc. v. Bear Onsite

On November 3, 2011 Connecticut-based wastewater treatment solutions provider Polylok sued Bear Onsite, a water treatment product development company, in the District of Connecticut.

Polylok alleges that Bear Onsite’s effluent septic filters and water level control alert devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,129,837, entitled “Waste water treatment filter including waste water level control alert device” (’837 Patent).

The ’837 Patent is directed to a filtration device for a waste water treatment tank with a level alert device to provide an alarm when the filter becomes plugged. The claims are directed to particular means for mounting the alert device to the filter.

Emissions Reduction

Enerfex, Inc. v. UOP LLC et al.

In this suit, a Vermont company called Enerfex accuses oil refiner UOP (formerly Universal Oil Products Company), Quicksilver Resources and Breitburn Energy Partners of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,482,539 (’539 Patent).

Entitled “Multiple stage semi-permeable membrane process and apparatus for gas separation,” the ’539 Patent is directed to membrane processes and apparatus for producing a very high purity permeate gas, which can reduce the amount of methane loss in “vent gas.”

Enerfex alleges that the HAYES 29 natural gas power plant in Northern Michigan includes infringing membrane systems installed and operated by UOP. The complaint specifically cites the Separax brand membranes products.

Solar

In re: Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components Thereof (Westinghouse Solar, Inc. v. Zep Solar, Inc. et al.)

On November 2, 2011 the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it would open an investigation into Westinghouse’s allegations that Zep and Canadian Solar imported solar panels that infringe two Westinghouse patents.

The investigation stems from a complaint (Westinghouse_ITC_Complaint) filed by Westinghouse in early October. A previous post discussed that complaint and some of the history of patent litigation between Westinghouse (formerly Akeena Solar) and Zep.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patents Nos. 7,406,800 (‘800 Patent) and 7,987,641 (‘641 Patent).

Both patents 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.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Smart Grid, Solar 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.