Archive for the ‘Water Filtration’ category

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

June 9th, 2012

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past several weeks in the fields of biofuels, LEDs, solar power, and industrial water purification.

Biofuels

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC v. Gevo, Inc.

On May 15, 2012, Butamax filed suit against Gevo in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Gevo is infringing one of its patents related to the production of isobutanol using recombinant microorganisms.

This suit is the latest in the expanding litigation between Gevo and Butamax (see, e.g., previous posts here, here, here, here, and the post on Butamax’s opening shot).

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,178,328, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols” (’328 Patent). The ‘328 Patent is the latest in a family of patents – including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 and 7,851,188 – that Butamax has been asserting against Gevo.

According to the Butamax complaint, the ‘328 Patent discloses and claims certain recombinant microbial host cells comprising an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway.

Butamax alleges that Gevo uses recombinant microbial host cells capable of producing isobutanol that embody the invention in the ‘328 Patent, and that Gevo’s U.S. Patent No. 8,097,440 includes examples of such infringing host cells.

Gevo is seeking a judgment that Gevo infringes the ‘328 Patent, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and monetary damages.

Neste Oil Oyj v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC et al.

Neste Oil Oyj filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on May 29, 2012 against Dynamic Fuels, Syntroleum Corporation and Tyson Foods, alleging Defendants’ synthetic renewable diesel fuels infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,187,344 (’344 Patent).

The ’344 Patent is entitled “Fuel Composition for a Diesel Engine” and directed to diesel fuels made from animal, plant, or fish fatty acids.

Dynamic Fuels is a joint venture of Syntroleum and Tyson Foods that operates refineries capable of producing allegedly infringing synthetic renewable diesel fuels using the necessary biological feedstock.

According to the Neste complaint, the Dynamic Fuels plant has produced substantial volumes of the accused product over the past couple of years.

Neste is seeking a judgement of infringement of the ’344 Patent, a permanent injunction, and monetary damages.

LEDs

Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

Filed May 1, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and System General Corporation’s (collectively “Fairchild”) complaint alleges that Power Integrations infringes four patents owned by Fairchild:

U.S. Patent No. 7,525,259, entitled “Primary Side Regulated Power Supply System With Constant Current Output” (’259 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 7,286,123, entitled “LED Driver Circuit Having Temperature Consideration” (’123 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 7,616,461, entitled “Control Method and Circuit with Indirect Input Voltage Detection by Switching Current Slope Detection” (’461 Patent); and

U.S. Patent No. 7,259,972, entitled “Primary-Side-Control Power Converter Having a Switching Controller Using Frequency Hopping and Voltage and Current Control Loops” (’972 Patent).

Fairchild alleges that Power Integrations’ LinkSwitch-PH controllers infringe the ‘259, ‘123, and ‘461 Patents.

According to Fairchild’s complaint, Power Integrations’ LinkSwitch-II and Linkswitch-CV devices were previously found to infringe claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the ‘972 Patent.

However, Fairchild alleges that the same day, Power Integrations issued a press release encouraging customers to continue using the infringing products by stating that its customers are unaffected by the verdict. As such, Fairchild claims that Power Integrations is now inducing infringement of claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the ‘972 Patent.

Fairchild is seeking a judgment of infringement, an injunction, and monetary damages.

Ruud Lighting, Inc. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC

On May 23, 2012, Ruud Lighting filed suit against Cooper Lighting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin seeking a permanent injunction and monetary damages for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,952,262 (’262 Patent).

Entitled “Modular LED Unit Incorporating Interconnected Heat Sinks Configured to Mount and Hold Adjacent LED Modules,” the ’262 Patent is directed to a modular LED unit including one or more LED modules, each bearing an array of LEDs and secured to a heat sink.

Ruud manufactures and sells numerous LED products embodying the invention of the ‘262 Patent for area and street lighting applications and certain floodlight lighting products.

According to the Ruud complaint, Cooper sells a product known as its “Generation Series LED Post Top Luminaire,” which infringes the ‘262 Patent.

Solar

Rena GMBH v. M.E. Baker Company

Rena GMBH filed suit against M.E. Baker Company on May 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Rena is alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,943,526, entitled “Process for the Wet-Chemical Treatment of One Side Silicon Wafers” (’526 Patent).

The ‘526 Patent is directecd to a process for wet-chemical treatment of one side of a silicon wafer using a liquid bath. The patented invention improves upon prior processes for protecting or masking the surfaces that are not to be chemically treated.

According to the Rena Complaint, M.E. Baker Company’s treatment process infringes the ’526 Patent.

Rena GMBH is seeking a permanent injunction and monetary damages

Water Purification

Calgon Carbon Corporation et al. v. Remote Light Water, Inc.

Calgon Carbon Corporation and Hyde Marine, Inc. (collectively “Calgon”) filed suit against Remote Light Water (RLW), seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of RLW’s U.S. Patents Nos. 6,447,721 (’721 Patent) and 6,403,030 (’030 Patent).

Filed May 8, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Calgon’s Complaint alleges that counsel for RLW sent a letter offering Calgon a license under the ’721 and ’030 Patents for Calgon’s Sentinal UV drinking water disinfectant product.

The ‘721 Patent describes a UV disinfection system comprising at least one light source with controllable UV light output that has at least one UV dose zone for providing effective sterilization of microorganisms within the water. The ’030 Patent describes a similar process effective for treating waste-containing fluid.

According to the Complaint, Calgon has reasonable apprehension that RLW will sue for infringement because RLW is “in the business of enforcing its patent portfolio through litigation.”

*Jeff Woodley is a contributor to Green Patent Blog. Jeff is a summer associate at McKenna Long & Aldridge and is currently in his final year at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics also from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Comments Off »

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

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

May 4th, 2012

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past several weeks in the fields of biofuels, LEDs, lithium ion batteries, and industrial water purification.

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

On April 10, 2012, Gevo filed suit against Butamax and DuPont in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Butamax and DuPont are infringing one of its patents related to the production of isobutanol. This suit is the latest salvo in litigation between Gevo and Butamax. (see previous posts here, here, here, and most recently here.)

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,153,415, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the ‘415 Patent). The ’415 Patent issued on April 10, 2012, the same day Gevo filed this latest suit against Butamax.

According to the complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint-4-10-12), the ‘415 Patent describes “recombinant isobutanol-producing microorganisms containing a disruption in the expression or activity of an endogenous 3-keto acid reductase activity and methods for producing isobutanol using such organisms.”

Gevo’s complaint alleges Butamax makes infringing microorganisms to produce isobutanol through deletion or inactivation of the YMR226c gene. Gevo claims Butamax describes its infringing process in PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159853, entitled “Recombinant Host Cells Comprising Phosphoketolases”, and PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159998 entitled “Production of Alcohol Esters and In Situ Product Removal During Alcohol Fermentation”.

Gevo is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages.

LEDs

Whelen Engineering Company, Inc. v. CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment

Filed March 29, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Whelen’s complaint (Whelen Complaint) alleges CPS infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,641,284, entitled “LED Light Assembly”, and D500,384, entitled “Reflector for Light Assembly”.

Whelen also alleges CPS has infringed several of its trademarks. The marks at issue are Whelen’s LINEAR-LED, FREEDOM and VERTEX marks. Whelen claims CPS has either used identical marks or confusingly similar marks.

Whelen is seeking treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief. They are also seeking CPS’s alleged infringing products be destroyed.

Lektron, Inc. v. iLight Technologies, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. The Sloan Company, Inc. dba SloanLED, Inc.

On April 6, 2012, Lektron filed three separate suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging that iLight, Philips and SloanLED have each infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,361,186 entitled “Simulated Neon Light Using LED’s” (’186 Patent). (Each complaint can be viewed here: (Lektron-iLight Complaint) (Lektron-Philips Complaint) (Lektron-Sloan Complaint)).

The ’186 Patent describes a product designed to replace traditional neon lights with a more durable product that consumed less energy by replacing fragile glass tubes with energy efficient LED lights. The Lektron product is sold under the LEON trademark.

Lektron is alleging direct infringement and is seeking injunctive relief and damages from each defendant.

Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd., and Emcore Corporation v. Nichia Corporation, and Nichia America Corporation

On April 19, 2012, Everlight filed suit against Nichia (Everlight-Nichia Complaint) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two of Nichia’s patents, and alleging Nichia is infringing one of its patents.

Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two patents owned by Nichia: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 entitled “Light Emitting Device Having a Nitride Compound Semiconductor and Phosphor Containing Garnet Fluorescent Material” (’925 Patent), and 7,531,960 entitled “Light Emitting Device with Blue Light LED and Phosphor Components” (’960 Patent).

Nichia recently filed suit against an Everlight customer in a Tokyo District Court asserting the Japanese counterpart to the ’970 Patent (Japanese Patent No. 4350094). Nichia also filed suit against Everlight in Germany asserting the European counterpart to the ’925 Patent (European Patent No. EP 0 936 682).

According to the Everlight complaint, Nichia has threatened litigation over several other patents in Japan, and Everlight prevailed in a patent infringement action initiated by Nichia in Taiwan. This suit, filed by Everlight, is in response to the suits Nichia has filed and the threats Nichia has made to Everlight’s potential clients.

In addition to seeking declaratory judgment for non-infringement and invalidity, Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment that the ’960 and ’925 patents are unenforceable due to fraud and inequitable conduct during prosecution by Nichia.

Everlight is also asserting that Nichia infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,653,215 entitled “Contact to N-GaN with Au Termination” (’215 Patent). Everlight is seeking damages, attorney fees and costs.

Lithium Ion Batteries

Energizer Holdings, Inc., Eveready Battery Company, Inc., v. Wahl Clipper Corp., and Wahl Clipper Ningbo Ltd.

Filed April 11, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Energizer’s complaint (Energizer_Complaint) alleges that Wahl infringes several of its patents. The patents in dispute are U.S. Patent Nos.:

5,290,414 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”;

7,923,138 entitled “Housing for a Sealed Electrochemical Battery Cell”;

7,968,230 entitled “High Discharge Capacity Lithium Battery”;

8,007,940 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”; and

RE41,866 entitled “Nonaqueous Electrochemical Cell with Improved Energy Density”.

Energizer claims Wahl makes, offers for sale, imports and is selling products containing the asserted patents in its Lithium Pen Trimmer. They are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages and attorney fees.

Water Purification

Aquatech International Corp., and Debasish Mukhopadhyay v. N.A. Water Systems, LLC, and Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support

On April 4, 2012, Aquatech filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Water Systems and Veolia Water seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,815,804, entitled “Method for Treating Wastewater or Produced Water” (’804 Patent), owned by N.A. Water and Veolia ( a subsidiary of N.A. Water), is invalid and unenforceable and that its products do not infringe the ’804 Patent. (Aquatech Complaint)

Aquatech is a licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,925,255 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” and 6,537,456 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” (though these patents are not asserted in this complaint).

Aquatech’s patents related to its HERO water purification process. The HERO process uses the patents in a high efficiency reverse osmosis water purification process which is used in many industries including power generation, petrochemical, and microelectronics. The HERO technologies have been licensed to companies such as General Electric and Intel.

Aquatech claims N.A. and Veolia have coerced and intimidated potential customers into using Veolia’s OPUS water purification process (described in the ’804 Patent) under threat of patent litigation – claiming the HERO process infringes upon the OPUS process. Aquatech claims Veolia knew, or should have known, that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process and that such claims of infringement were false.

Aquatech is seeking a declaration that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process, that each claim of the ’804 patent is invalid, and that the ’804 Patent is unenforcable due to inequitable conduct.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Biofuels & Biomaterials, Eco-Marks, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Water Filtration

Green Off-Patent Report (Powered by Cleantech PatentEdge)

April 20th, 2012

Our Green Off-Patent Report provides selected highlights of green patents which completed their 20-year term and expired within the last week or so (assuming the patentee paid all requisite maintenance fees; U.S. patents require payment of fees 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after issuance to stay in force).

Many of the green technologies in use today are off-patent, i.e., the patents covering the technologies have run their 20-year term and expired.

Knowing which technologies are off-patent is important because those technologies are in the public domain and can be exploited by anyone. It’s also interesting because it provides a window into what was cutting edge technology twenty years ago.

The green off-patent searching is performed by Cleantech PatentEdge™.

U.S. Patent No. 5,354,477 (Water Purification) entitled “Low Molecular Weight Amines and Amine Quaternaries for the Removal of Soluble Organics in Oil Field Produced Water.” The patent describes a method for removing hydrocarbons from water by injecting low molecular weight amines and preferably amine quaternaries with strong acids into an oil and water mixture to remove oil based salts. Filed April 7, 1992; issued October 11, 1994; expired April 7, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,324,433 (Soil/Water Restoration) entitled “In-situ Restoration of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater.” The patent describes a method for removing and stabilizing in-situ soluble heavy metal contaminants from soil and groundwater by injecting an aqueous solution of naturally occurring ions. The solution solubilizes the heavy metals into solution where they can be removed. Filed April 16, 1992; issued June 28, 1994; expired April 16, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,261,970 (Photovoltaic Cells) entitled “Optoelectronic and Photovoltaic Devices with Low-Reflective Surfaces.” The patent describes photovoltaic devices with low angle ‘V’ shaped grooves on the target surfaces. The grooves increase the efficiency of the devices by promoting internal reflection of light from the target surface at the interface of the coverglass.” Filed April 8, 1992; issued November 16, 1993; expired April 8, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,260,588 (LEDs) entitled “Light Emitting Diode.” The patent describes a light emitting diode formed as reverse mesas with mirrored sloping surfaces which reflect light in the direction of the light emitting diode surface, improving the efficiency of each diode. Filed April 14, 1992; issued November 9, 1993; expired April 14, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,317,979 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction) entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Complete, Dry Desulphurization of Combustion Waste Gases Comprising SO2 and Dust.” The patent describes a method for removing SO2 from the combustion waste gases of coal dust. The process includes heating the gas quickly to a temperature below the sintering temperature of the fly ash, then cooling the gas to a temperature where the distance between the temperature and the dew point is low and is below 25 degrees C. This binds the SO2 gas to the ash, cleaning it from the combustion waste gas. Filed April 16, 1992; issueed June 7, 1994; expired April 16, 2012.

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 Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Carbon Emissions, Green Patents, Recycling & Waste Management, Solar Power, Water Filtration

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent (and Copyright) Complaint Update

December 16th, 2011

Several green patent lawsuits (and one green copyright suit) have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of LEDs, hybrid vehicles, wastewater treatment, energy management, and biodegradable materials.

LEDs

Bluestone Innovations Florida, L.L.C. v. Formosa Epitaxy

Bluestone Innovations (Bluestone), a Florida-based patent licensing company, recently filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Formosa Epitaxy (Formosa), a Taiwanese corporation.

Bluestone alleges that Formosa engaged in the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, and sale of LED semiconductor devices and other optoelectric devices, such as gallium nitride (GaN) LED wafers and chips, and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) LED wafers and chips.

The complaint alleges these activities infringe U.S. Patent Number 6,605,832, entitled “Semiconductor Structures Having Reduced Contact Resistance”. Bluestone is seeking a permanent injunction and damages, including treble damages and attorney fees.

Wastewater Treatment

Polylok, Inc. v. Bear Onsite

A recent post discussed a suit between wastewater treatment rivals Polylok and Bear Onsite in Connecticut in which Polylok asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Number 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.

Bear Onsite recently responded with a declaratory judgment action (Petition for Declaration of Rights). Specifically, Bear Onsite is seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of the ’837 Patent.

Hybrid Vehicles

KGR IP L.L.C. v. Ford Motor Company
KGR IP L.L.C. v. Honda Motor Company

KGR recently filed two complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (KGR_IP-Ford_Complaint; KGR_IP-Honda_Complaint).

The complaints allege that both Ford and Honda are infringing U.S. Patent Number 6,639,614, entitled “Multi-variate data presentation method using ecologically valid stimuli” (’614 Patent). The ’614 Patent relates to visual display of data using “ecologically valid” icons.

KGR alleges infringement of the ’614 Patent in the Ford Fusion Hybrid vehicles and Honda vehicles that utilize the Eco Assist function. KGR is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

Fernandez v. Toyota Motor Corporation

Dennis Fernandez, an individual inventor, recently filed a Complaint against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A and Toyota USA (collectively “Toyota”), alleging patent infringement.
Fernandez alleges Toyota is infringing U.S. Patent Numbers 7,374,003, 7,575,080, and 7,980,341, each entitled “Telematic Method and Apparatus with Integrated Power Source”.

The complaint states that Toyota is using the accused devices in its Prius II hybrid vehicle. The complaint seeks damages and attorney fees.

Biomaterials; Recycling & Waste Management

Frito-Lay North America v. Innovia Films Limited

Frito-Lay filed a Complaint against Innovia Films, Inc. (Innovia), a manuafcturer of bio-based films, on November 23, 2011 seeking declaratory relief over Frito-Lay’s ownership of two patents and two patent applications.

The complaint relates to recent actions commenced by Innovia against Frito-Lay in both the U.K. and Europe. In that litigation, Innovia claims that Frito-Lay breached a confidentiality agreement and used information gained during confidential meetings to develop biodegradable packaging. Innovia claims the technology led to Frito-Lay’s U.S. Patent Numbers 7,951,436 and 7,943,218 and U.S. Patent Applications 11/848,775 and 12/716,033.

Frito-Lay contends that it did not acquire any technology from Innovia and that development of its degradable bags was conducted independently. Frito-Lay states that its “scientists and engineers discovered and invented novel flexible film packaging that maintains certain barrier properties and is made up of several layers of films, including a biodegradable ‘bio-based’ layer.”

Smart Grid / Energy Management

Opower, Inc. v. Efficiency 2.0, LLC

In a rare clean tech copyright dispute, Opower, Inc. (Opower) recently filed a copyright infringement Suit against Efficiency 2.0, LLC (Efficiency 2.0), a New York energy efficiency software company.

Opower produces Home Energy Reports, paper reports mailed to residents which show their home energy consumption in relation to similarly situated neighbors. Opower’s Home Energy Reports were registered with the Copyright Office in September 2009 as Registration No. VA0001692228 and in October 2011 as Registration No. TX0007435604.

According to the complaint, Efficiency 2.0′s Energy Savings Reports are nearly identical to Opower’s copyrighted reports. Opower claims the similarities include “overall layout and blocking, use of open space, use of language, use of font, bolding, accents and color, as well as selection and presentation of specific graphics and information.”

Opower is seeking damages, and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Efficiency 2.0 from using Opower’s copyrighted reports.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Copyrights, Green Patents, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, IP Litigation, Recycling & Waste Management, Smart Grid, Water Filtration

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

Rotary Clubbed: Siemens Hit with Water Filter Patent Suit

June 28th, 2011

Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support (VWS), a subsidiary of Veolia Water, is a French water and wastewater treatment company. VWS owns U.S. Patent No. 7,507,805 (’805 Patent), which relates to rotary disk filter technology.

VWS recently sued Siemens Industry (Siemens) for patent infringement in the Eastern District of North Carolina, accusing its German competitor of infringing the ’805 Patent.

According to the complaint (Veolia-Complaint), Siemens’ Forty-X disk filter product infringes claims 1 and 16 of the ’805 Patent.

The ’805 Patent is directed to a rotary disk filter having a modular construction. The rotary disk filter (1) has a rotating drum (2) that includes a plurality of disk-shaped filter members (3).

The lateral faces of the filter members support a filter cloth (4), which traps particles in the liquid being filtered.

A filter support (11) extends radially outwards from the center of the drum and forms filter segments or modules (13). The modules, as shown in Figure 4 below, have an intermediate support portion (15) and two outer support portions (16) extending from the intermediate support portion.

Two inner support portions (17) extend from the other end of the intermediate support portion (15), which has a framework construction (18) with hollow spaces (19). Openings (20) in the inner support portions (17) allow the liquid to be filtered to pass from the interior of the drum (2).

According to the ’805 Patent, the modular filter design and support structure provide a lighter filter with higher filtering capacity at a lower manufacturing cost.

The rotary disk filters at issue in this case are used for a variety of applications including tertiary filtration, water reuse, and process water filtration.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Water Filtration

Green Patent Acquisitions: BASF Buys inge watertechnologies

May 22nd, 2011

In a move to strengthen its position in water treatment, chemical giant BASF recently announced that it will acquire German water filtration membrane developer inge watertechnologies (inge).

Inge makes ultrafiltration systems used to treat drinking water, wastewater, and seawater and specializes in filtration modules and rack designs for water treatment plants.

Inge owns a couple of international patent applications relating to its water treatment technologies, as well as at least one U.S. application and one European application.

The international applications are WO/2010/121628, entitled “Backflushing filtration module and filtration system for cleaning fluids contaminated by particles” and WO/2009/003887, entitled “Filtration system comprising a plurality of filtration modules connected in parallel.” Inge’s European application is EP2158958, entitled “Device and method for backwashing filter membrane modules.”

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0051544 (’544 Application) is directed to an apparatus and method for backwashing filter membrane modules.

Module rows (1a-1d) consist of four individual membrane modules, and each individual module includes a bundle of individual filtration modules. The rows (1a-1d) together form a module rack.

Supply/drain lines (7a, 7b) carry raw water, which is supplied to each filter membrane module (2) through supply/drain ports (3a, 3b). After filtration, the filtrate is drained via drain ports (4), flows through control valves (11a-11c) to filtrate collection line (5), and exits the module rack at central filtrate valve (6).

In backwashing mode, control valve (11b) of module row (1a) is closed on the supply side while the associated control valve (11a) on the drain side is open. The supply side control valves in supply/drain line (7b) remain open.

Thus, in the backwashing mode the filtrate produced by module rows (1b-1d) is pressed backwards through first module row (1a) to clean the filter membrane modules in that row. The polluted backwashing water leaves through drain port (10) of the module rack via the other supply/drain line (7a).

Each of the remaining module rows (1b-1d) is subsequently backwashed in succession in the same manner.

According to the ’544 application, this approach reduces the risk of contamination due to water stagnating in a backwash reservoir.

Also, because some module rows continue to produce the filtrate that is used for backwashing while one of the rows is being backwashed, the invention eliminates the need for a backwashing pump:

The advantage of the approach according to the present invention lies in particular in that a backwashing reservoir with the associated backwashing pump can be dispensed with. This is because, during the backwashing mode, with the exception of the module row to be backwashed, the remaining module rows are operated in the filtration mode, so that they produce filtrate which is directly used for backwashing the module row switched in the backwashing mode.

According to the inge press release (inge_release), the acquisition is expected to close in Q3 2011.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Water Filtration

Energy Recovery Spins Out Energy Savings for Desalination

January 28th, 2011

Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI), a company based in San Leandro, California, has developed technology that reduces the amount of energy required for desalination.

The technology does not directly relate to filtering water, but instead harnesses the pressure in the wastewater stream of reverse osmosis systems and transfers that pressure to the incoming feed stream to reduce the energy required to run the desal process.

According to ERI’s web site, the technology in its PX device (pictured above) has led to seven U.S. patents and international patents.

Tim Dyer, the company’s CTO, commented on ERI’s IP. ”We innovate and create intellectual property along the way to address existing and emerging industrial energy recovery needs. Our strategy drives our IP, and our IP drives our strategy.”

U.S. Patent No. 7,201,557 (’557 Patent) relates to some of ERI’s fundamental innovations. Entitled “Rotary pressure exchanger,” the ’557 Patent is directed to a pressure exchange apparatus for transferring the pressure of a high pressure fluid stream to a lower pressure fluid stream.

The rotary pressure exchanger (11) has a housing (13) containing a rotor (15) with a plurality of channels (16). A low pressure seawater feed stream from a reverse osmosis system is pumped through a straight inlet conduit (39) and fills an inlet passageway (41).

At the same time, high pressure brine from the reverse osmosis system is pumped through an elbow conduit (51), fills a plenum chamber (53) and enters axial channels (16), causing the rotor (15) to spin.

As the rotor (15) spins, there is periodic alignment of each channel (16) with the opening to a discharge seawater passageway (65) in an upper end cover (19). According to the ’557 Patent, whenever this alignment occurs the seawater in the channels is instantly pressurized.

Thus, the pressurized seawater is caused to flow out of the channels, fill an upper plenum chamber (45) and exit through an elbow discharge conduit (43).

Similarly, when a rotor channel (16) is aligned with the opening to the seawater inlet passageway (63) and the opening to the brine discharge passageway in the lower end cover (21), the seawater forces the low pressure brine out of the pressure exchanger (11) through the straight discharge conduit (49).

ERI’s pressure exchanger has the advantage of simplicity, with the rotor being the only moving part. The rotor and associated components seal the high pressure portion of the reverse osmosis process by keeping high and low pressure separate without the need for pistons.

According to ERI’s web site, the PX device makes desalination more economical and less energy intensive by reducing the amount of energy required by up to 60%.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Water Filtration

In Confident Open Letter, RPI Updates Customers on Remediation Patent Suit

March 15th, 2009

In a previous post, I wrote about a patent dispute over BOS 100, a reactant used in groundwater remediation that removes chlorine from chlorinated contaminants. There are two lawsuits involving this technology, both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte.

In the first suit, Remediation Products, Inc. (RPI), a Golden, Colorado company that makes and sells the BOS 100 product, sued Adventus Americas, Inc. (Adventus) and EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc. (ETI), requesting a declaratory judgment that the BOS 100 does not infringe U.S. Patents Nos. 5,266,213 (’213 patent) and 5,534,154 (’154 patent) and that the patents are invalid (rpi_complaint.pdf).

In the second suit, ETI, the exclusive licensee of several groundwater remediation patents including the ’213 and ’154 patents, along with Adventus (the sub-licensee of the patents), sued AST Environmental, Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corp. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging infringement of six of the licensed patents.

According to the complaint (adventus_complaint.pdf), Defendants are infringing the patents by making and selling BOS 100.

Last month, RPI put out an open letter to its customers to provide an update on its lawsuit aginst Adventus and ETI. The letter (rpi-letter-to-customers.pdf) states that RPI is also seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of four patents relating to a combination of fibrous organic matter and a multi-valent metal which were asserted by Adventus and ETI.

The letter reports that the court has issued a claim construction order in the case and notes that the claim term “body of metal” was interpreted (rpi_claims_clarification.pdf) to exclude anything other than metal particles:

The Court previously construed the term “body of metal” to mean “a collection of particles of metal into an amount.” The Court clearly did not include anything other than metal in its construction of the term. To the extent that the term needs to be clarified, the Court finds that the body of metal does not include anything other than metal particles. (internal citations omitted)

According to the letter, this interpretation contradicts a position taken by ETI in its 2005 Open Letter to the Remediation Industry which suggested that the use of iron “in combination with other materials” for remediation falls under the company’s “base technology.”

Moreover, RPI believes it has a strong case on invalidity, the letter explains, because two of the prior art references it is relying on were found to invalidate the Japanese counterpart of the ’213 patent, and those invalidity findings were upheld by the Japanese Supreme Court.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Recycling & Waste Management, Water Filtration

Adventus Asserts Decontamination Patents Against AST and Calgon

December 10th, 2008

EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc. (ETI) is a Canadian company that provides processes for treating contaminated groundwater. ETI is the exclusive licensee of several patents relating to groundwater remediation technology.

Last month ETI, along with Adventus Americas, Inc. (the sub-licensee of the patents), both part of the Adventus Group (collectively “Adventus”), sued AST Environmental, Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corp. (collectively “Defendants”) in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, alleging infringement of six of the licensed patents.

According to the complaint (adventus_complaint.pdf), Defendants are infringing the patents by making and selling BOS 100, a reactant that removes the chlorine from chlorinated contaminants.

The complaint also accuses Defendants of deceiving potential Adventus customers through misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims about the performance of BOS 100 in violation of North Carolina’s deceptive trade practices statute.

The asserted patents are directed to methods of cleaning groundwater that has been contaminated with chlorinated or halogenated organic compounds such as PCBs and pesticides.

According to the patents, prior processes collected the pollutants from the water, which created a disposal problem. The disclosed methods break down the pollutants in the water instead.

Some of the claimed decontamination methods include:

contacting the groundwater with an anaerobic portion of a metal to replace a chlorine ion or other halogen ion with a hydroxide ion (U.S. Patent No. 5,266,213, or ’213 patent);

passing contaminated water through a mixture of an adsorptive material such as activated carbon and a metal to break down the contaminant (U.S. Patent No. 5,534,154, or ’154 patent); and

promoting decomposition or degradation of halogens or other chemical contaminants in water by adding multi-valent metal particles and fibrous organic matter that supports bacterial or fungal growth (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,411,664, 5,480,579, 5,618,427 and 6,083,394).

This is not the first lawsuit involving this technology. Remediation Products, Inc. (RPI) is a Golden, Colorado company that makes and sells the BOS 100 product and owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,863,360 (bos_100_-reg.pdf) for the BOS 100 mark. In April 2007, RPI sued Adventus and ETI in federal court in Charlotte requesting a declaratory judgment that the BOS 100 does not infringe the ’213 and 154 patents and that the patents are invalid (rpi_complaint.pdf).

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Recycling & Waste Management, Water Filtration

« Older Entries