Archive for the ‘Wind Power’ category

Mitsubishi Powers Past GE in ITC Wind Turbine Case

January 27th, 2010

Mitsubishi has pulled off a come-from-behind victory in a wind turbine patent case against General Electric (GE) in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

In a Notice issued on January 8th, the ITC terminated its investigation of GE’s complaint and found Mitsubishi did not violate any claims of the three patents asserted by GE.

GE filed the complaint in March of 2008, accusing Mitsubishi of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,083,039 (’039 Patent) and 6,921,985 (’985 Patent). GE later amended the complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 7,321,221 (’221 Patent).

The ’039 Patent is entitled “Variable speed wind turbine” and is directed to a variable speed turbine that provides responsive control of generator torque.

The ’985 Patent is entitled “Low voltage ride through for wind turbine generators” and is directed to a wind turbine that includes a blade pitch control system and a turbine controller coupled with the blade pitch control system.

The ’221 Patent is entitled “Method for operating a wind power plant and method for operating it” and is directed to improved methods for stabilizing the supply voltage to a wind turbine after voltage drops without jeopardizing the electrical components of the turbine.

A more detailed discussion of the asserted patents can be found in my previous post on the federal court case between GE and Mitsubishi here.

The ITC decision to let Mitsubishi off the hook reversed an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) ruling in August of last year that Mitsubishi had violated the ’039 and ’985 Patents.

Shortly after the ALJ decision, an ITC investigative attorney filed a petition with the ITC commissioners questioning certain infringement findings and raising concerns about whether GE met the domestic industry requirement of Section 337.

The Notice of Termination clears the way for Mitsubishi to assemble its imported turbine components and build a $100 million wind power plant in Forth Smith, Arkansas.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Wind Power

GE Asserts Wind Power Patents Against Mitsubishi Again

September 27th, 2009

The General Electric Company (GE) is the U.S. leader in installed wind capacity, and patent enforcement plays a part in that success. Earlier this month GE sued Mitsubishi in the Southern District of Texas, alleging that its Japanese competitor’s 2.4MW turbine models infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,083,039 (’039 Patent), 6,921,985 (’985 Patent) and 7,321,221 (’221 Patent).

The complaint (ge_complaint.pdf) cites the sale and installation of Mitsubishi’s turbines at the Penascal and Gulf Wind wind farms in Kenedy County, Texas as infringing activities.

The asserted patents relate to energy conversion and control technology for wind turbines. The ’039 Patent, which issued back in 1992, is directed to a variable speed wind turbine that provides responsive control of generator torque. The patented turbine controls the torque reacted by the generators (16, 18) by controlling the stator currents or voltages and basing commands on turbine performance parameters.

Shaft speed sensors (42, 44) monitor the rotor speed of the generators and supply rotor speed information to the generator controllers (38, 40) and to a torque command device (46). Specifically, the torque command device (46) monitors wind turbine performance parameters and sends torque control signals to the generator cotrollers (38, 40) and pitch angle control signals to a pitch control unit (48).

The ’985 Patent is directed to a wind turbine that includes a blade pitch control system and a turbine controller coupled with the blade pitch control system. To increase the reliability of the turbine’s power supply, the turbine controller causes the blade pitch control system to vary pitch in response to transitions between different power sources.

The ’221 Patent is directed to improved methods for stabilizing the supply voltage to a wind turbine after voltage drops without jeopardizing the electrical components of the turbine. According to the ’221 Patent, a key step in the patented method is to resume feeding of the rotor current after variations in voltage amplitude cause decoupling of the feed-in unit.

This lawsuit appears to be the second part of a two-pronged strategy to enforce these patents against Mitsubishi. As mentioned in the complaint, GE obtained an initial favorable decision from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that Mitsubishi had not successfully challenged the validity and enforceability of these patents and that the accused wind turbines infringe the patents (ge_itc_initial_determination.pdf) (see the CleanIP blog post here).

The ITC action and this new federal court case squeeze Mitsubishi both with respect to importation of its turbines at the U.S. border and as to domestically produced equipment.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Wind Power

Wind Energy Eco-Mark Litigation Heats Up

September 20th, 2009

In a previous post, I wrote about Nordic Windpower’s (Nordic) patent pending flexible “teeter hub” technology for its two-bladed wind turbines.

Nordic also has begun to enforce its increasingly valuable trademark, reflecting a recent uptick in litigation involving eco-marks (trademarks that communicate environmentally friendly products or services).

Nordic owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,536,392 for the NORDIC WINDPOWER mark for “wind turbines; wind-powered electricity generators” in Class 7 (’392 Registration) (392_reg.pdf).

Last month Nordic sued Nordic Turbines, Inc. (NTI), a wind turbine manufacturing venture, alleging that NTI’s use of the term “Nordic” to market and sell wind turbines and raise investment capital for the manufacture of wind turbines infringes the ’392 Registration.

According to the complaint (nordic_complaint.pdf), filed in federal court in San Francisco, NTI changed its name in June 2009 from Vista Dorada Corp. to Nordic Turbines to benefit from Nordic’s goodwill and market presence.

In addition to trademark infringement, the complaint alleges that NTI misappropriated text and images from a Nordic confidential management presentation that includes details about Nordic’s patent pending technology.

Nordic also asserts trade dress protection for a blue and orange color scheme the company uses in its advertisements and promotional material (trade dress refers to the visual look and feel of a product or its packaging). The complaint alleges that NTI is using an identical blue and orange color scheme.

Nordic has requested a preliminary and permanent injunction with respect to the alleged trademark and trade dress infringement and requests that the court make NTI do corrective advertising to dispel any consumer confusion.

In another wind energy eco-mark suit, Jacobs Wind Electric Co. (Jacobs), a Minneapolis-based consumer wind system designer, recently moved for partial summary judgment of trademark cancellation and fraud claims brought by Minnesota wind system maker Wind Turbine Industries Corp. (WTIC) in a dispute over rights to certain JACOBS trademarks.

Jacobs owns U.S. Trademark Registration 1,532,714 for the mark JACOBS WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS & Design (shown above) for wind energy conversion apparatus in Class 7 (’714 Registration) (714_reg.pdf). Jacobs also owns U.S. Trademark Application No. 76/677,473 for the JACOBS mark for the same goods (’473 Application) (473_app.pdf).

In January, WTIC sued Jacobs in U.S. District Court in Minnesota, requesting cancellation of the ’714 Registration and the ’473 Application on the basis that Jacobs fraudulently obtained the ’714 Registration for the design mark and is fraudulently seeking registration of the JACOBS mark.

WTIC asserts that the JACOBS mark was owned by an earlier Jacobs corporate entity, which subsequently changed its name to Earth Energy Systems, Inc. (EESI).

According to the complaint (wind_turbine_industries_complaint.pdf), EESI assigned to the current Jacobs only limited use of the mark, and Jacobs agreed not to use the JACOBS mark in connection with the manufacture or sale of wind energy equipment. The complaint further alleges that EESI assigned the the JACOBS mark in its entirety to WTIC.

WTIC accused Jacobs of fraud in prosecuting the application that matured into the ’714 Registration and the ’473 Application by swearing to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that it exclusively owned the mark.

Jacobs’ summary judgment motion (jacobs_wind_motion.pdf) disputes WTIC’s ownership story. According to the motion papers, Jacobs was granted a perpetual license to use the JACOBS mark by EESI, and WTIC was subsequently granted a limited license to the mark subject to pre-existing licenses.

Jacobs also contends that the fraud claim should be dismissed as to the ’714 Registration due to laches because WTIC’s delay in bringing the claim was unreasonable (the ’714 Registration issued in 1989) and, with respect to the ’473 Application, that the court lacks the statutory authority to cancel a pending trademark application.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, IP Litigation, Wind Power

Flexibility = Reliability: Nordic Windpower’s Teetering Turbine

July 29th, 2009

Nordic Windpower (Nordic) is a Berkeley, California company that designs, manufactures and sells utility-scale wind turbines.

Earlier this month Nordic announced that it had received a $16 million loan guarantee offer from the U.S. Department of Energy. Nordic said it will use the government funds to expand its Idaho assembly plant.

Nordic’s turbines have a two-blade design rather than the more traditional three-blade rotor common in utility-scale wind.

A two-blade design reduces the cost associated with providing blades and simplifies assembly but also requires a different hub design because a two-blade turbine is less balanced and more prone to fatigue from that unbalance than the conventional three-blade turbine.

Teeter hubs, which are hinged to the turbine shaft, were developed for two-blade turbines, but they don’t hold up well in extreme wind conditions.

Nordic has developed flexible teeter hub technology so the rotor blades can flex at the hub to dissipate high winds before they can reach or damage the turbine drive train. International Pub. No. WO 02/079647 (’647 Application) describes and claims Nordic’s flexible teeter hub assembly.

The ’647 Application is directed to a teeter hub (2) that allows some flexing while also better absorbing extreme torque. Blades (1) are connected to the hub (2), and the hub is connected to the turbine shaft (3).

The reaction arm (15) extends all they way through the hub (2) from the periphery adjacent the turbine shaft (3) to the opposite side of the hub. The length of the reaction arm (15) allows the hub assembly to better absorb extreme torque caused by high winds.

The bearing (12), the reaction arm (15) and the spring elements (13) together form a hinge assembly. When high winds blow, the hinge assembly allows the hub (2) to pivot slightly while the springs (13) counteract the teeter movement.

The torque is absorbed with an even distribution on the bearing (12) and the springs (13) thus minimizing damage to the turbine.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Wind Power

Swift Overcomes Obviousness Rejections to Obtain Small Wind Turbine Patent

July 19th, 2009

In a previous post, I wrote about the new Swift wind turbine, developed by Scottish energy products and solutions company Renewable Devices Swift Turbines Ltd. (RDST) for use in densely populated areas. Last month RDST obtained a patent for its turbine: U.S. Patent No. 7,550,864 issued June 23, 2009.

RDST’s design overcomes the problem of wind turbine noise by using a circular diffuser (21) that rings the turbine blades. In operation, when the airflow reaches the ends of the blades, it contacts the diffuser and proceeds in a circumferential path instead of flowing off the ends of blades.

The Swift turbine also has a furling device (50) with tailfins (53, 54). When the airflow exceeds a certain speed, the furling device rotates the rotor to maintain the direction of the airflow in line with the turbine’s rotational axis. In excessively high winds, the turbine rotor can be rotated out of the airflow altogether. These measures reduce the vibrations of the turbine assembly components.

Finally, the Swift turbine has a mounting structure that includes a rubber core to absorb vibrations before they spread upward to the moving parts of the turbine assembly.

RDST overcame rejections by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that its patent claims were obvious over two prior art patents by using a host of arguments, including some of the so-called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness.

Independent claim 1, as amended during prosecution (and as ultimately issued) recited:

A rotor for a roof-mounted wind turbine comprising a plurality of radial blades and a ring-shaped diffuser connected to the outer tips of the blades, wherein the diffuser is an aerofoil diffuser and is configured such that it inhibits the partly axial and partly radial airflow from the blades, said airflow becoming circumferential when it contacts the aerofoil diffuser, thereby reducing acoustic emissions.

Thus, the claimed turbine rotor contained the following mechanical components: a rotor, a plurality of blades, and a ring-shaped diffuser, wherein the diffuser is an aerofoil diffuser.

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) viewed this iteration of claim 1 as a combination of known elements and rejected the claim as obvious over two prior art patents, one of which disclosed a rotor, blades and a diffuser and another that taught an aerfoil diffuser. According to the patent examiner, it would have been obvious to combine the aerofoil diffuser of reference two with the rotor blades and diffuser of reference one to achieve a reduced noise level.

RDST successfully overcame this rejection by pointing out deficiencies in the cited prior art and by using a host of non-obviousness arguments. For instance, RDST argued that the prior art taught away form attaching a large mass to the ends of rotor blades, that the degree of noise reduction was an unexpected result and that competing designs had failed to achieve comparable noise reduction.

Finally, to tie it all together for the patent examiner, RDST submitted audiovisual evidence of the its quiet turbine in action.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Wind Power

Pax Accuses Design Firm of Infringing Mollusk-Inspired Rotor Patent

April 22nd, 2009

Pax Scientific, Inc. (“Pax”) is a San Rafael, California company that specializes in fluid-handling technology used in applications such as fans, mixers, pumps, turbines, heat exchangers, ducts and propellers. Pax owns U.S. Patent No. 5,934,877 (’877 patent), entitled “Rotor with logarithmic scaled shape”.

The ’877 patent is directed to a rotor, the surface of which is configured according to a logarithmic curve known as the Fibonacci Progression, or the Golden Section. According to the ’877 patent, this type of surface is commonly found in shells of the phylum Mollusca, particularly in the classes Gastropoda (that’s squid, cuttlefish and octopus to you and me) and Cephalopoda (e.g., snails and slugs).

This is an example of biomimetics, the application of systems found in nature to the study of engineering and the development of technology. The ’877 patent states that the invention “enables fluids to move over the surfaces of the rotor in their naturally preferred way, thereby reducing inefficiencies created through turbulence and friction…”

Claim 1 of the ’877 patent reads:

A rotor for use with a fluid flow generator or reactor, said rotor being intended to rotate about a central axis and having a surface which defines an arcuate fluid pathway for fluid flow about the central axis about which the rotor is able to rotate, wherein the surface has the configuration of a logarithmic curve substantially conforming to the Golden Section.

Last month Pax sued Re:Thought, LLC (Re:Thought), a Colorado product design consulting firm, and Robert Irwin, the company’s co-founder, in federal court in San Jose, alleging that the firm’s Biometric Horizontal Wind Axis Turbine (BioHAWT) infringes the ’877 patent.

According to the complaint (pax_complaint.pdf), Irwin repeatedly contacted Pax’s president and CEO, Jay Harman, about developing a wind turbine using the techniques of biomimetics. Pax alleges that Irwin revealed details about his design, including pictures and sketches, and solicited technical advice from Harman.

Despite being warned that his design would infringe Pax’s ’877 patent, the complaint states, Irwin and Re:Thought displayed a prototype of the BioHAWT in Denver in the fall of 2008. The complaint accuses Re:Thought of direct infringement and and Irwin of contributory infringement and inducing infringement.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Wind Power

Green Patent Acquisitions: VAWT Maker and “Windvertiser” WePOWER Purchases PacWind

March 29th, 2009

WePOWER is a Laguna Niguel, California renewable energy company that provides wind, solar and magnetic energy solutions. The company’s specialty is vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) for use in cities and suburban areas.

WePOWER had been partnering with another California VAWT startup called PacWind and announced last month that it has purchased PacWind’s proprietary technologies. PacWind’s patent portfolio included U.S. Patent No. 7,109,599 (’599 patent) and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0273978 (’978 application), both relating to omni-directional VAWTs.

The ’599 patent is directed to a wind rotor having a central vertical axis of rotation (13). The rotor assembly includes an upper ring (25) and a lower ring (26), with a plurality of vanes (35) connected to the upper and lower rings and extending axially between the rings. An electric generator (40) is supported by the rotor foundation.

The ’978 application is directed to a vertically-oriented wind turbine (20) with a central axis of rotation (21). The turbine assembly has a generator (24) mounted to a base (23). A bearing (25) supports the rotor (26) and mounts two sets of three arms each (28, 29, 30), with one set above the other. Vanes (31, 32, 33) are rigidly attached to the ends of respective arms (28, 29, 30).

The PacWind acquisition boosts WePOWER’s position in the medium wind market, including its trendy and cleverly named sub-specialty of wind-powered billboard advertising, which the company calls ”windvertising” (see the “windvertising” piece here, the New York Times article here and the Triple Pundit story here).

WePOWER promotes its Windvertiser program on its web site (see here), and owns U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/707,870 for the WINDVERTISER mark for:

Advertising and advertisment services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of third partis, including select clients, on wind turbines and other renewable energy products

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents, Wind Power

Infringement Issues in an Emerging Wind Power Cottage Industry

February 19th, 2009

A post on the Green Light blog led me to an interesting Green Inc. story about a new cottage industry – refurbishing and reselling used wind turbines.

As wind turbines have become larger and more efficient, 1980′s era wind farm owners have discarded their old turbines in favor of the newer models. A bunch of companies that overhaul and sell used wind turbines have emerged, including Halus Power Systems (Halus), Energy Maintenance Service (EMS), Aeronautica Windpower and Nexion DG.

The first thing I thought of as a patent attorney was the potential infringement liability. If indeed the turbines at issue are from the 1980′s, to the extent they were patented, the patents have expired by now.

But if these companies are servicing turbines made more recently, infringement could be an issue. Under U.S. patent law, once a patented article is sold, repair of the article is permissible, but reconstruction (making an essentially new article on the template of the original) constitutes infringement.

The line between repair and reconstruction is not always clear and depends on the facts of each case. The types of refurbishment that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held to be permissible repair include re-applying a non-stick coating to a cooking device, replacing an inner container for medical waste, and replacing disks in a tomato harvester head.

By contrast, when an entirely new cutting tip was created for a patented drill bit after the existing cutting tip could no longer be sharpened and reused, the Federal Circuit found the overhaul to be reconstruction.

Two key issues run through the case law on repair and reconstruction. The first is whether the entire patented article as a whole can be viewed as having completed its useful life. In these cases, refurbishment typically is deemed infringing reconstruction.

The second is whether the whole patented article consists of a combination of unpatented parts. In those cases, even where refurbishment is extensive and includes disassembly, modification or replacement of many of the unpatented components, the process is likely to be viewed as permissible repair.

So, assuming the possibility of overhauling patented wind turbines, if the used or broken turbines still have useful life in them and consist of unpatented blades, generator, gearbox, etc., these resellers are likely to be in the clear. On the other hand, if the turbines are spent or have anything like the patent protection of Clipper Windpower’s Liberty wind turbine, an overhaul could rise to the level of patent infringement.

Another factor, of course, is authorization from the patent holder. Halus’s website says the company specializes in remanufacturing wind turbines originally produced by Vestas, but it’s unclear whether there is some type of partnering arrangment between the two companies.

Comments Off »

Posted in Wind Power

Cleveland Professor’s Groovy Wind Towers Could Bring Wind Power to Cities

January 17th, 2009

Deployment of wind power is hampered by the difficulties of transfering energy from the rural areas where wind farms typically operate to the densely populated areas that need the energy.

Dr. Majid Rashidi, a mechanical engineering professor at Cleveland State University, has designed wind towers that can be mounted on top of city buildings to allow electricity to be generated in large population centers.

Dr. Rashidi has at least two pending patent applications covering his technology. One of his designs is a helical tower with spiraling grooves, described in U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0279690 (’690 application).

The wind tower of the ’690 application has a helical structure (110) and a spiraling groove (120) defined by adjacent spiraling threads (119, 121). The groove and threads extend around the longitudinal axis (140) of the helical structure’s central core (320).

In one embodiment of the invention, the helical structure is about 130 feet tall and about 30 feet in diameter. Turbines (130) having blades with 6-10 foot propeller diameter are positioned at least partially within the spiraling groove (120) of the helical structure (110).

U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/0015017 (’017 application) just published last week (U.S. patent applications typically are published 18 months after their filing date). The ’017 application is directed to a wind power system that deflects wind into two separate flow paths.

The wind deflector (20) has a cylindrical shape to optimize its acceleration effects on air flow. It includes an interior deflector frame (25) surrounded by a cylindrical shell (24). The wind deflector (20) has a top spindle (28) fixed to the frame (25) and bottom spindle (27).

Top and bottom cross members (41 and 45) can be rotated with respect to spindles (27 and 28) to position the turbines (30) into the wind. A drive shaft (35) and a mounting frame (40) also rotate to optimize the turbines’ positions to face the prevailing wind.

Each drive shaft is coupled to a generator (38), and wires (56) carry the electrical power from the generators through an exit connection (59) and on to the city building that needs power.

According to this Ecogeek article, Dr. Rashidi’s towers won’t replace wind turbines, but can complement them to provide onsite power to buildings in large population centers.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Patents, Green Patents, Wind Power

Solar Sailor Harnesses Wind and Sun to Clean Up Cargo Ships

December 14th, 2008

In a previous post, I discussed aerodynamic kites to harness wind power for driving watercraft. Solar Sailor has taken that idea a step further.

Solar Sailor is an Australian company that makes Hybrid Marine Power (HMP) solar sails, which use hybrid electric technology to harness both wind and solar power for large watercraft. The technology allows the sails to be angled to maximize wind and solar efficiency.

This Ecogeek article reports that Solar Sailor recently entered into an agreement with COSCO, the largest Chinese shipping line, to fit their cargo ships with large HMP solar sails.

The sails are 30 meters long and covered with solar photovoltaic panels. According to Ecogeek, the solar panels will provide 5 percent of the ships’ electricity, and the sails will harness enough wind to reduce fuel costs by 20-40%.

The HMP system can be configured in a “series” hybrid layout so the ship is powered entirely by electricity from a generator and batteries, with energy supplied by the solar cells. Alternatively, a “parallel” hybrid layout is powered by both internal combustion engines and electric motors.

Solar Sailor owns a few patents and pending patent applications relating to its solar sail technology. U.S. Patent No. 6,105,524 is directed to pivoting wing sails that can be rotated around their longitudinal axes and/or laterally declined to best take advantage of wind and sunlight conditions.

International Application WO 2005/012079 (’079 application) relates to an unmanned watercraft with a hybrid solar and wind energy propulsion system.

The system of the ’079 application includes a wing sail (503) covered with photovoltaic cells (504) which supply electrical energy to an energy storage means (511) such as batteries or capacitors. The energy storage means supplies DC power to an electric motor/generator (510) which drives a propeller (512).

As the Ecogeek piece points out, technology like this for cargo ships, and decisions to implement it by companies like COSCO, is very important because the shipping industry often escapes environmental regulation due to its critical role in the global economy.

Comments Off »

Posted in Green Patents, Solar Power, Wind Power

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »