Cleantech Open Seeks Entrepreneurs for 2013 Accelerator

April 8th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

The Cleantech Open is a non-profit organization that runs the world’s largest cleantech accelerator.  The organization is currently accepting applications for the 2013 Accelerator.  

The deadline for submitting an application is May 1, 2013.  If submitted by Wednesday, April 10, an Early Bird discount lowers the entry fee to $90 for Professional Teams, and to $40 for Student Teams.  Complete application guidelines can be found on the Cleantech Open website.

The Accelerator fosters promising startups in cleantech fields through a six-month program that includes cutting-edge entrepreneur training and mentoring (including in IP!), client and partner opportunities, and funding connections. 

In May, once all the applications are in, each region evaluates the applicants and selects its 2013 class of Accelerator participants.  From June through November, these startups receive training from a broad cross-section of corporations, educational institutions, industry experts, investors and mentors that participate in the program.  This includes a comprehensive training experience provided through the intensive curriculum at the Cleantech Open National Academies, where more than 175 entrepreneurs gather to share ideas and learn how to scale their business.

After winners are selected by each of Cleantech Open’s eight regions, the entire class of startups convenes at the Global Forum to exhibit and pitch their business ideas to a panel of investors and industry leaders.  Expert judges select the overall winners, including the National Grand Prize Winner (which receives $200,000 in seed investment and services) from the eight category winners.  A separate panel of judges selects the National Sustainability Prize winner.

The Cleantech Open is designed specifically for cleantech entrepreneurs who:

  • Have an innovative cleantech idea and need help getting it funded
  • Have a prototype but need to take the next steps to commercialization
  • Need help developing an effective investor pitch and introductions to the right investors

Innovators who are selected to participate in the Cleantech Open can expect to receive:

  • Training through two National Academy events, national webinars, and regional workshops and training events.
  • One-on-one mentoring from 1,000+ participating mentors across the United States, and through dozens of regional business clinics.
  • Access to capital through the Cleantech Open network of strategic investors and at focused “investor pitch panels,” networking receptions, and the popular Investor Connect events.
  • Showcasing and press exposure of their technologies, products, and services at five major Regional Innovation Summits and at the Global Forum in November 2013.
  • A collection of free resources and lifetime membership to Cleantech Open’s alumni program, upon graduating.

The Cleantech Open has consistently proven it offers a recipe for entrepreneurial success.  Since business leaders in Silicon Valley founded the organization in 2006, the Cleantech Open has established itself as the leading force for accelerating cleantech entrepreneurs.

Over the past eight years, more than 700 startups have participated in Accelerator program, and nearly half of these have gone on to raise external capital that now totals more than $800 million. Internationally, cleantech startups from 33 countries have participated in Cleantech Open programs via the Global Ideas Competition.

For 2013, the Cleantech Open Accelerator covers 50 states across 8 regions. It will hold more than 100 regional and national events in over 25 different cities to unite its 1,500 professionals, many of whom are passionate volunteers, in their effort to find, fund and foster tomorrow’s cleantech success stories.

The organization expects between 175 and 200 entrepreneurs will participate in this year’s accelerator — and the website is now accepting applications.  This year, to align itself with industry trends, the Accelerator has been expanded to include a wider scope of products and technologies.

Personally, I’m excited to report that I have recently taken over the role of San Diego Metro Director for the Cleantech Open.  So you can feel free to contact me directly with any questions via email at elane@mckennalong.com.

No comments »

Posted in Policy & Initiatives

Gevo Escapes Equivalents Infringement of Two Butamax Patents

April 4th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

We’ve been tracking the major biobutanol patent litigation between advanced biofuels company Gevo and BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax, e.g., here, here and here.

In a signficant decision, a Delaware federal court judge recently ruled on several motions and cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to two Butamax patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 (’889 Patent) and  7,851,188 (’188 Patent).

The ’889 and ’188 Patents are both entitled “Fermentive production of four carbon alcohols” and directed to a more cost efficient method of producing isobutanol directly from pyruvate via a particular production pathway using recombinant microbial host cells.

Butamax had moved for summary judgment of infringement of the ’889 and’ 188 Patents and no invalidity while Gevo had moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the two patents.

On infringement Gevo achieved a partial victory.  The court granted summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, but denied both parties’ motions as to literal infringement. 

The doctrine of equivalents provides that there can be infringement of a patent where the accused device or process does not literally meet all the elements of a patent claim but has an equivalent or only insubstantially different element.

The patented processes use an enzyme called KARI, which needs a cofactor that donates electrons to enable it to catalyze a reaction.  Based on statements in the patents, the court interpreted the claims to require a KARI defined with respect to the NADPH cofactor only. 

Gevo’s process uses an NADH-dependent enzyme, so the issue was whether an NADH-dependent KARI enzyme is equivalent to an NADPH-dependent enzyme.  The court noted that their chemical structures are different and not interchangeable:

NADH and NADPH have distinct chemical structures, with NADPH containing an additional phosphate group.  This extra phosphate group allows NADPH “to be recognized selectively by the enzymes involved in biosynthesis;” thus, “despite their close chemical resemblance,’ NADH and NADPH are ’not metabolically interchangeable.’”

Accordingly, the court held that the two cofactors could not be deemed equivalents:

For the reasons discussed above in claim constructions, the court does not agree that NADH and NADPH are insubstantially different.

However, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to literal infringement because there was a question of fact about interpreting certain data about Gevo’s KARI enzymes’ NADH or NADPH dependency:

While Butamax’s evidence of infringement is less than compelling, nonetheless, the court finds it sufficient to withstand Gevo’s motion for summary judgment, as it raises genuine issues of material fact as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would determine NADH-dependency.

The court also reached split decisions on validity, holding claims 12 and 13 of the ’889 Patent invalid for lack of written description but denying Gevo’s summary judgment motion with respect to claim 8.  Finally, the court denied Gevo’s motions for summary judgment that some of the asserted claims of the ’188 and ’889 Patents are anticipated and obvious.

Although this is a significant decision, it appears to only slightly narrow the issues and only with respect to two of the patents.  There are at least 15 other patents in the dispute so there will undoubtedly be much more to come.

No comments »

Posted in Biofuels Patents, Green Patents, IP Litigation

Latvian Green Tech Fast Track Grants Patents in “About an Hour”

April 1st, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

The Latvian Patent Office (LPO) announced today the launch of an accelerated examination program for green technology patent applications which would grant patents in “about an hour.” 

Apparently, the astonishing turnaround time is possible because of the chronically underutilized staff of the LPO.  Since its modern inception in 1992, the LPO has employed just one part-time patent examiner who works 2-3 days a week (Mondays, Wednesdays and alternate Fridays from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM with an hour and a half for lunch and six 15-minute cigarette breaks).

The LPO has extremely light application volume in part because the current European patent system enables applicants to file in the European Patent Office, where substantive examination takes place, and simply validate any resulting patent in individual country patent offices like the LPO.

Applicants participating in the new fast track program will receive a first office action within 15 minutes of filing.  If the applicant is able to prepare and file a response by the half-hour mark, the LPO guarantees a final disposition (either final office action or patent grant) within an hour of the filing time.

One down side for participating applicants is that any continuations or divisional applications would have to be filed within 59 minutes and 59 seconds of the filing time of the parent application.

Jāzeps Pliekšāns Heinrihs Klapje de Kolongs Aleksandrs fon Freitāgs-Loringhofens, the LPO’s Director of Policy, is confident the office can deliver results in the promised time period:

If the glasses store can make glasses in about an hour, the Patent Office of the Republic of Latvia can grant a patent in the same time.  Glasses are complex plastic, metal or wire frames containing delicate discs of prescription glass.  Patents are just small stacks of paper.

Latvia joins a number of other countries that have instituted accelerated examination programs for green technology patent applications, such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Korea, but is by far the smallest market country to do so.

Some of the other green patent fast track programs such as those implemented by the Korean Intellectual Property Office and Brazil’s Institute of Industrial Property have received some heat for rules that smack of protectionism such as requiring the applicant to have received funding or certification from the government (Korea), have a local corporate entity and office (Korea), or limiting eligibility to national applications (Brazil).

Clearly aware of these criticisms, the LPO fast track does accept national stage applications and has only minimal local requirements.  Rather than make the applicant establish a local office, for example, the fast track rules simply require that the applicant build a local bird house in the country suitable to support a family of White Wagtails, the national bird of Latvia. 

According to Dr. Klapje de Kolongs Aleksandrs fon Freitāgs-Loringhofens:

Applicants will be very delighted at the beautiful plumage of the White Wagtail and have the option to build the bird house in the capital, Riga, and the surrounding area or in the countryside, for example, in the Courland, Latgale, Vidzeme, or Zemgale regions.

The LPO’s fast track rulemaking committee settled on the bird house provision after failing to reach a consensus on a requirement for the applicant to take “substantial steps to support” the population of Latvia’s national insect, the two-spot ladybird.

While there is no additional fee for the green patent fast track program, the LPO suggests a mandatory donation for each participating patent application of at least 5 kilograms of amber, a fossilized tree resin which is one of Latvia’s most important cultural symbols.

No comments »

Posted in Green Patents, Policy & Initiatives

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

March 28th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

In the last month several green patent complaints were filed in the fields of LEDs, advanced batteries and smart grid.

 

LEDs

Bayco Products, Inc. v. Philips Intellectual Property & Standards

Bayco Products (Bayco), a Texas company that makes lighting products including LED flashlights, brought a declaratory judgment action against Philips requesting a judgment that three Philips patents are invalid and/or not infringed.

Filed February 26, 2013 in federal court in Dallas, Texas, the complaint alleges that Philips is “seeking to exact ill-deserved royalty payments” from Bayco in connection with its XPP-5450 Series Dual Function Headlamps.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 6,234,648, entitled “Lighting system,” U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire” and U.S. Patent No. 6,692,136, entitled “LED/phosphor-LED hybrid lighting systems.”

 

Trustees of Boston University v. Seoul Semiconductor, Ltd.

Trustees of Boston University v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

In October of 2012, Boston University (BU) sued Korean LED maker Seoul Semiconductor (Seoul) in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The original complaint was covered here and asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (’738 Patent). 

The ’738 Patent is entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.

BU’s second amended complaint, filed March 6, 2013, adds U.S. Patent No. 6,953,703, entitled “Method of making a semiconductor device with exposure of sapphire substrate to activated nitrogen.”

The accused devices include gallium nitride thin film LEDs and LEDs made by exposing a sapphire substrate to activated nitrogen and depositing Group III nitride semiconductor material.

BU also asserted the ’738 Patent against Samsung in a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts on March 21, 2013.

 

Advanced Batteries

Celgard, LLC v. Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd.

Celgard is a North Carolina company that manufactures specialty membranes and separators for lithium ion batteries.  On February 22, 2013, Celgard filed a patent infringement complaint against Sumitomo Chemical Company (Sumitomo) in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that Sumitomo is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 (’586 Patent) by selling lithium ion battery separators to its customers knowing that the separators will be incorporated into finished lithium ion batteries.

The ’586 Patent is entitled “Separator for a high energy rechargeable lithium battery” and directed to a separator including a ceramic composite layer and a polyolefinic microporous layer.  The ceramic layer has a matrix material and is adapted to block dendrite growth and prevent electronic shorting.

 

Smart Grid

Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.

In July of 2012 Electric Power Group (EPG), a Pasadena, California, developer and distributor of electric grid monitoring solutions sued the French conglomerate Alstom and its U.S. division Alstom Grid in the Central District of California for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,060,259 (’259 Patent).

The ’259 Patent is entitled “Wide-area, real-time monitoring and visualization system” and directed to a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid.

EPG filed a first amended complaint against Alstom on February 19, 2013 in which it added a claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,843, entitled “Real-time performance monitoring and management system.”  The accused products are Alstom’s “PhasorPoint” and “e-terravision” solutions alone or in combination with other wide area measurement systems-based smart grid offerings.

No comments »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Green Patents, IP Litigation, LED Patents, Smart Grid Patents

Patented Nautical Torque Process Has Ups and Downs

March 25th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

I received an interesting press release about something called Nautical Torque technology, a process for generating energy from the rise and fall of ships and other large vessels with the tide.  It was invented by the late Cahill Maloney; his son, Galen, is now carrying the torch.

The process is described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,143,733, entitled “System and method for providing nautical torque technology” (’733 Patent). 

The ’733 Patent is directed to a system for nautical torque tidal movement power generation (100) comprising an arrangement (110) of modular, electrically interconnected power generating devices (120) positioned to receive kinetic energy from the movement of water.

Accelerator gearboxes (130) are mechanically coupled to large masses (113).  A torque conversion unit (160) includes an upper drive arm (161) coupled to one large mass (113), a lower drive arm (162 coupled to a second large mass (113), cotter pins (162), a circular sprocket (163), a guide sprocket (164), a reversible gear unit (165), pylons (166), and a circumference sprocket (167) coupled to the reversible gear unit (165).

According to the ’733 Patent, this assembly generates energy when the large masses move up and down with a tidal movement of about one foot per hour:

[The system comprises] at least one tidal movement wave 112 wherein said tidal movement wave 112 travels at a rate of substantially 1 foot per hour in a substantially vertical translation such that said large particles of mass 113 floating on a surface of said tidal movement wave 112 would travel a total of one foot per hour . . . wherein said large particles of mass 113 produce movement of 1 foot per hour in a substantially vertical direction and transmit energy output to one or more electrical transmission power generating devices 120.

According to the Nautical Torque web site, Mr. Maloney is working on a prototype to demonstrate the scalability of the technology.  More info about the inventor and the project can be found here.

No comments »

Posted in Green Patents, Water Power, Wave & Tidal Patents

Alphabet Generates Energy from Nanostructured Thermoelectric Devices

March 21st, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

Alphabet Energy (Alphabet) is a Hayward, California, company that develops thermoelectric materials and products that convert waste heat to electric power.

Alphabet’s web site provides this overview of the concept of thermoelectrics:

Thermoelectrics are solid-state semiconductors that turn heat into electricity. They generate power cleanly and with few or no moving parts from a difference in temperature. They are like solar panels that use heat–instead of light–as an energy source. Alphabet is revolutionizing the way we think about both thermoelectrics and the prototypical functional material, silicon. We have developed and licensed the key technologies to use silicon as a thermoelectric generator.

Alphabet owns at least five U.S. patent applications relating to its thermoelectric materials.  U.S. Application Publication No. 2011/0114146 (’146 Application) is entitled “Uniwafer thermoelectric modules” and directed to a single wafer device (100) including functionalized n-type regions (113) and p-type regions (115) with shunts (123) formed overlying those regions from the front side (102) of the wafer substrate (101).

A partial portion of wafer material (101A) is removed from the back side (103) of the substrate.  One or more conductor shunts (125) are formed overlying the exposed n-type regions (113) and p-type regions (115) from the back side (103). 

According to the ’146 Application, this device can be used to output power from thermoelectrics:

As an implementation of the present invention, the two external electric leads 131 and 132 can [be] used as two electrodes for outputting electric power induced by thermoelectric effect when the single-wafer device 100 is subjecting the conductor shunts 123 at the front side 102 and conductors 125 at the back side 103 to a temperature gradient.

Alphabet’s other patent applications relate to nanostructures and fabrication processes for nanostructure thermoelectric devices.  They are U.S. Application Publication Nos. 2012/0152295, 2012/0247527 (’527 Application), 2012/0295074, and 2012/0319082. 

The ’527 Application is entitled “Electrode structures for arrays of nanostructures and methods thereof” and directed to a thermoelectric device comprising an array (110) of nanowires (120) with spacings (150) between them.  The spacings (150) may contain fill materials (160) having a low thermal conductivity.

An electrode structure (195) is formed on the array (110) of nanowires (120) by covering protruding segments (135) with semiconductor contact materials (170).  A contact layer (174) provides electrical connection between each of the protruding segments (135), and a shunt (180) may be formed to provide an electrical connection between the contact layer (174) and other devices in the thermoelectric device.

According to this Greentech Media piece, thermoelectrics is a “brilliant pursuit” which no one has brought to market economically at scale yet.  Perhaps Alphabet Energy will be the first.

No comments »

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green Patents

Green Patent Acquisitions: Dow Meshes with NuvoSun

March 18th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

 

Thin-film solar startup NuvoSun was recently acquired by Dow Chemical.  Founded in 2008 by former MiasSole CEO Dave Pearce, NuvoSun designs PV cells and modules based on flexible Copper Indium/Gallium di- Selenide (CIGS) technology.

NuvoSun owns at least two pending U.S. patent applications, Publication Nos. 2011/0300661 (’661 Application) and 2012/0174967 (’967 Application).  The ’661 Application is entitled “Solar cell interconnection method using a flat metallic mesh” and directed to methods of interconnecting thin film solar cells using metallic meshes.

Both grids (2a, 3a) of the flat metallic mesh incude a solid region, or tab (4), to make the interconnection between solar cells, and a mesh region (5), which forms the current collecting grid.  The mesh region (5) includes connected wire-like elements (6) with square or rectangular cross sectional shape.

Mesh region (5) has open patterns that may range from narrow diamonds (2a) to nearly perfect squares (3a).  According to the ’661 Application, an advantage of this invention is that from any point in the mesh there are multiple paths to the tab (4) whereas for conventional grids there is only a single line.  Therefore, the net resistance for the mesh is lower than for conventional grids of similar geometry.

The ’967 Application is entitled “Photovoltaic modules and mounting systems” and directed to PV modules including a support member (300) for supporting one or more PV cells.  The support member (300) includes hexagonal though holes (301).  A slot (304) defined in the support member (300) accepts an electrical attachment member for coupling a PV module to an electrical bus bar.

The ’967 Application also describes and claims a mounting frame (800) including two outer horizontal support members (801), an inner horizontal support member (802), a support member (803) orthogonal to the outer and inner support members, and vertical support members (804).  The  innter horizontal support member (802) is configured to hold an electrical bus bar.

According to this Greentech Media article, the NuvoSun technology is probably “destined for Dow’s solar shingles,” the building-integrated PV product Dow has been promising.

No comments »

Posted in Green Patents, Solar Patents

New Lawsuit to Decide Fairness of Solar Paste Patent PR

March 14th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

In an interesting case of ancillary legal wrangling, DuPont has filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) action asking an Oregon federal court to declare that the company’s press release and customer letters about its patent infringement suit against Heraeus Precious Metals (Heraeus) does not violate unfair competition laws.

The DuPont DJ complaint describes a dispute arising from a press release and customer letters the company disseminated shortly after suing Heraeus for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,158,504 (’504 Patent) in Portland, Oregon in June 2012 (see the complaint here).  The ’504 Patent is entitled “Conductive compositions and processes for use in the manufacture of semiconductor devices – organic medium components.”

DuPont also sued Heraeus back in September 2011 in Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,767,254, entitled “Paste for solar cell electrode and solar cell” (see the complaint here).

According to the DJ complaint, the press release at issue, dated July 19, 2012, stated:

The company recently filed two lawsuits against PV metallization paste supplier Heraeus and one against its customer Solar World, for infringing on DuPont patents for DuPont Solamet PV metallization pastes.

The customer letters said that:

DuPont Microcircuit Materials has recently filed two lawsuits in the U.S. against PV paste supplier Heraeus for infringing on its patents for Solamet photovoltaic metallization pastes and one against its customer SolarWorld for using “infringing” materials.

Both the press release and the letters editorialized as follows:

Intellectual Property (IP) theft [] is widespread and the issue seems to be growing in the current climate of [this] industry.  [IP theft] has the potential to threaten the [PV] industry broadly at a critical time in its development.

According to the DJ complaint, in the Oregon patent infringement suit Heraeus filed a counterclaim against DuPont for unfair competition, asserting that the statements in the press release and customer letters were false and misleading. 

The counterclaim was subsequently dismissed, but the DJ complaint says that Heraeus’s counsel recently told DuPont that Heraeus intended to assert an unfair competition claim in the Delaware court.

This is not the first time ancillary litigation has erupted over PR in connection with a green patent infringement suit.  Several years ago, Nichia sued its LED rival Seoul Semiconductor for false advertising when Seoul disseminated press releases saying it had “substantially prevailed” in its litigation with Nichia, when in fact, it was found to have infringed four Nichia design patents.

No comments »

Posted in Green Patents, IP Litigation, Solar Patents, Unfair Competition

Class Action Suit Says Sunrun’s Electricity Price Ain’t Right

March 11th, 2013 by Eric Lane No comments »

A Greentech Media piece picked up an interesting item:  a recently filed class action lawsuit accusing residential solar provider Sunrun of making deceptive statements about the rising cost of electricity to make its solar installations more attractive to consumers.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Sunrun’s central marketing message is that increases in electricity prices will result in cost savings for customers who have Sunrun solar systems installed at their homes.  But, according to the complaint, Sunrun “deceptively states with certainty something that is inherently unknowable.”

Class plaintiffs quote the following excerpts from Sunrun’s web site:

You already pay a lot for electricity today.  In the future, you’ll pay even more.  Nationwide, electricity rates have been increasing 6% per year over the last thirty years.  When you go solar, you take control of your electricity costs and opt out of utility rate increases.  You’ll save money with solar by locking in a lower rate for your electricity than you will pay for the next thirty years.  Many Sunrun customers start saving money right away.

How much money will I save with Sunrun?  …your solar electricity rate is fixed and will rise very gradually.  This means as your utility rate increases its rates over time, the amount of money you’ll save with Sunrun will also increase over the life of your agreement.

According to the complaint, the representations that consumers would save money due to increasing electricity prices was misleading because, for example, energy prices at Southern California Edison have leveled off in recent years.  The complaint also cites a number of articles reporting that natural gas prices have fallen considerably recently due to increased shale gas production.

Perhaps most salient is this short piece on CleanEnergyAuthority.com, quoted in the complaint, in which Jeff Mayer, the CEO of UK company Soluxe Solar says:

Most leasing contracts are sold on the assumption that the consumer will save money because utility costs are expected to increase over the years.  But, the truth is that utility prices have been flat to down and consumers are being misled.

According to the complaint, customers whose current electricity prices are not as high as estimated by Sunrun are already losing out, and those whose electricity prices do not rise as expected in the future will also experience this cost disadvantage.  Ultimately, however, even if Sunrun’s customers do not end up paying more for solar, the company’s unequivocal marketing message is still false and misleading:

But whether the cost disadvantage is experienced or not, the promise of a system sure to result in cost advantage was false when made and likely to deceive consumers into leasing a system they otherwise would not have.

One difficult question is how to classify this case.  At bottom, it’s really about economics, not environmental benefits, so greenwashing is not a comfortable fit.  But to the extent the cost savings at issue flow from renewable energy equipment, perhaps it’s not unreasonable to label it as some form of greenwashing.

The alleged deception here relates to electricity prices generally, which are mostly driven by fossil fuel production.  So the allegations are probably closest to reverse greenwashing, which I define as allegedly false or misleading statements not about environmental benefits, but about the negative environmental impact of certain products or services (keeping in mind the caveat, of course, that the adverse impact alleged here is economic, not environmental).

For more on reverse greenwashing, see my initial post on the ChicoBag case here.

No comments »

Posted in Greenwashing, Solar Power

Altenera Pitches Wind Energy from the Future

March 7th, 2013 by Cliff Brazil* No comments »

Altenera Technology (Altenera), a Maryland company, was recently chosen as one of just eight finalists to present at the Future Energy Pitching session of the ARPA-E Innovation Summit last month.  Altenera achieved this honor due to its Oscillating Reed Wind Harvester technology.  

The company calls its technology BreezBee®, which uses vibrating reeds to harvest energy from the wind under “virtually all wind conditions.”

The BreezBee® technology is covered by U.S. Patent No. 8,258,644 (‘644 patent) entitled “Apparatus for harvesting energy from flow-induced oscillations and method for the same.”  The ‘644 patent describes “a device and method for harvesting electrical power from kinetic energy of a flow” where “the external gas or liquid flow causes a vibration of the assembly . . . producing electricity in proximity of a magnetic field.”

The ‘644 patent can be better explained with reference to Figure 1(a), reproduced here from the patent.  As the fluid (7) flows over the elastic element (3), the integrated conductive element (8) moves back and forth in the (9) direction with reference to the magnetic field (8) created by the magnetic field source (6), producing electricity. 

The magnetic field should be “fully or substantially perpendicular” to the conductive element.  The shape, form, and materials of the vibrating assembly can vary based on the application, and “are defined by the maximum conversion efficiency for a particular application.”

The BreezBee® represents a functional application of the ‘644 patent.  The LEGO-like hexagonal modules shown here allow for easy combination into arrays of various sizes, making them “easily customizable for any situation.”  

The ‘644 patent discloses a number of such situations: (1) attached to flying vehicles to capture high altitude flows; (2) used in confined flow passages such as pipes or HVAC ducts; (3) used as a flow sensor while simultaneously providing the power to transmit gathered flow information; and (4) implementation as roof panels, providing a more cost-effective alternative to solar cells.   

Further, because this technology has no moving parts, it is “a virtually maintenance-free source of electrical power.” 

While one blog has noted that the details on some of the specifics were limited during the presentation to investors, the modularity, low-maintenance, and customization makes the BreezBee® an attractive alternative to turbine power. 

And if the noiselessness claim (see ieee blog above) made by Altenera’s CBDO, Chase McCarthy, is accurate, BreezBee® would have a notable advantage over turbine power by side-stepping the noise pollution problem that has plagued turbine power.

 

*Cliff Brazil is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  Cliff is currently in his second year at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas.  He received his undergraduate degree in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado.

No comments »

Posted in Green Patents, Wind Patents, Wind Power