Green Patent Blog®

In a previous post, I wrote about GreenShift Corporation’s (GreenShift) patent suit against GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. (Westfalia), in which GreenShift accused the New Jersey-based separator and decanter maker of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent).

Last month GreenShift asserted the ‘858 Patent again, alleging that Indiana ethanol maker Cardinal Ethanol (”Cardinal”) is infringing the patent by using equipment that employs the patented ethanol processing methods.  The suit was filed in federal court in Indianapolis.

The ‘858 Patent is entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems” and is directed to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production. 

Ethanol production by dry milling creates a waste stream comprised of byproducts called whole stillage.  According to the ‘858 Patent, whole stillage contains valuable oil but prior processes for recovering this oil have been expensive or inefficient.

GreenShift’s patented methods include mechanically separating the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage and then running the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated byproduct, or syrup.  The syrup is fed through a second centrifuge, which separates usable corn oil from the syrup.

Along with the complaint, GreenShift filed a motion for preliminary injunction (PI), in which it argued that it has a strong likelihood of proving infringement, the ‘858 Patent is valid, and it would suffer irreparable harm if Cardinal is not enjoined (see packet including GreenShift’s press release, the complaint and the PI motion here).

The PI motion includes a detailed claim chart that seeks to demonstrate Cardinal’s alleged infringement of claims 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the ‘858 Patent. 

As to the alleged harm, GreenShift states that Cardinal’s infringement is causing it to suffer “loss of market share, opportunities, revenue and goodwill” as well as damage to its “reputation as a technology pioneer.”

In previous posts here and here, I discussed the General Electric Company’s (GE) two wind turbine patent actions against Mitsubishi, one in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the other in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. 

Last month GE added a third case to the mix when it sued Mitsubishi for infringement of two patents relating to a wind turbine base frame and zero voltage ride through (ZVRT) technology. 

Filed in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, the complaint (gecomplaint.pdf) identifies Mitsubishi’s 2.4 megawatt wind turbine as the allegedly infringing product.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,055 (’055 Patent) and 7,629,705 (’705 Patent).  The ‘055 Patent is directed to a two-part base frame for arranging a drive train on the tower of a wind turbine.

The upper part (6) of the base frame carries the drive train, and the lower part (16) of the base frame has an azimuthal drive device (23), which rotates azimuthally to adjust the rotor axis as a function of wind direction. 

The connection point (15) that joins the upper and lower parts of the base frame extends along a horizontal cross-section having a larger dimension in the direction of the rotor axis than in the perpendicular direction. 

According to the ‘055 Patent, this construction of the connection point (15) is favorable for absorption of stress from the rotor.  The two-part design also makes transport and assembly of the base frame easier.

The ‘705 Patent, which issued in December 2009, relates to methods of facilitating zero voltage ride through so the turbine can remain online during voltage dips down to zero volts. 

As the ‘705 Patent explains, some gearless direct drive wind turbine generators include power converters, and both the generators and the converters are susceptible to grid voltage fluctuations. 

The patented methods mitigate wind turbine generator trips during events in which voltage amplitude decreases to zero volts, as opposed to known low voltage ride through methods that can handle less extreme voltage drops.

The patented systems and methods include a phase-locked loop (PLL) regulator to receive voltage measurement signals from a plurality of voltage transducers.  The PLL regulator includes a PLL that receives the sinusoidal voltage measurement signals.

If a voltage amplitude is outside a pre-determined range, an algorithm within the PLL generates a control signal and the PLL regulator changes to a different mode or state of operation.  A plurality of states of operation are possible, with varying parameters such as gain constants.

According to the ‘705 Patent:

the plurality of states of operation facilitate zero voltage ride through (ZVRT) as well as other grid faults while also facilitating normal operation   

This lawsuit comes shortly after the ITC terminated GE’s complaint against Mitsubishi.  GE’s infringement suit in the Southern District of Texas has been stayed pending a final determination of the ITC case.

Green Patent Blog is taking a brief sabbatical.

In a previous post, I wrote about the settlement agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and LG Electronics (LG) about certain LG refrigerator models that had received the ENERGY STAR certification despite not actually meeting the required efficiency standards.

As part of the agreement, LG engaged in certain remedial measures for consumers of the models at issue.  In addition, the agreement detailed how the refrigerator models were to be tested going forward. 

DOE adjusted the testing procedures for LG to take into account the peculiarities of the particular models at issue - so-called “French Door” models - that use more energy because they incorporate an ice maker within the fresh food compartment of the refrigerator. 

The fridges use a fill tube heater and an ice ejection heater to maintain the fresh food compartment above freezing temperatures while maintaining the ice making assembly below freezing temperatures.  LG was permitted to test the fridges with the ice maker disabled and the two heaters off. 

The agreement provided these exceptions were “for the purposes of testing under this Agreement subject to further notice by DOE.”

DOE subsequently determined that this test procedure exception resulted in underreporting of the energy consumption of the French Door refrigerator models.  So DOE revoked the exception provided in the agreement and demanded that LG remove the ENERGY STAR label from the models at issue.

Late last year LG sued DOE in federal court in Washington, DC requesting that the court issue an injunction to allow it to retain the ENERGY STAR label on its French Door refrigerators.  In a motion for preliminary injunction, LG argued that DOE’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and LG’s due process rights.

Last month, the court denied LG’s motion.  In a Memorandum Opinion (lg_opinion.pdf), the court held that DOE did not violate the APA because the agreement did not represent a definitive interpretation of testing procedures but only a revocable exception to its procedures. 

The court further held that DOE’s justifications for revoking the agreement’s testing exception were not arbitrary and capricious.

As to LG’s due process claim, the court found that LG’s due process property interest was satisfied by its “post-deprivation suit for breach of contract.”  The court also held that being required to remove the ENERGY STAR certification from only certain refrigerators does not rise to the level of implicating a due process liberty interest.

Despite the setback, LG is maintaining its commitment to energy efficient refrigerators:  before the court decided its motion LG was already making French Door fridges that comply with the DOE’s certification requirements and will bear the ENERGY STAR label.

Carbon Sciences is a Santa Barbara, California company that has developed a proprietary process to recycle carbon dioxide emissions into gasoline and other liquid fuels.

The company breaks down CO2 and extracts the carbon atoms to make new hydrocarbon chains.  According to its web site, Carbon Sciences’ process requires less energy and is more scalable than previous known techniques, which used expensive inorganic catalysts.

The key to the process is a multi-step biocatalysis that uses organic biocatalysts.  The company’s biocatalytic method uses inexpensive, renewable biomolecules to catalyze certain chemical reactions required to transform CO2 and water into fuel molecules.

Through nano-engineering of the biocatalysts and efficient process design, Carbon Sciences can operate these catalysis steps on a large industrial scale.  In particular, the company’s smart particle technology provides improved encapsulation of the enzymes that prolongs their effective lives and allows them to perform many reaction cycles.

The major components of the process are a CO2 Flue Gas Processor, a a Biocatalyst Unit, a Biocatalytic Reactor Matrix, a Filtration system and a conversion and polishing unit.

The Biocatalytic Reactor Matrix is the heart of the process.  It is here, in a matrix of liquid reaction chambers, that the large quantities of biocatalysts perform the multi-stage breakdown of CO2 and transformation to hydrocarbons.

The company’s CEO, Byron Elton, told me that Carbon Sciences has filed four as yet unpublished patent applications directed to its CO2 recycling process.  Elton expects the company to file 4-6 more new patent applications this year. 

Carbon Sciences owns U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0277319 (’319 Application), entitled “Fine particle carbon dioxide transformation and sequestration.”  According to Elton, the ‘319 Application covers the company’s initial forays into carbon capture and sequestration.

The ‘319 Application is directed to methods and systems for breaking down carbon dioxide into micron- or sub-micron-sized particles, classifying or separating out the particles of a desired size and reacting those particles to form mineral carbonates.

Carbon Sciences’ technology extends into several aspects of CO2 capture, sequestration and recycling, including advanced chemical processes that can use flue gas and brackish water to capture CO2 emissions and scrub it to yield pure CO2.

Because the market for gasoline and liquid fuels is likely to remain quite large for some time, Carbon Sciences’ recycling process provides an interim carbon mitigation option:  use the CO2 molecule twice.