Green Patent Blog®

In a previous post, I discussed a patent infringement suit filed by solar installer Akeena Solar against Zep Solar, Inc. (Zep), groSolar and High Sun Technology, Inc. (HST) in the Northern District of California. 

Akeena’s complaint (akeena_complaint.pdf) accused groSolar and HST of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,406,800 (’800 Patent”), entitled “Mounting system for a solar panel” and directed to an integrated module frame and racking system for solar panels.   According to the complaint, Zep’s solar panel mounting system infringes the ‘800 Patent, and groSolar has teamed up with Zep to distribute and install Zep systems.

The complaint also included a claim against Zep and HST for a declaratory judgment (DJ) that Akeena does not infringe Zep’s U.S. Patent No. 7,592,537 (’537 Patent), entitled “Method and apparatus for mounting photovoltaic modules.” 

The ‘537 Patent is directed to a photovoltaic module mounting system (10) comprising two adjacent interlocking PV module frames (12L, 12R).  Each frame encloses the perimeter of a PV laminate (14) in recesses (23L, 23R).  The interlocking mechanism may comprise a separate male coupling member (28) inserted into female channel portions (26L, 26R).

Last month the court dismissed Akeena’s non-infringement DJ claim, finding there was no actual controversy between the parties about the ‘537 Patent (zep_order.pdf).

Akeena had alleged there was an actual controversy sufficient for DJ jurisdiction because of certain e-mails and telephone conversations between the parties including a Zep e-mail to Akeena’s counsel to bring the ‘537 Patent to Akeena’s attention, an e-mail from Zep’s CEO to Akeena’s president stating that “Zep’s legal team is ready for a fight if that is what is needed,” and a telephone conversation in which Zep’s CEO allegedly told Akeena’s president that he would “blow up” Akeena’s patent.

But the court found that the communications at issue were made in response to Akeena’s infringement threats and merely signaled Zep’s intention to preserve its legal rights:

Significantly, Zep’s communications to Plaintiffs have all been in response to Plaintiffs’ accusations of infringement and direct threats of an infringement lawsuit.  Objectively, all of Zep’s statements are reasonably read merely as preserving Zep’s legal rights, including the right to attack the validity of Plaintiffs’ patent and to assert Zep’s patent if sued by Plaintiffs.

The court also found it significant that, since the lawsuit was filed, Zep hasn’t asserted a counterclaim that Akeena infringes the ‘537 Patent.

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.

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.

In two previous posts (here and here) I discussed the patent infringement case between hybrid drivetrain technology company Paice LLC (Paice) and Toyota in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

In September of last year, Paice filed a complaint in the ITC asking the agency to investigate whether Toyota’s importation of the third generation Prius, the Camry hybrid and two Lexus models (Accused Products) infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (’970 Patent).

After the ITC agreed to open an investigation, Paice moved for summary determination of infringement, validity and enforceability of the ‘970 Patent. 

Specifically, Paice contended that Toyota was barred from asserting a defense of non-infringement of the ‘970 patent and from challenging the validity or enforceability of the ‘970 patent under the principles of claim preclusion and issue preclusion because of a prior federal district court and appeals court ruling against Toyota.

In a response issued in December and made public earlier this month, the ITC staff agreed with Paice and supported its motion.   The response noted that, although the Accused Products are different from those at issue in the federal court case, Toyota admitted that the hybrid drivetrains are materially the same as the vehicles found to infringe in that lawsuit.

Compounding Toyota’s troubles was a ruling last week in the same case in which the ITC staff opposed the automaker’s cross-motion for summary judgment that claim preclusion should bar Paice from obtaining any remedy in the investigation. 

The response rejected Toyota’s argument because claim preclusion applies only to the cause of action and does not include the ensuing remedies.

Assuming the administrative law judge follows the recommendations of the ITC staff, the only remaining issue would be whether Paice meets the “domestic industry” requirement. 

19 U.S.C. 1337 requires that there be an industry in the U.S. relating to the products at issue, which includes both an economic prong (demonstrated investment in plant/equipment, labor/capital, research and development or licensing) and a technical prong (demonstrated practice of the asserted intellectual property right).

Now the big question is whether Toyota will continue to fight or decide to fold and pay royalties to Paice.  If the case moves forward, it will be interesting to see whether the ITC finds Paice’s engineering, R&D and licensing activities in the U.S. suffice to meet the domestic industry requirement.

Considering what is at stake in this case - Paice has requested a permanent exclusion order barring entry into the U.S. of the Prius, Camry hybrid and the two accused Lexus models - I wonder if and when the mainstream media will start to pay attention.