Green Patent Blog®

In a case of successful public enforcement against greenwashing, two solar panel retailers have amended their ads after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found their marketing statements potentially misleading and deceptive (see the Smart Company article here and the Ecogeneration piece here).

According to the ACCC, Queensland Solar Systems and State Solar Services admitted their ads had likely violated the Australian Trade Practices Act.

The advertising statements at issue included a claim that a 1.5 kilowatt system would “wipe out” a household electricity bill when a system of that output would actually generate only about a third of the energy needs for most homes.

Other claims related to pricing and misled consumers about discounted rates and the periods when discounts were available. 

In particular, the companies did not make clear that certain discounts were available only to customers who were eligible for renewable energy certificates offered by the Australian government.

Both companies will be required to publish corrective notices in regional newspapers, an industry magazine and on the companies’ web sites.  They will also have to contact past customers to inform them of the companies’ conduct and set up a compliance program.

The ACCC has had other notable successes in policing greenwashing. 

In 2008, a probe by the consumer watchdog agency forced Goodyear to admit that it could not substantiate advertising claims that its Eagle LS2000 tire has “minimal environmental impact,” improves fuel economy and is produced by a process that results in reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

Sundrop Fuels (Sundrop) is a Colorado company that combines concentrated solar power (CSP) technology with biofuels production processes. 

While most biomass-to-biofuels systems burn the feedstocks as the first step in biofuel production, Sundrop uses concentrated solar energy to gasify the feedstocks into syngas that is made into advanced biofuels.  According to the company’s web site, the very high temperatures of CSP create efficiencies in the process:

At the center of the Sundrop Fuels process is our proprietary Surroundsun™ technology, a solar-thermal biomass gasifier that generates temperatures of more than 1,300 degrees Celsius (2,370 degrees Fahrenheit) from the concentrated power of thousands of solar heliostat mirrors.  Using solar energy to drive the endothermic gasification reaction ensures the most efficient use of biomass feedstock to produce liquid advanced biofuels like renewable “green” gasoline.

Sundrop owns at least one U.S. patent and two pending U.S. patent applications relating to its solar gasification technology.   

U.S. Patent No. 7,140,181 (’181 Patent), is entitled “Reactor for solar processing of slightly-absorbing or transparent gases” and is directed to methods for solar powered processing of gases.

The methods described in the ‘181 Patent comprise directing concentrated sunlight through an aperture (202) into a spherical chamber (203), where the energy is partially absorbed by the walls (201) of the chamber and partially reflected. 

Process gas is pumped into the chamber (203) through the aperture (202) and heated by contact with the walls (201) and by infrared radiation from the walls so the gas partially dissociates. 

The gas exits through exit holes (204) and is quickly cooled by its contact with cooling surface (205) to prevent recombination.  It then flows out exhaust tube (206).

Sundrop’s two published patent applications are U.S. Application Pub. No. 2009/0313886, entitled ”Various methods and apparatus for solar assisted chemical and energy processes” (’886 Application) and U.S. Application Pub. No. 2010/0000874, entitled “Various methods and apparatus for solar assisted fuel production” (’874 Application).

The ‘886 and ‘874 Applications are directed to solar assisted water splitting processes and apparatus to supply synthesis gas for creating a hydrocarbon liquid fuel.  A watter splitter (102) supplies H2 gas to a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) unit (104) that generates synthesis gas for production of liquid fuel such as methanol.   

The RWGS unit (104) includes a  reverse water gas shift reactor (106) and a liquid fuel synthesis reactor (108) that forms methanol from carbon dioxide hydrogenation. 

A field of heliostats (134), or sun tracking mirrors, reflects sunlight onto the heat exchanger (122) through window (138) in the RWGS unit (104).  The solar energy drives the water splitting process.

According to this Ecogeek piece, by using concentrated solar energy Sundrop’s process more than doubles the yield of fuel that can be produced using ordinary biomass burning processes to 100-125 gallons of fuel per ton of biomass.

Perhaps it’s too early to call it a trend.  But clean technology companies have begun to use the fast tracking procedure offered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Green Technology Pilot Program for PR purposes. 

Last month, GreenShift Corporation (GreenShift), a New York company that develops processes for ethanol production, announced that one of its patent applications was accepted into the program.  A little research indicates that the lucky application is Application Publication No. 2008/0299632 (’632 Application).

The ‘632 Application is entitled “Methods for recovering oil from a fractionated dry milling process” and is directed to methods for recovering oil from fthin stillage produced in a fractionation-based dry milling process.  The invention enables recovery of oil from byproducts created during corn ethanol production.

David Winsness, GreenShift’s CTO and a named co-inventor on the ‘632 Application, said the company is “pleased that one of our pending applications has been accepted into this important and timely program” and is looking forward to “additional opportunities to deliver our clients the powerful cost advantages made possible by our patented technologies.”

If the ‘632 Application issues as a patent in the near future, it might join U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 in GreenShift’s recently expanded slate of patent infringement suits against a number of different ethanol producers.

Similarly, Silicon Valley concentrating PV company Skyline Solar (Skyline) recently announced that the USPTO granted U.S. Patent No. 7,709,730 (’730 Patent) after expedited examination via the Green Technology Pilot Program. 

The ‘730 Patent is entitled “Dual trough concentrating solar photovoltaic module” and is directed to a solar energy collector having a dual trough design.  The collector (100) has two optical apertures (101a, 101b) that admit sunlight onto reflector panels (106).

Each of two adjacent reflector troughs (120a, 120b) has a base (124a, 124b) and a pair of reflective side walls formed from the reflector panels (106).

Skyline markets the patented technology as High Gain Solar (HGS) architecture, and the press release says HGS packs more power and is easier to deploy than traditional flat panel CPV systems:

Skyline’s HGS architecture delivers ten times more energy per gram of silicon versus traditional flat-panel systems in sunny locations and offers industry-leading energy density.  Skyline HGS arrays combine industry-proven silicon cells, durable reflector materials and single-axis tracking into a complete, easy-to-deploy system.

According to its press release, Skyline is “one of the first companies to receive patent approval under the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program.” 

It certainly won’t be the last.  With the USPTO recently loosening up the eligibility requirements for the Green Technology Pilot Program, there should be many more applications accepted into the program, more patents granted as a result and more green patent PR surrounding the success stories.

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.

eSolar is a Pasadena, California solar thermal startup that makes solar power plants using flat mirrors, or heliostats, to concentrate sunlight onto a centrally located water tank suspended on a tower.  This type of structure is known as “power tower” architecture.

Founded in 2007, eSolar has seen very rapid success in business deals to implement and deploy its technology.  The latest, which is the biggest solar thermal deal ever, is a master licensing agreement with Chinese electrical power equipment manufacturer Penglai Electric (Penglai).

Penglai will develop at least 2 gigawatts of solar thermal power plants in China over the next 10 years using eSolar’s technology.

eSolar owns at least four published U.S. patent applications and at least half a dozen international applications relating to its solar thermal technology.  U.S. Patent Applications Pub. Nos. 2009/0241938 and 2009/0241939 are directed to solar receivers and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/0107485 is directed to calibration and tracking control systems for heliostats. 

According to the technology description on eSolar’s web site, its cost-effective utility scale power plant is “based on mass-manufactured components and designed for rapid construction, uniform modularity, and unlimited scalability.”  The company’s heliostat is the “building block” of its power plants and is designed for deployment in pre-fabricated “heliostat sticks” for easy installation.

One factor that affects the efficiency of power tower plants is the positioning of the heliostats relative to the tower and to each other.  eSolar’s “modular field” of concentrating mirrors consists of thousands of systematically spaced heliostats arranged to optimize the layout and maximize efficiency. 

U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/0133685 (’685 Application) is directed to eSolar’s heliostat array layouts.  Some embodiments of the ‘685 Application comprise three segments (128) with each segment divided into two variably spaced heliostat zones (128a, 128b).

Heliostats (328a) in the first zone (128a) are spaced closer together than heliostats (328b) in the second zone (128b).  The heliostat locations are also staggered with respect to heliostat locations in adjacent rows.  A thermal receiver (228) is mounted on a central power tower.

Last year, eSolar entered into a similar deal with an Indian partner, ACME Group (ACME), to build solar thermal plants generating up to 1 gigawatt of power in India.  ACME is the exclusive licensee of eSolar’s technology in India.

eSolar’s success in deploying its solar thermal technology in emerging markets such as India and China belies claims by those countries and other developing nations that IP rights are acting as a barrier to transfer of clean technologies (see China View article here and my previous post here). 

Various proposals to weaken or eliminate IP rights, including compulsory licensing and even excluding green technologies from patent protection, have been put forth by India, China and other emerging market and developing countries and were contained in the official UNFCCC negotiating text for the Copenhagen meetings in December.

However, eSolar’s success in finding willing partners in India and China may actually be driven, at least in part, by intellectual property protection:  it’s hard to imagine Penglai or ACME investing in such large scale projects without the exclusivity in their home markets guaranteed by the master license agreements.

eSolar’s China deal was announced in early January.  It’s interesting that while climate change treaty negotiators were discussing IP as a barrier to international clean tech transfer eSolar and Penglai were probably finalizing the terms of the master license agreement that would be part of the largest ever transfer and deployment of solar thermal technology to China.