Green Patent Blog®

A previous post discussed GreenShift Corporation’s (GreenShift) volley of recent patent suits against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States. 

In those lawsuits GreenShift accused various ethanol producers of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent), entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems.” 

Last month GreenShift added another infringement action to the mix when it sued an Illinois company called Adkins Energy, which runs an ethanol production facility.  The complaint (gs-adkins_complaint.pdf) was filed in the Northern District of Illinois and accuses Adkins of infringing the ‘858 Patent.

The ‘858 Patent is directed to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production using the process of dry milling, which 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.

GS’s patented method includes 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.

This latest complaint brings the total to at least ten patent infringement actions brought by GreenShift, all involving allegations of infringing the ‘858 Patent. 

Defendants in the other cases include Cardinal Ethanol, Big River Resources Galva, Amaizing Energy Atlantic, Center Ethanol, Bushmills Ethanol, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, Blue Flint Ethanol and Iroquois Bio-Energy.

Green Patent Blog is taking a brief sabbatical.

Bluecar is a small electric car designed by the French conglomerate Bollore Group (Bollore) and produced in cooperation with Pininfarina, an Italian car design company.

Bollore applied for a U.S. trademark registration for BLUECAR for a number of different goods in a few classes, including electrically powered vehicles such as scooters, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, trolleys, forklifts, boats and electric motors and transmission assemblies for electrically powered vehicles, in Class 12.

The examining attorney rejected the Class 12 goods on the ground that the mark BLUECAR is “merely descriptive” because the goods could encompass blue colored electric cars.

Bollore appealed the examining attorney’s final rejection to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board).  

On appeal, Bollore argued that use of the mark in connection with its environmentally friendly vehicles creates a double entendre because the word “blue” in BLUECAR evokes an image of cleaner, bluer skies:

Driving applicant’s vehicles, therefore, is a way for consumers to “live green” by reducing their carbon emissions and helping to make the skies cleaner and bluer. . . . Consumers would easily recognize this second connotation or meaning through the use of the word “blue.”

In support of its argument, Bollore cited instances of environmental organizations and clean energy companies that use the word “blue” such as the Blue Planet Foundation and Blue Sky Energy.

The Board agreed with Bollore and reversed the final rejection, finding the mark not merely descriptive of the cars but either arbitrary or suggestive of environmentally friendly vehicles:

potential purchasers will perceive BLUECAR, not as merely describing the cars, even the cars which may be blue.  Rather potential purchasers will perceive BLUECAR either as an arbitrary mark, or perhaps as a mark suggesting a clean, blue sky, that is, that the electric powered vehicles are environmentally friendly, as applicant argues.

Is green losing its monopoly as the color of environmentally friendly products and services?  Perhaps blue is the new green.

In attempts to ease the burden of obtaining information on green patents, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) each recently unveiled a clean technology patent database.

According to this article in Nature, the EPO’s database is set to launch this month through the espacenet web site (http://ep.espacenet.com/).  I recently checked espacenet but was unable to find a separate green patent database.

However, this post from the Patent Librarian blog discusses the EPO’s new classification scheme for green technologies, which includes a new category, identified as “Y02″ in their classification system.  The scheme further includes the following two subclasses, along with further subgroups:

Y02C - Capture, Storage, Sequestration or Disposal of Greenhouse Gases

Y02E - Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Emission, Related to Energy Generation, Transmission or Distribution

I took the system for a quick, preliminary test ride by going to the Advanced Search page here and plugging in “Y02″ in the European Classification box.  I got roughly 68,500 hits.

This press release discusses the UKIPO’s green patent database, which appears to be much more limited than the EPO tool.  Apparently, the UKIPO database (which can be found here) contains only those patent applications processed under the UKIPO’s “Green Channel” fast tracking program for clean tech inventions.

One hope with these initiatives is that they will facilitate transfer of green technologies, making it easier for green patent owners and prospective licensees to hook up.

Another is that the increased transparency regarding owners of green patents will aid negotiations in the international climate change treaty talks. 

In any event, more green patent information can only help green tech innovators and implementers.

Novozymes is a Danish biopharmaceutical company that develops enzymes for a variety of applications, including for use in production of biofuels.

The ink had barely dried on the company’s newly-issued U.S. Patent No. 7,713,723 (’723 Patent) when Novozymes sued its Danish rival Danisco, along with Genencor International Wisconsin, for patent infringement.

The ‘723 Patent is entitled “Alpha amylase mutants with altered properties” and is directed to variants of certain alpha amylases that exhibit altered stability under high temperatures, low pH and other conditions.  The patented variants can be used for starch conversion in ethanol production.

According to the complaint (novozymes_complaint.pdf), filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, the defendants are infringing the ‘723 Patent by selling alpha amylase enzymes including Danisco’s GC358 product.

This is not the first time these Danish rivals have litigated a patent relating to enzymes for ethanol production.  In 2007, Danisco paid Novozymes $15.3 million to settle a lawsuit involving alleged infringement of a patent for the enzyme spezyme ethyl.