Green Patent Blog®

PetroAlgae is a Florida-based renewable energy company that licenses its technology for growing and harvesting “micro-crops” such as algae, diatoms, micro-angiosperms and cyanobacteria for large scale production of biofuels.

Last month PetroAlgae announced a deal with Chile’s Asesorias e Inversiones Quilicura (AIQ).  The memorandum of understanding signed by the parties provides AIQ with an option to purchase a license to build a full micro-crop technology system in Chile to produce green gasoline, diesel and jet fuel (see the Recharge News story here).

According to PetroAlgae’s technology description, its system has a “modular, flexible design construction” that enables “near-continuous” growth and harvesting of a wide variety of micro-crops.  The company uses ”proprietary methods of controlling nutrients and light exposure to produce unsurpassed per-acre yields of biomass and protein extracts.” 

The large quantities of biomass produced by the growth and harvesting technology can then be refined into transportation fuels.

PetroAlgae owns at least two international patent applications relating to its micro-crop technology.  International Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/006466 (’466 Application) is entitled “Systems and Methods for Large-Scale Production and Harvesting of Oil-Rich Algae” and is directed to systems and methods for continuous harvest of microorganisms on a large scale.

Disclosed systems include a central seed fermentation area with numerous final fermentation ponds emanating from the central seed fermentation area and arranged, for example, in a pie shape.  The final ponds can be of various shapes or dimensions to accommodate different ratios of seed to final fermentation, different growth rates of organisms, etc.

According to the ‘466 Application, wedge-shaped ponds are particularly well suited for growing photosynthetic organisms in continuous culture because media can be added near the point of the wedge and subsequently move toward the wide portion of the wedge, which allows greater surface area and sunlight for the multiplying cells.

With numerous pools, “the growth cycle can be offset between each pool such that there can always be at least one pool ready for harvest each day.”

International Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/020211 (’211 Application), entitled “Tubular Microbial Growth System,” is directed to continuous harvest methods using a bioreactor system for growing microorganisms. 

The ‘211 Application describes numerous tubular growth units, or bioreactor pipes, that can each be seeded from a single “nursery” bioreactor.  The growth cycles can be offset so there is always at least one bioreactor pipe ready for harvest each day.

The bioreactor pipes can be coated to selectively pass and/or reflect specific wavelengths of light to regulate light exposure for the growing bugs.

The PetroAlgae-AIQ agreement is another example of a partnership to effect green technology transfer from developed countries to developing countries and emerging markets, despite claims that patents are a barrier to such transfer.

However, it appears this tech transfer deal so far has not been hindered by PetroAlgae’s IP.  We’ll see if AIQ exercises its licensing option.

In previous posts (here, here and here), I’ve discussed the patent litigation between hybrid vehicle technology company Paice and Japanese automaker Toyota in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

This case centers on Paice’s allegations that Toyota’s importation of the third generation Prius, the Camry Hybrid, the Lexus HS250h and RX450h (Accused Products) infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (’970 Patent). 

In a prior action in the Eastern District of Texas Paice won a jury verdict that the second generation Prius, the Highlander and the Lexus RX 400h infringed two claims of the ‘970 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal (see my previous post about the verdict and appeal here). 

The court awarded Paice an ongoing royalty of $25 per infringing vehicle, which was later increased to $98, but the court denied Paice’s request for an injunction.

Last month in the ITC case, the ITC reversed an administrative law judge’s ruling 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 the prior federal district court and appeals court rulings against Toyota.

Claim preclusion prevents a succession of lawsuits on a common claim by precluding re-litigation of the same claim between the same parties in a second forum in the absence of certain exceptions.

The ITC opinion (itc_opinion.pdf) found the only “claim” presented in the investigation is Paice’s and “thus claim preclusion cannot be applied as a sword by Paice against Toyota.”

Significantly, the ITC opinion went on to say that “if this investigation is part of the same ‘claim’ as the district court action, and if no exception to claim preclusion applies, then this investigation is precluded altogether.”

Toyota subsequently filed a renewed motion for summary determination (toyota_motion.pdf) asking the presiding administrative law judge to dismiss the case on the ground that Paice’s claim is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

According to Toyota’s motion, the ITC investigation is part of the same “claim” as the prior Texas district court action and none of the exceptions applies. 

The only “arguably relevant” exception - that the plaintiff was unable to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action - does not apply, Toyota contends, because there is no meaningful difference between the injunction Paice sought in the district court and the limited exclusion order Paice has requested in the ITC.

In its opposition brief (paice_opp.pdf), Paice counters that claim preclusion should not apply because its ITC claim involves new products introduced by Toyota subsequent to the earlier district court action and therefore is based on acts of alleged infringement that occurred after that case.  Thus, Paice contends, the ITC case cannot be deemed the “same cause of action” as the first suit.

Paice also argues that some of the exceptions to claim preclusion apply here, including that it was unable to rely on certain theories in the district court action and unable to seek the exclusionary relief there that is only available in the ITC.

Much is riding on the determination of this motion:  Paice has requested a permanent limited exclusion order barring entry into the U.S. of the Accused Products.

Pelamis Wave Power (Pelamis) is an Edinburgh, UK company that makes a snake-like device for generating energy from ocean waves.  Pelamis recently announced that it has secured an order for its P2 Wave Energy Converter from ScottishPower Renewables (see Recharge story here).

Pelamis’s P2 Wave Energy Converter (improved from the prior P1 model and rated at 750 kW) consists of several cylindrical sections connected by hinged joints, which move in ocean waves.  Hydraulic rams resist the motion of the joints and pump high pressure fluid through hydraulic motors, which drive generators to produce electricity. 

The generated power is fed through an “umbilical” cable to a junction on the seabed and then linked to shore.  Pelamis’s International Patent Application No. PCT/GB2009/050732 (’732 Application), entitled “Marine connection system and method,” is directed to a system to facilitate faster connection between a marine structure and a sub-sea umbilical cable.

The connection system (1) comprises a buoyant winching system (2) having a winch (9) that can be towed to an off-shore location by a tug or other vessel.  Cable (3) is connected to cable (4) via a latching mechanism having a first element (5) and a second element (6). 

The second element (6) is permanently located at the connection site and is connected to a location buoy (32) using a tether line (26).  The buoyant winching system (2) may include a frame (7) mounted between two buoyancy units (8).  The winch (9) is carried on the frame (7) and has a reel (10) and a winch line (11).

A motor (12) is mounted on the frame (7) and may be mounted on the winch (9) for rotation and axial drive of the reel (10).  The line (11) is wound around the reel (10) such that it can be selectively paid out and wound in by rotation of the reel.

The ‘732 Application also discloses embodiments of the connection system used in conjunction with a marine structure “which comprises the first body to be connected to the second body,” which I read to be Pelamis’s sectional Wave Energy Converter.

I’ve written before about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star program, which promotes investment in energy efficient products by providing information that consumers and investors can use to research and compare green product or project choices.

The EPA works with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and manufacturers to award the ENERGY STAR certification to products that meet particular energy savings standards.  The EPA owns U.S. Certification Mark Registration No. 2,817,628 (energy-star-reg.JPG) for its ENERGY STAR design (pictured above).

Certification marks differ from ordinary trademarks in that they certify that goods or services meet certain quality or manufacturing standards instead of indicating the commercial source of a product.  Certification marks are owned by the organizations that set the standards and used by companies that meet the standards and earn the certifications.

The certifying organizations are responsible for formulating, administering and policing their certification standards.  Failing to do so can undermine the credibility and damage the reputation of the organization and its certification.

The EPA and DOE recently announced that they would expand testing and enforcement to strengthen the Energy Star program.  This comes as the program’s star has dimmed after publication of a study performed by Congressional auditors at the Government Accountability Office to test the program’s certification process (see NY Times article here).

The GAO auditors created fictitious companies and sought Energy Star status for some conventional and unconventional devices, submitting phony data purporting to show the products were energy efficient.  Among the study’s highlights (or lowlights, as it were):

most of the products, including a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” and an ”air purifier” consisting of a feather duster pasted on top of a space heater, were approved without challenge

some approvals were issued by an automated system without human review

once a company got approval for one product and became an Energy Star partner, the company could download the logo and paste it on products that had not been approved

As part of the overhaul, DOE recently began testing the six most commonly used appliances - freezers, refrigerator-freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters and room air conditioners - and, with the EPA, is developing a system to test all products that earn the Energy Star label. 

In addition, DOE and EPA will require manufactureres to participate in an ongoing verification testing program to ensure continued compliance and are stepping up enforcement by taking action against manufacturers whose products do not comply with the requisite standards.

Like all certification marks and programs, the Energy Star brand is only as good as its administration and policing so let’s hope it regains its shine.

Electrovaya is an Ontario, Canada company that makes advanced batteries and battery systems.

Last month Electrovaya announced that it was selected by Chrysler as the battery supplier for the carmaker’s Ram plug-in hybrid electric vehicle demonstration program.  The Ram PHEV will use Electrovaya’s 12kWh lithium ion battery.

One of Electrovaya’s major innovations is its SuperPolymer brand battery technology, which the company’s web site calls “a novel nanostructured lithium ion polymer technology platform.”  This technology provides faster, more efficient transport of lithium, and therefore greater energy density, according to Electrovaya.

According to Electrovaya’s web site, the company has over 150 patents and pending applications worldwide.  One key patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,588,862 (’862 Patent), which relates to the polymer technology.

The ‘862 Patent is entitled “Composite polymer electrolytes for a rechargeable lithium battery” and is directed to a composite electrolyte for use in thin plate rechargeable lithium batteries.  The electrolyte may be a solid laminate or a separator sheet to act as a barrier between the positive and negative electrodes of the battery.

A separator embodiment comprises an inert porous or micro-porous polymer laminate (12) coated with a polymer coating (14) containing a dissociable lithium compound.  The polymer coating is on the exposed surface of the laminate (12) and, during the coating process, partially flows into some of the pores (15) of the laminate (12). 

The separator could have just one face of the laminate (12) coated with the second polymer (14), as shown here, or could have both faces coated. 

The portion of unfilled pores (15) can be filled with a desired lithium salt containing organic solution (16).  Electrodes (18, 18′) are in contact with the separator laminate (12).  Current collectors (20, 20′) are located on the external surfaces of electrodes (18, 18′).

According to the ‘862 Patent, existing solid polymer electrolyte laminates had higher concentrations of dissociable lithium ions, but they frequently had low mechanical strength. 

The patented electrolyte boosts a battery’s energy density by increasing the concentration of dissociable lithium ions per unit volume in the electrolyte while maintaining the mechanical strength of the laminate:

It has now been found that the amount of dissociable lithium ions can be increased without increasing the thickness of the electrolyte, and simultaneously providing desirable mechanical strength and integrity…