Archive for January, 2013
Warning: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
class="post-6670 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-fuel-cells category-energy-storage category-green-patents">
January 31st, 2013

Leyden Energy (Leyden) is a Silicon Valley company that has developed a lithium ion battery that uses imide salts as electrolytes instead of the more commonly used PF6-based electrolytes. Formerly known as Mobius Power, Leyden built it Li-imide battery platform on seed technology from a patent acquired by DuPont.
In addition to the DuPont patent, Leyden owns at least one U.S. patent and at least six pending applications. U.S. Patent No. 8,221,915 is entitled “High performance lithium or lithium ion cell” (‘915 Patent) and directed to lithium ion electrochemical cells comprising a case (100), a cover (200), which is the positive terminal, and an insulating ring (300) between the case and the cover.
A negative tab (400) connects the anode current collector to the cover, and a positive tab (500) connects the cathode current collector to the cover. The cell also includes a positive terminal (550), a cathode (600), an anode (700), a separator (800), and an electrolyte solution inside the pores of the electrodes and separator.
The cathode (600) comprises an active material and a current collector made of aluminum foil with a protective, conductive coating, and the anode (700) comprises an active material and a copper foil current collector.
The crux of the ‘915 Patent is the invention of a way to reduce the corrosion typically caused by lithium imide salts so their properties of superior thermal and hydrolytic stability can be harnessed to extend the life of the battery. According to the ‘915 Patent, Leyden’s unique combination of conductive protective coating and anti-corrosion additives achieves this goal:
The following examples describe and explain how synergy of conductive protective coating and corrosion inhibiting additives results in [the] possibility of using thermally stable salts described herein to achieve long battery cycle life with little degradation.
In particular, an electrolyte solution of Lithium bis(Trifluoromethanesulfonyl)Imide (LiTFSI) with the additive lithium bis(oxalato)borate significantly reduced corrosion over a one week testing period:
The corrosion of the protected samples did not occur with the whole duration of the test (one week). This surprising finding shows the synergetic effect of using the protective coating and the corrosion inhibiting additive allows reduction or prevention of corrosion of the current collector corrosion.
This Greentech Media article notes Leyden’s claims that the lithim-imide electrolyte allows temperatures greater than convention lithium-ion batterys, longer cycle life, and higher charge density, and the follow-up piece reports on the company’s latest funding round.
Warning: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
class="post-6655 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-energy-efficiency category-green-patents">
January 28th, 2013

Adura Technologies (Adura) is a San Francisco company that provides wireless lighting controls and energy management systems. Adura was recently acquired by a large Atlanta-based commercial lighting company called Acuity Brands.
Adura’s patent portfolio includes at three U.S. patents and at least five published patent applications. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,839,017 (‘017 Patent); 7,925,384 (‘384 Patent); and 8,275,471 (‘471 Patent).
The ‘017 Patent is entitled “Systems and methods for remotely controlling an electrical load” and directed to an adapted switch (205) including an adapter (225) and switch (105). 
The adapter (225), in turn, includes a sensor (305), a communications interface (310), and a power unit (315), which provides power to the sensor (305) and the communications interface (310).
The sensor (305) is configured to detect a state of the switch (105), and the communications interface (310) wirelessly transmits a signal based on the detected state of the switch (105) to a controller (230), which controls a load device (110) based on the signal.

According to the ‘017 Patent, the switch (105) may be electrically isolated from the load device so physical manipulation of the switch does not affect the electrical load with respect to the load device (110). Because the state of the switch (110) can be detected by the sensor (305) using a low voltage signal, this configuration requires very little power.
The ‘384 Patent is entitled “Location-based provisioning of wireless control systems” and directed to methods of provisioning wireless control comprising the step (210) of broadcasting a message from a computing device (120) to a communication network (100) including one or more control devices (130A-C).

In step 220, a response is received from a control device (130A). In the next step (230), a “scene” is assigned to the control device 130A. A scene is defined by the ‘384 Patent to be a set of one or more specifications concerning operation of light fixtures associated with the control device (130A).

In step 240, a scene command is generated based on the assigned scene. The scene command is then transmitted to the control device (130A) in step 250.
The ‘471 Patent is entitled “Sensor interface for wireless control” and relates to systems and methods for enabling wireless communication with wired sensors.
Adura also has invested in its branding and enforced one of its trademark registrations back in 2009.
According to this Greentech Media story, this is the first in what could be a “wave of acquisitions” in the “still-nascent” networked lighting space.
: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
class="post-6625 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-biofuels-patents category-green-patents category-ip-litigation category-led-patents">

A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of biofuels, compressed air turbines, and LEDs.
Biofuels
Neste Oil, OYJ v. Dynamic Fuel, LLC et al.
Filed on December 20, 2012 in the District of Delaware, Neste Oil’s complaint alleges direct and induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,212,094 (‘094 Patent).
The ‘094 Patent is entitled “Process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons.”  The patent relates to a process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons from a biological feedstock where the feed is hydrotreated and isomerized.
Dynamic Fuels is a joint venture of Syntroleum and Tyson Foods that operates refineries capable of producing allegedly infringing synthetic renewable diesel fuels.
This is the second patent infringement suit Neste has filed against Dynamic Fuels in the past year (see coverage of the first one here).
Compressed Air Turbines
PowerPHASE, LLC v. Nakhamkin, et al.
Filed December 11, 2012 in the Southern District of Florida, PowerPHASE’s complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of two of Nakhamkin’s patents, both relating to combustion turbine power plants using compressed air to help the turbines operate at maximum power.
According to the complaint, Nakhamkin accused PowerPHASE of infringing his patents through its ABI and TurboPHASE technologies.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 5,934,063, entitled “Method of operating a combustion turbine power plant having compressed air storage,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,305,158, entitled “Combustion turbine power plant operable at full power using supplemental compressed air.”
LEDsÂ
Kadence Designs LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. et al.
Kadence Designs recently sued Osram Sylvania and Artison LLC for infringement of three patents. The complaint was filed in the District Court of Nevada on Dec 13, 2012.
All three of the assered patents involve a combination of lights (two of the patents involving LEDs) and sound speakers. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 7,535,341, entitled “Combination speaker / light fixture,” U.S. Patent No. 7,817,016, entitled “Screw-in LED light and sound bulb,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,299,903, entitled “Screw-in LED light and sound bulb.”
The accused products are light speaker products sold by Sylvania.
Lexington Luminance, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
Lexington Luminance, LLC v. Google, Inc.
Lexington filed two suits (Lexington-Amazon Complaint; Lexington-Google Complaint) on November 29, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851 (‘851 Patent). The defendants are Amazon and Google.
The ‘851 Patent is entitled “Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing same” and is directed to an LED comprising a plurality of textured district defined on the surface of the substrate, which reduce defect density and are useful in the fabrication of semiconductor light emitting devices in misfit systems.
The accused products are e-reader devices and tablet computers.
Trustees of Boston University v. Epistar Corp. et al.
 Trustees of Boston University v. Lite-On, Inc. et al.
 A previous update reported on Boston University’s suits against Everlight Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor.
In an expansion of its patent enforcement activity, Boston University has again asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (‘738 Patent), this time against Epistar and Lite-On. The complaints (BU-Epistar Complaint; BU-Lite-On Complaint) were filed December 14, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts.
The ‘738 Patent is entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and is directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.
The accused products include LEDs containing a gallium nitride thin film semiconductor.
Light Transformation Technologies, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp. et al.
Light Transformation Technologies, LLC v. General Electric Co. et al.
Light Transformation Technologies (“LTT”)Â recently filed two separate complaints (LTT – LSG Complaint; LTT – GE Complaint)Â on December 28, 2012 in the Eastern District of Texas against a number of defendants, including Lighting Science Group, Home Depot, General Electric (and its affiliates), and Wal-Mart. The complaints allege infringement of three patents held by LTT.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 8,220,959, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore”;
U.S. Patent No. 6,951,418, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore”;
U.S. Patent No. 6,543,911, entitled “Highly efficient luminaire having optical transformer providing precalculated angular intensity distribution and method therefore.”
The accused products include LED light bulbs for home use.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of America, Inc.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. CRS Electronics, Inc.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. MSI, LLC
On December 28, 2012, GE Lighting Solutions filed six separate complaints in the Northern District of Ohio against various defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,999 (‘999 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,799,864 (‘864 Patent).
 The ‘999 Patent is entitled “LED-based modular lamp” and directed to a lamp with a plurality of LEDs for emitting light of three different colors and a heat sink thermally coupled to the LEDs.
The ‘864 Patent is entitled “High power LED power pack for spot module illumination” and directed to a  light emitting diode assembly including a generally planar front side light emitting diode array, and a rear side that is in thermal communication with a thermally conductive spreader.
The accused products include LED lamps.
Wyatt Glynn is an associate at McKenna Long & Aldridge in their San Diego, Downtown office. He received his J.D. from the University of California – Berkeley, where he was the Senior Executive Editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.