Pluritas, a San Francisco IP advisory firm, is handling the sale of an LED patent portfolio developed and currently owned by a company called Illumitex. 

According to the press release, Illumitex has shifted focus from LED design to lighting fixtures and total solutions and is therefore putting its chip patents up for sale.

The Pluritas Illumitex sale web page lists six U.S. patents, and the sale overview document says there are five patent families including foreign counterparts in Europe, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. 

One provisional – Application Serial No. 61/587,552, entitled “Hybrid mirror for higher extraction efficiency from bottom-emitting LEDs – is listed as well (comprising the LED micro-mirror family), though it apparently expired in January.  Because of the timing of patent application publication, it’s too early to tell whether the provisional has been converted to a formal utility application.

The first patent family relates to LED emitter layer shaping and includes U.S. Patent No. 7,829,358 and its related divisional, U.S. Patent No. 8,263,993, both entitled “System and method for emitter layer shaping” (Layer Shaping Patents).

The Layer Shaping Patents are directed to methods of shaping an emitter layer (80) of an LED to form a shaped portion (81) and an unshaped portion (82).  In the shaped portion (81) the Gallium Nitride layer (810) and sidewalls (860) and (865) are shaped to a controlled height to maximize light extraction efficiency.

 

This allows photons of light from the quantum well region (815) that enter the Gallium Nitride layer (810) through interface (850) to exit through exit face (855) with minimal energy loss.

According to the sale overview document, these shaped emitters achieve the highest possible light extraction efficiencies by minimizing internal reflections and controlling beam shape.

Another family includes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,789,531 and 8,087,960 (‘960 Patent), both entitled “LED system and method” (LED Substrate Shaping Patents).  The LED Substrate Shaping Patents are directed to methods of making LEDs in which a quantum well region (15) is shaped in conformance with the substrate (10).

More particularly, both the substrate (10) and the quantum well region (15) form sidewall (60), sidewall (65), or other sidewalls.  Photons from the quantum well regions (15) may enter the substrate (10) through interface (50).

According to the ‘960 Patent, the size and shape of interface (50) and exit face (55), the distance between the two faces, and the shapes of the sidewalls (60, 65) can be optimized to direct light incident on the inner side of the sidewalls to exit face (55) to produce a desired light output profile.

U.S. Patent No. 8,115,217 (‘217 Patent) represents a family relating to LED packaging.  Entitled “Systems and methods for packaging light-emitting diode devices,” the ‘217 Patent is directed to a packaged LED device (100) comprising a housing (130) with an LED chip (120) residing in an interior wall (135) of the housing (130).  A phosphor plate (140) is positioned on top of the LED chip (120).

Submount (110) comprises a block of thermally conductive material having a top surface and a bottom surface.  The submount (110) also includes cap layers (115) on the bottom surface, a metal layer (150) on the top surface, and embedded electrical connectors (160) connecting the cap layer (115) and the metal layer (150).

Finally, U.S. Patent No. 8,217,399, entitled “Photon tunneling light emitting diodes and methods” (‘399 Patent), represents the photon tunneling family.  The ‘399 Patent is directed to an LED device comprising an LED layer structure (100) bonded to a submount (150).

The submount can include one or more electrodes (151) in contact with or connected to a p-metal layer (145) and one or more electrodes (152) connected to an n-metal contacts (160).  The LED device has an n-Gallium Nitride layer (120), a p-Gallium Nitride layer (130), and a quantum well layer (140).

According to the sale overview document, a key feature of the ‘399 Patent invention is that the LED layer structure (100) has a thickness less than the wavelength of the light produced.  The resulting photon tunneling prevents photons from becoming trapped in the substrate and therefore increases the amount of light emitted.

The sale overview document also features some cool analysis by our friends over at IP Checkups that shows where the Illumitex patents fit in the broader LED patent landscape.

 

There have been a number of green patent complaints filed recently in such technology areas as compact fluorescent lamps, LEDs, and battery chargers.

Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps

In the Matter of: Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps and Products and Components Containing Same

On January 28, 2013, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light (Complainants) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an investigation of Maxlite, Technical Consumer Products, Satco Products, and Litetronics International (Respondents) for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (‘540 Patent).

The ‘540 Patent is entitled “Energy efficient compact fluorescent reflector lamp” and directed to a reflector lamp which makes use of a fluorescent bulb, rather than an incandescent bulb, to improve the energy efficiency and service life of the bulb and allow for a wider array of color temperatures of emitted light.  The disclosed lamp is “directly compatible with incandescent and halogen PAR lamps” and “used in the same type [of] light fixtures as incandescent” lamps.

Complainants allege that Respondents are engaged in the importation and sale of reflector compact fluorescent lights that infringe the ‘540 Patent.  Complainants are seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order regarding the importation and sale of the infringing products.

LEDs

Whelen Engineering Co., Inc. v. Able 2 Products Co.

On January 23, 2013, Whelen brought suit against Able in the District of Connecticut for the alleged infringement of its patent and corresponding trademark concerning an LED light display.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,641,284 (‘284 patent), is entitled “LED Light Assembly” and discloses a linear array of LEDs within a linear parabolic reflector that allows for the production of uniform, directional light beams. 

Whelen also asserted U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,762,987 (listed in the complaint by its application number), for the mark LINEAR-LED, which, according to the complaint, is “used in connection with . . . warning lights and warning light systems.”

Whelen argues that Able is infringing its patent and trademark through the sale of a number of its warning light products.  Whelen seeks damages and destruction of the infringing products.

Last year Whelen sued another LED maker for infringement of the ‘284 Patent, a design patent, and a few of its trademarks. 

 

Cree, Inc. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC

Cree brought suit against Cooper Lighting (Cooper) on February 19, 2013 for the alleged infringement of two patents relating to an LED apparatus and fixture.  The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,282,239, entitled “Light-directing apparatus with protected reflector-shield and lighting fixture utilizing same” (‘239 Patent) and 8,070,306, entitled “LED lighting fixture” (‘306 Patent).  Ruud, a subsidiary of Cree, and Cooper are also in litigation surrounding the alleged infringement of a number of Ruud’s patents (see previous posts here and here).

Cree alleges that Cooper’s Ventus LED product infringes the ‘306 Patent and its AccuLED Optics system infringes the ‘239 patent.  According to the complaint, Cooper also offers and sells a number of other infringing products under numerous brands. Cree is seeking a permanent injunction and damages.

Illumination Management Solutions, Inc. v. Ruud Lighting, Inc.

On February 13, 2013, Illumination Management Solutions (IMS) filed suit against Ruud Lighting (Ruud) in federal court in Tyler, Texas for alleged patent infringement and civil conspiracy.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,674, 018 entitled “LED device for wide beam generation.” This LED device produces light in a wide-angle profile which can be used for street lighting purposes.

IMS is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement, an award of compensatory, exemplary, and treble damages, attorney’s fees, and an order that Ruud “transfer to [IMS] any interest assigned to Ruud Lighting. . . .”

 

Battery Chargers

VoltStar Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Communications, Inc.

On February 1, 2013, VoltStar filed suit against Superior in the Eastern District of Texas for alleged patent infringement of three of its patents.

The complaint asserts three patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,833 and 8,242,359, each entitled “Energy-saving power adapter/charger,” and 7,960,648, entitled “Energy saving cable assemblies.”

According to the complaint, the patents pertain to a battery charger “that automatically shuts off when a device is fully charged or not plugged in, eliminating ‘vampire load.’ This feature reduces power consumption and extends battery life.”

VoltStar is seeking a permanent injunction as well as monetary damages for Superior’s alleged infringement.

*Cliff Brazil is a contributor to the Green Patent Blog.  Cliff is currently in his second year at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas.  He received his undergraduate degree in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado.

In the latest fuel efficiency greenwashing litigation (see, e.g., here), Ford has been hit with two class actions alleging the automaker misrepresented the miles per gallon achieved by its Fusion and C-Max SE hybrid vehicles.

The complaints (Pitkin – Ford Complaint; Strand – Ford Complaint), filed recently in federal court in Los Angeles and Santa Ana, accuse Ford of a “systematic advertising scheme” deceptively touting the cars’ combined (city and highway) 47 mpg EPA gas mileage estimate. 

According to plaintiffs, the EPA estimates do not provide actual mileage for a vehicle under normal, real life driving conditions because the test conditions are designed to maximize fuel mileage.  The EPA tests are conducted using lab machines called dynamometers instead of roads, one of the complaints says.  In addition, the highway portion of the test uses a speed range of only about 48-60 miles per hour and is performed by a professional driver.

According to the complaints, Consumer Reports found that the C-Max hybrid achieved a combined 37 mpg, and the Fusion hybrid a combined 39 mpg, well under the advertised 47 mpg figure. 

The class plaintiffs accuse Ford of misleading consumers by advertising the EPA mpg estimates as actual, expected mileage under normal, real world driving conditions while failing to disclose that the ratings are mere estimates based on particular testing conditions.

There seems to be an increasing outcry about autombile mileage testing criteria and automakers’ use of EPA data in advertising.  One of the major allegations in the Hyundai and Kia greenwashing cases is that the automakers employed flawed fuel economy testing procedures.  Perhaps it’s time for better testing procedures to reflect real world driving conditions and/or for car companies to better communicate exactly what the fuel estimates mean.

There have been some recent developments in the green patent infringement suits we’ve been covering.

 

First, in Neste Oil v. Dynamic Fuels, Syntroleum and Tyson Foods (see previous post here) the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted defendant Syntroleum’s motion to stay the litigation pending reexamination of the asserted patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,187,344 (‘344 Patent), entitled “Fuel composition for a diesel engine” and directed to diesel fuels made from animal, plant, or fish fatty acids.

The court acknowledged that delayed resolution of the case under reexam could prejudice Neste.  However, ultimately the court found the likelihood of simplifying the issues for litigation and the early stage of the court proceedings weighed in favor of a stay:

[T]here is reason to believe that the PTO’s reexamination will result in the cancellation of at least some of the claims.  To the extent that such cancellation does occur…the litigation necessarily will be simplified.

* * *

The present case is in its earliest stages –“the reexamination request was filed prior to any scheduling order being in place, less than three months after litigation began, and before Defendants’ answers were due, and where the parties have incurred little, if any, resources with respect to scheduling, discovery disputes, or motion practice.”

One important consideration was the fact that a related Neste patent – U.S. Patent No. 7,279,018 – had all of its claims canceled in a prior PTO reexamination.

In Solannex v. Miasole, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated two separate infringement actions involving solar cell interconnection structures (see previous posts here and here).

The cases involve four patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,635,810, entitled “Substrate and collector grid structures for integrated photovoltaic arrays and process of manufacturing such arrays” (’810 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 7,868,249, entitled “Substrate and collector grid structures for integrated series connected photovoltaic arrays and process of manufacture of such arrays” (‘249 Patent);

U.S. Patent No. 8,076,568, entitled “Collector grid and interconnect structures for photovoltaic array and modules” (‘568 Patent); and

U.S. Patent No. 8,110,737, entitled “Collector grid electrode structures and interconnect structures for photovoltaic arrays and methods of manufacture” (‘737 Patent).

The court denied the parties’ motion under Federal Rule 54(b) to certify for appeal a stipulated judgment of non-infringement of the ‘810 and ‘249 Patents.  Because claim construction has not yet occurred for the ‘568 and ‘737 Patents, the court held it was premature for appeal of the rulings on the ‘810 and ‘249 Patents:

Claim construction for the ‘568 and ‘737 patents has not yet taken place.  If the court were to certify the claim construction of the ‘810 and ‘249 patents, it is likely that the parties would appeal claim construction of the same terms at a later date, requiring the appellate court to decide the same issues – or at least similar – more than once.  Because this is exactly the type of piecemeal appeal Rule 54(b) was designed to prevent, the parties joint request for entry of judgment and certification must be denied.

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) discussed the series of patent infringement suits brought by GreenShift and its New York subsidiary, GS Cleantech (GS), against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States.

The litigation currently consists of 11 actions consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana in which GreenShift has accused the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (‘858 Patent), 8,008,516  (‘516 Patent) and 8,283,484 (‘484 Patent), entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems” and U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517 (‘517 Patent), entitled “Method of recovering oil from thin stillage.”  The latter three patents were recently added to the case.

The patents relate 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.  The 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.

Following a mixed claim construction ruling, a number of defendants filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringment of the ‘858, ‘516 and/or ‘517 Patents, and GS filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ‘858 and ‘516 Patents.

In a recent decision the court revisited its interpretations of a few claim terms and, based on the new constructions, denied the SJ motions all around without prejudice.  The key term the court focused on was “substantially free of oil” / “substantially oil free.”

The defendants argued that all of the patent claims require the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil.  The court disagreed and held that none of the claims of the ‘858 Patent have this requirement and only claim 7 of the ‘516 Patent and claim 8 of the ‘484 Patent  require that the post-oil recovery step syrup stream be substantially oil free.

Another issue in interpreting the “substantially oil free” term was whether it should be defined as a comparison between the oil concentration in the incoming thin stillage stream and the outgoing remaining-concentrate stream.  The defendants also contended that the term should mean the post-oil recovery thin stillage stream contains 5% or less of the oil in the incoming stream.

The court agreed with the comparison but declined to impose a quantitative requirement for the percentage of oil.  Accordingly, the term “substantially oil free” was interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of largely and mostly oil free but is measured by a comparison of the oil concentration in the incoming thin stillage and the oil concentration in the resulting syrup:

[T]he Court concludes that the “substantially oil free” limitation in claim 7 of the ‘516 Patent and claim 8 of the ‘484 Patent means the syrup exiting the centrifuge is substantially oil free compared to the incoming thin stillage, where substantially has its ordinary meaning of largely or mostly.

The court went on to  dismiss all of the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and with leave to re-file.  In view of the new claim construction and the recent addition of three patents to the litigation, the court decided the parties would need more time to develop their arguments on infringement:

[T]he Court recognizes that the decisions in this Order will have an impact on the parties’ positions with respect to infringement.  In addition, as discussed in the introduction, since the date the parties filed their summary judgment motions the Court has allowed CleanTech to amend its complaints against each Defendant such that nearly all patents in the ‘858 patent family are asserted against each of them.  For both of these reasons, the currently-briefed summary judgment motions likely do not address all the arguments the parties wish to raise with respect to CleanTech’s allegations of infringement and, to resolve the infringement issues fairly, the Court will require the parties to address the allegedly infringing processes under the new claim construction.

I’m very pleased to report that Green Patent Blog has been selected as one of the 101 Terrific Sites on Renewable Energy, a list complied by EnvironmentalScienceDegree.com. This is a great honor. The complete list can be found here.

Blade Dynamics is a UK-based company that develops advanced rotors for utility-scale wind turbines.  The company focuses on modular assembly technology to enable longer blades and has developed and GL certified the world’s lightest 49-meter blade.

According to this TechnologyReview.com article, the Blade Dynamics makes blades entirely out of carbon fiber using smaller sections (12-20 meters) seamlessly spliced together.  The company recently received funding from the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), a public-private partnership between the UK government and companies such as BP, Shell and Caterpillar, to build 80 to 100-meter blades.

Blade Dynamics owns at least one U.S. patent and at least eight pending U.S. applications relating to its wind turbine technology. 

U.S. Application Publication Nos. 2010/0260611 (‘611 Application) and 2011/0103962 (‘962 Application) are each entitled “Wind turbine blade” and are directed to, respectively, a load-bearing spar and a blade comprising an elongate spar.   

The ‘611 Application is directed to a load-bearing spar (30) for a wind turbine blade (10).  The spar (30) is connected to a root subassembly (20) and supports frame members (40, 50). 

Skin panels (60, 70) are mounted on the frame members to form a continuous outer surface of the blade (10).

The ‘962 Application is directed to a wind turbine blade having a sub-assembly including a spar (6) and a root (7).  Successive skin panels (1) are bonded to the spar (6) with flange (4) adjacent to an opening (5) and being bonded to the spar (6).

U.S. Application Publication No. 2012/0294724, entitled “Aerodynamic fairing for a wind turbine and a method of connecting adjacent parts of such a fairing” (‘724 Application), is directed to methods for connecting the skin panels mentioned above.  The ‘724 describes use of recesses (10, 11) and adhesive channels (14) defined in the skin panels (1A, 1B).

A bead of adhesive (17) is applied between the recess (11) and flange (16), which projects inwardly at an acute angle to form a hook-like structure.  The distal end of the first skin panel (1A) is located within the groove formed between the recess (11) and flange (16) to ensure lateral alignment between the two skin panels.  Spacers (12, 13) abut against the face of the recess (11), thereby precisely determining the dimensions of the adhasive channel (14).

Another bead of adhesive (18) is then applied to the outer surface of the assembled skin panels (1A, 1B) to seal the channel at the left-hand side.  The adhesive runs along the adhesive channel (14), assisted by the flow channels (15), ensuring even distribution of the adhesive along the channel.

According to the ‘962 Application, this modular assembly structure eliminates the need for separate ribs used by prior designs, significantly reduces the number of components required to create a finished blade, and eliminates at least one alignment step in the construction process.

The TechnologyReview.com article quotes the company’s senior technical manager on other advantages such as enabling greater precision in aerodynamic structures and improving performance.  In addition, because the company’s blades weigh less than fiberglass ones, they can provide longer blades for existing wind turbine designs.

A new research report published at EWEA 2013 by consultancy Totaro & Associates has catalogued over 27,500 global patent filings related to horizontal-axis, utility-scale wind turbine technology.  Totaro & Associates CEO and Principal, Philip Totaro says that, “We estimate there are ~45,000 to 50,000 global filings in total, and we are continuing our research to catalogue and evaluate them all.”

 

Arms Race

The top patent holders in wind are no surprise.  GE, Vestas, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Enercon and Gamesa control almost 50% of all global patent filings.  Totaro goes on to say that, “Other Tier 1 global turbine manufacturers, such as Sinovel and Goldwind are gaining ground, but historically, they have filed their patents exclusively in China.”

Patent filings are up sharply across the entire industry since 2006, largely due to increased spending on research and development as well as intellectual property (IP) protection. “It seems like there is an IP arms race currently underway in wind,” says Totaro.  The IP ‘Cold War’ has turned hot over the past 10 years with legal proceedings throughout the world over intellectual property rights between AMSC and Sinovel, GE and Mitsubishi, GE and Enercon as well as Enercon and Vestas, plus other non-public IP license and cross-license arrangements.

 

Risky Business

According to Totaro, “Our analysis has shown that only about 1% of issued patents are a high impact on the products and services currently offered by the industry as a whole, with another 7% which may become relevant in the future depending on technology adoption.  The remaining 92% of global patent filings are merely providing companies with basic defensive IP protection on their own distinct technologies, products and service offerings.”

While most companies appear to be in-line with industry averages in terms of overall patent portfolio distribution of low, medium and high risk filings, GE seems to stand out.  GE’s high risk patent filings as a percentage of their overall portfolio, are double the industry average at 1.9% vs. 0.9%.  GE’s patent portfolio also comprises over 36% of all high risk patents throughout the industry, showing a concerted effort to gain a tactical advantage through capturing and aggressively enforcing IP rights.  Meanwhile, the rest of the industry is trying to catch up.

 

Technology Trends

In assessing the technology trends apparent from the research, the report indicates that component developments have historically been directed towards blades, gearboxes, generators and electrical systems, with newer filings directed towards controls and a continuing focus on blade performance enhancements.  Totaro says that, “The blades, drivetrain and electrical systems were the problem children in terms of component reliability in the past, so they needed the most attention; the most improvement; the most innovation.”

Technology developments have historically been directed towards component reliability, torque / speed control, frequency / voltage regulation, performance optimization and load mitigation, with newer filings directed towards manufacturing, construction and O&M.  Totaro continues, “The manufacturing revolution, particularly with the move towards longer blades for both on and offshore has driven a substantial amount of innovation.”

Looking towards the future, the report offers several areas to watch out for including blade manufacturing automation, materials such as hybrid fabrics for blades and graphene for power electronics, anticipatory and load mitigating controls, energy storage integration, VAR and ancillary services support, HVDC technology as well as condition monitoring / SCADA data analysis for predictive maintenance and spares scheduling.

Totaro states that “Out of all the future technology trends, we have long said that materials science will have the single greatest impact on further reductions in wind turbine and sub-component CapEx.  But, as O&M costs have continued to escalate, the industry is shifting focus to services, particularly since turbine sales have dropped as of late.”

 

Technology Deployment Gap

Although, when it comes to deployment of these new technologies, Totaro cautions that a gap exists, “We presently see a commercialization gap amongst technologies being investigated and those actually being deployed.  We believe this is due to project financiers not incentivizing the development and introduction of new technologies and products because of associated technical and commercial risks.  These risks can now be better quantified and mitigated through tools which have been recently developed in the industry; such as the patent infringement risks which can now be mitigated through our IP risk profiles.”

Totaro concludes, “Protection of intellectual property rights will continue to be a hot-button issue for years to come, and the deployment of new technology will be crucial for the industry to achieve sustainable cost parity with other energy sources.”

The full report is available at http://www.totaro-associates.com.

 

There were significant developments recently in a couple of LED patent lawsuits.  First, in GE Lighting v. AgiLight, previously discussed here, the parties submitted a joint stipulation stating that two of the LED string light engine patents asserted by GE are not infringed.

The parties stipulated that the court’s construction of the claim term “IDC Connector” – a two-part housing, with one part including four electrical terminals, the housing being able to snap together to enclose three insulated conductors – means that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,160,140 and 7,520,771 do not read on AgiLight’s products.

The parties requested entry of partial summary judgment of non-infringement.  GE, of course, did not concede the propriety of the court’s claim construction, and entered into the stipulation to facilitate a prompt appeal of the claim construction decision.

A previous post discussed UK-based Litepanels‘ infringement action in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) involving three patents relating to LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production.  The ITC complaint was filed in August 2011 against several U.S. and Chinese companies.

In September 2012 an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found a violation of at least one claim of each of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,948,823 (’823 Patent), 7,318,652 (’652 Patent) and 7,972,022 (’022 Patent).

Last month the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination imposing a general exclusion order, a sweeping remedy that bars importation of any LED devices that infringe the ‘652 and ‘022 Patents, not just those imported by respondents Flolight and Cool Lights.  The ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings of infringement of the ‘823 Patent. 

The ITC imposed the general exclusion order as well as a 43% bond on any infringing products imported pending Presidential review of its decision:

The Commission has further determined that the appropriate remedy is a general exclusion order prohibiting from entry LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1, 57, 58, and 60 of the ‘022 patent and claims 1-2, 5, 16, 18-19, 25, and 27 of the ‘652 patent….Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of 43 percent of the entered value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidental review of LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that are subject to the order.