Archive for March, 2014
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-7880 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-smart-grid-patents">
March 25th, 2014
Ever wonder who owns all the smart grid patents? Â With all of the acquisitions in smart grid (see, e.g., here and here), it seems a lot of folks have been considering the question.
A recent study by patent analytics firm Relecura on smart grid patent holders seeks to answer this question. Â It turns out the top five are ABB, GE, Panasonic, Siemens, and Toshiba:

The study breaks out the results by six sub-technology categories (communications, software, smart meters, sensors, substation automation, and distribution automation) and lists the top large entities and SMEs in each subcategory:


The full report, which can be found here, styles itself a “preliminary survey of the Smart Grid assignee landscape and first-cut identification of patent asset holders in Smart Grid technology.”
According to Relecura, the purpose of the study is to identify potential licensees and acquisitions targets for each of the sub-technologies. Â The study uses 2008 as a reference year, and defines its Potential Licensees and Potential Acquisitions Targets relative to that year.
More particularly, Potential Licensees are entities whose patent applications were filed in 2008 or later while Potential Acquisitions Targets are typically small or medium sized entities with granted patents from applications filed in 2008 or earlier. Â In other words, small companies and SMEs with relatively mature patent portfolios are deemed more ripe for acquisition and those with younger patent portfolios are thought to be more amenable to licensing IP.
With so much activity in smart grid M&A, this report could be useful to a lot of people.
: 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-7869 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-biofuels-patents category-green-patents category-ip-litigation">

There’s been another big twist in the biobutanol battle between BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax and Gevo, its arch rival in advanced biofuels.
A previous postàdiscussed the district court’s ruling granting Gevo’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of two Butamax patents -àU.S. Patent Nos.à7,993,889à(ââ¬â¢889 Patent)àandàà7,851,188à(ââ¬â¢188 Patent). àThe district also denied both parties’ motions on literal infringement and reached split decisions on validity of the patents.
Butamax appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently vacated both the grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgement of non-infringement and the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment.
The ââ¬â¢889 and ââ¬â¢188 Patentsàareàbothàentitled ââ¬ÅFermentive production of four carbon alcoholsââ¬Âàand directed to a more cost efficient method of producing isobutanol directly from pyruvateàvia a particular production pathway using recombinant microbial host cells.
The patented processes use an enzyme called KARI, which needs a cofactorÃÂ that donates electronsÃÂ to enable it to catalyze a reaction.ÃÂ Based on statements in the patents, the district court had interpreted the claimsÃÂ to requireÃÂ a KARI defined with respect to the NADPHÃÂ cofactor only.
The crux of the Federal’s Circuit’s decision was its holding that the district court erred in its claim construction, specifically concluding that the lower court got it wrong when it interpreted the claim term ââ¬Åacetohydroxy acid isomeroreductaseââ¬Â, i.e., KARI, to mean an enzyme that is solely NADPH dependent.
The Federal Circuit found that the plain meaning of the term KARI does not in itself impose any limitation on the cofactor or the source of electrons needed for the reaction.
In addition, the appeals court found that nothing in the patents limited the definition of KARI to being only NADPH dependent:
The patent’s definition at least excludes as-yet-undiscovered KARI enzymes that could catalyze conversion of AL to DHIV without using NADPH at all. ÃÂ Moreover, the description of specific types of KARI as NADPH-dependent does not clearly express an intent to redefine all KARI “using NADPH” as KARI that must be NADPH-dependent.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit made its own determination on claim construction, defining ââ¬Åacetohydroxy acid isomeroreductaseââ¬Â by its enzyme classification number and catalytic activity:
[T]he term “acetohydroxy acid reductisomerase” is construed as “an enzyme, whether naturally occurring or otherwise, known by the EC number 1.1.1.86 that catalyzes the conversion of acetolactate to 2,3-dihydroxyisovalerate.”
Therefore, the appeals court vacated the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment of infringement because the lower court now has to consider the question of whether Gevo’s enzymes infringe the patents-in-suit under the broader claim construction.
Interestingly, this case previously went up to the Federal Circuit on appeal of a preliminary injunction decision, and the appeals court at the time warned the district court to reconsider its claim construction of the disputed term.
As to validity of the Butamax patents, the Federal Circuit reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence – in the form of expert testimony and scientific publications – to create a genuine issue of fact that the ‘889 Patent meets the written description requirement because those of skill in the art know how to deactivate the genes that express the claimed pathway.
So the case will go back down to the district court for another round on infringement and validity.