In January and February, there were a number of green patent infringement lawsuits filed in the areas of biofuels, hybrid vehicles, LEDs, smart grid, advanced batteries, solar power, and water meters.

Advanced Batteries

BASF Corporation et al. v. Umicore N.V. et al.

In this lawsuit BASF and UChicago Argonne, LLC accuse Umicore and Makita Corporation of unfair trade practices, antitrust violations, and infringement of two patents relating to cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (‘082 Patent) and 6,680,143 (‘143 Patent), both entitled “Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries” and directed to a lithium metal oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous lithium cell.

The cell is prepared in its initial discharged state and has a general formula xLiMO₂.(1−x)Li₂M′O_3 in which 0<x<1, and where M is one or more ion with an average trivalent oxidation state and with at least one ion being Mn or Ni, and where M′ is one or more ion with an average tetravalent oxidation state.

According to the complaint, Umicore is selling cathode materials that infringe the ‘082 and ‘143 Patents, and Makita is one of the companies importing and selling batteries incorporating the materials.  The lawsuit was filed February 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Biofuels

C T E Global, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S

In a complaint filed January 9, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, C T E Global seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two Novozymes patents relating to an enzyme used in biofuel production.  The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,255,084 (’084 Patent) and 7,060,468 (’468 Patent).

The ’084 and ’468 Patents are entitled “Thermostable glucoamylase” and are directed to an isolated glucoamylase enzyme which has higher thermal stability than prior glucoamylases.  The patents also claim starch conversion processes using the enzyme.  Glucoamylases are used to convert hydrolyzed corn starch to glucose, particularly in production of ethanol.

Novozymes and C T E previously litigated these patents and settled the case in 2012.  According to C T E, the ‘084 and ‘468 Patents are invalid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court Myriad Genetics decision holding that isolated natural products are not patent eligible subject matter.

Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Solenis Technologies L.P.

This is not a patent infringement suit, but rather a priority /ownership dispute in which Superior Oil claims that the inventors of its patent for a method for recovering oil from the byproducts of ethanol production using various surfactants were the first to invent the technology.

Superior Oil’s patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059, entitled “Bio-based oil composition and method for producing the same” (‘059 Patent).  In its complaint, Superior Oil requests that the court declare that an interference-in-fact exists between the ‘059 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,841,469 (‘469 Patent), entitled “Chemical additives and use thereof in stillage processing operations” and owned by Solenis Technologies.

The complaint was filed February 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Hybrid Vehicles

Somaltus LLC v. Ford Motor Company

Somaltus filed this complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 12, 2015.  Somaltus alleges that Ford infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386 (‘386 Patent) by selling vehicles equipped with an infringing hybrid battery system.

The ‘386 Patent is entitled “Integrated battery service system” and directed to an integrated battery service system that performs a plurality of services related to a battery, such as battery testing, battery charging, and the like. In addition, the integrated service system provides services to devices/components that are coupled to the battery, such as starters, alternators, etc.

Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, has also sued Nissan, Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, Auto Meter Products, and Cadex Electronics.

LEDs

Cree, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. et al.

North Carolina LED manufacturer Cree sued Feit for alleged infringement of ten utility and design patents relating to LED technologies.  The complaint also alleges that Feit has engaged in false advertising in connection with marketing its LED products.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,657,236, entitled “Enhanced light extraction in LEDs through the use of internal and external optical elements”

U.S. Patent No. 6,885,036, entitled “Scalable LED with improved current spreading structures”

U.S. Patent No. 6,614,056, entitled “Scalable led with improved current spreading structures”

U.S. Patent No. 7,312,474, entitled “Group III nitride based superlattice structures”

U.S. Patent No. 7,976,187, entitled “Uniform intensity LED lighting system”

U.S. Patent No. 8,766,298, entitled “Encapsulant profile for light emitting diodes”

U.S. Patent No. 8,596,819, entitled “Lighting device and method of lighting”

U.S. Patent No. 8,628,214, entitled “Lighting device and lighting method”

U.S. Design Patent No. D653,366, entitled “LED lamp”

U.S. Design Patent No. D660,990, entitled “LED lamp”

The complaint includes greenwashing allegations as well, specifically that Feit’s advertising falsely suggests that some of its LED products meet the Energy Star standard relating to Luminous Energy Distribution when the products actually fail to meet this requirement.

Smart Grid

Allure Energy, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 

On January 29, 2015, Allure Energy sued Honeywell in federal court in Austin, Texas, alleging false advertising and infringement of two patents relating to smart thermostat technology.

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,344 and 8,457,797, both entitled “Energy management system and method” and directed to a wireless thermostat responsive to control action data communicated via a mobile app and other home energy management systems.

The accused device is Honeywell’s Lyric smart thermostat product.

Emerson Electric Co. et al. v. SIPCo LLC et al.

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) reported on SIPCo’s patent enforcement activities.

In this declaratory judgment (DJ) action, filed January 30, 2015 in federal court in Atlanta, Emerson, one of the defendants in SIPCo’s patent infringement suits, seeks a declaratory judgment that the claims of two SIPCo patents are invalid and not infringed.

The patents listed in Emerson’s complaint are U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062, entitled “Wireless network gateway and method for providing same,” and directed to certain wireless network systems having a server providing a gateway between two networks, and U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, which relates to remote monitoring and control systems.

In 2013, Emerson filed a similar DJ suit against SIPCo targeting several patents.

Solar Power

Beacon Power, LLC v. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. et al.

Beacon Power sued SolarEdge for patent infringement on January 9, 2015 in federal court in San Antonio, Texas.  The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,144 (‘144 Patent) and 8,669,675 (‘675 Patent), each entitled “Power converter for a solar panel.”

The ‘144 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system including a DC-to-DC power converter configured and arranged to convert the raw power output for each solar module to a high voltage and low current output.

The ‘675 Patent is directed to a solar power generation system wherein each DC-to-DC power converter is configured and arranged to convert the solar module output power (SOP) for each solar module to a converted solar module output power (COP) having a converted output voltage (COV) that is higher than the SOV and a converted output current (COI) that is lower than the SOI.

The accused products are SolarEdge’s P Series Power Optimizers.

Water Meters

Flow Dynamics, LLC v. Green4All Energy Solutions Inc. et al.

Filed February 20, 2015 in federal court in Palm Beach, Florida, Flow Dynamics’ complaint accuses Green4All of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,707,981 (‘981 Patent).

The ‘981 Patent is entitled “System for increasing the efficiency of a water meter” and directed to a system and an associated valve assembly adapted to increase the efficiency of an upstream water meter. The valve assembly removes entrained water bubbles from the water supply, increasing the density of the water running through the water meter. This ensures that the water meter is not inaccurately including entrained air as metered water so water readings are more accurate.

Flow Dynamics alleges that Green4All’s H2minusO system infringes the ‘981 Patent.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently published a spirited debate on the role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in commercialization and transfer of climate mitigation technologies.

The participants, who debated via a , were Carlos M. Correa, director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property and Economics at the University of Buenos Aires, Frederick M. Abbott, professor of international law at Florida State University College of Law, and Ahmed Abdel Latif of the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

Correa kicked off Round 1 with an essay entitled “The burden of intellectual property rights” in which he lays out the case for patents acting as a barrier to diffusion of green technologies to developing countries and for those countries to use compulsory licenses to access the technologies they need.

The essay makes some valid points.  Correa persuasively took on the argument of IPR defenders that the dearth of green tech patents in the poorer developed countries means patents do not stand in the way of green tech transfer and acquisition.  He noted, probably correctly, that these countries must rely on technology produced elsewhere, such as China and India, so patents in those countries are relevant to green tech transfer to the ultimate target markets, including developed countries.

I agree to a large extent with Correa’s notion that IPRs should function not only as an incentive to innovators but more broadly as a vehicle for diffusion and commercialization of the technologies being developed and patented.  However, I think he goes too far in saying that the IP system should “ensure that new technologies are accessible to all countries.”   I don’t believe it is the role of the IP system to guarantee accessibility to innovation.

One misstep in the essay is the attempt to refute the point made by Professor Abbott and others that green tech patents rarely confer market power because most fundamental green technologies are off-patent and there is competition among the tremendous diversity of green technologies.

Correa counters that “many patents cover minor or trivial developments and may be used to block genuine innovation and competition.”  By definition, though, a patent directed to an incremental improvement will not block use of the earlier technology (without the improvement), and such a patent is highly unlikely to confer market power.

Correa also cites studies that show large numbers of patent applications filed on green technologies in recent years.  But these statistics are meaningless absent information on the inventions being patented and how those inventions compare to the many green tech inventions which are off-patent.

Where I strongly disagree with the essay is in its insistence that IPRs are a (clear and present) problem for developing countries seeking access to green technologies.  The support for this – presented in Correa’s Round 2 response entitled “The problem is real” – is that the problem has been recognized in environmental summits and climate change treaty talks over the years and countries such as Ecuador have proposed patent exemptions and reductions in patent terms.

Correa emphatically states that IPRs pose an actual problem:

But a problem does exist – insofar as the system of private appropriation of innovations may delay for 20 years (the normal duration of a patent) the introduction of new technologies into developing countries (the majority of the world). (emphasis in original)

While raising IPRs as a discussion topic and putting forth policy proposals may reflect a concern over IPRs as a potential problem, they do not make it an actual one.  The statement about patent term seems to recognize this distinction by admitting that a patent “may” delay introduction of new technologies.

While the possibility of a refusal to license patented green technology is mentioned, no documented cases of such refusals are discussed.

Perhaps this is why the Round 1 essay closes by calling for developing countries to use compulsory licenses to access to green technologies “whenever they find it convenient.”  Use of compulsory licenses when necessary may be an unattainable standard.

In his Round 1 contribution, entitled “A problem, but not without solutions,” Professor Abbott argues for a “middle path” between the defenders of IPRs and those calling for compulsory licensing of green tech patents.  One such path could be joint ventures between enterprises in developed and developing countries, facilitated by government policies to make investment in developing countries more attractive.

Abbott also proposes patent pooling, direct voluntary licensing, product development partnerships, and development buyout funds to purchase technology from high-income countries and share it globally.

Finally, Professor Abbott notes that IPRs are not the only factors that could be restricting access to green technologies in poorer countries; he writes that “entrenched economic actors” such as utilities may not want to introduce renewable energy technologies in some countries.  I would add to the list of non-IP factors in the poorer developing countries small market size, lack of infrastructure, and insufficient skilled labor.

As always, Ahmed Abdel Latif is a voice of reason in a contentious dispute.  That voice comes through in his essay, “Disputed impact, but not to be ignored” in which Abdel Latif calls for a “structured, incremental, and constructive debate on the issues.”

He thinks this debate should start by looking at practical initiatives that might encourage diffusion of green technologies into developing countries and later address the controversial issues such as changing IP regimes.

Whether the IP system needs changes, Abdel Latif reminds us, is still an open question.  Particularly, the essay notes that “the impact of intellectual property rights on low-carbon technologies in developing countries is both complex and hard to quantify.”  With the diversity of green technologies out there and the limited empirical research done so far, we still don’t have a clear picture of the role of IPRs.

Hence, the constructive debate Abdel Latif proposes, without giving undue weight to either side, but acknowledging the importance of IPRs:

The importance of intellectual property rights should be neither overestimated nor underestimated.  What’s certain is that intellectual property rights cannot be ignored.

As long as we have passionate and intelligent people like Correa, Abbott and Abdel Latif, we can be sure the role of IPRs in climate change will not be ignored.

In a previous post, I spoke with Bruce Kania of Floating Island International (FII) about the company’s floating island technology and patent portfolio.

FII’s floating islands help maintain the health of wetland ecosystems through a “concentrated” wetland effect, i.e., higher removal rates of nitrate, phosphate and ammonia as well as reduction of  total suspended solids and dissolved organic carbon in waterways.

You can hear Mr. Kania speak in a compelling TedX talk on Transition Water.  This summary of the talk explains the concept:

In our drive to provide food for a growing world population, we have invented then squandered billions of tons of artificial fertilizer, impairing most of our surface waters over the last 70 years.  By viewing this fertilizer as a resource, we can “transition” these water-borne nutrients back out through the food-web, while creating more abundance, more food, and transitioning water towards sustainability.