March and April saw a big uptick in green patent lawsuits filed, mostly driven by LED actions.  The suits were in the areas of energy storage, LEDs, and smart grid.
Energy Storage
Praxair, Inv. v. Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP
Connecticut based Praxair sued rival Air Liquide for infringement of a patent relating to underground hydrogen storage.
Filed in federal court in Beaumont, Texas, the complaint alleges that Air Liquide’s operation of its Spindletop hydrogen storage cavern infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,690,476 (‘476 Patent).
The ‘476 Patent is entitled “Method and system for storing hydrogen in a salt cavern with a permeation barrier” and directed to a method and system for storing high purity hydrogen in a salt cavern without seepage or leakage by creating a permeation barrier along the salt cavern walls.
LEDs
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Nicor, Inc.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Globalux Lighting LLC
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. EEL CompanyÂ
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Panor Corporation
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. S E L S, Inc.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.
Lighting Science Group (LSG) continued its patent enforcement activity, filing six new infringement lawsuits, all in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The complaint against Nicor was filed March 10, 2016.  The rest were filed on April 21, 2016 against Globalux Lighting (Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Globalux Lighting LLC), EEL Company (Lighting Science Group Corporation v. EEL Company, Ltd.), Panor Corporation (Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Panor Corporation), S E L S (Lighting Science Group Corporation v. S E L S, Inc.), and Sunco Lighting (Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.).
Each complaint asserts at least two of the following patents:  U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (‘968 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 (‘844 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 (‘518 Patent).
Entitled “Low profile light,†the ’968 Patent is directed to a luminaire including a heat spreader and a heat sink disposed outboard of the heat spreader, an outer optic securely retained relative to the heat spreader and/or the heat sink, and an LED light source.
The ‘518 Patent and the’ 844 Patent are entitled “Low profile light and accessory kit for the same†and relate to LSG’s disc light LED devices.
Fiber Optic Designs, Inc. v. Holidynamics, Inc. et al.
Fiber Optic Designs (FOD) sued Holidynamics and Anewalt’s Lawn & Landscape March 10, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges that Holidynamics’ M8, C6, T5, and 5MM (WA) LED Light Sets infringe three FOD patents relating to LED light strings.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,220,022Â (‘022 Patent) and 7,934,852Â (‘852 Patent) both entitled “Jacketed LED assemblies and light strings containing the same,” as well as U.S. Patent No. 7,377,802, entitled “Plug and cord connector set with integrated circuitry” (‘802 Patent).
The ‘022 and ‘852 Patents are directed to jacketed light emitting diode assemblies and a waterproof light string including an electrical wire set connected to positive and negative contacts.  A light transmissive cover receives the lens body, and an integrally molded plastic jacket at the opening of the light transmissive cover provides a seal against moisture and airborne contaminants.
The ‘802 Patent is directed to a combination connector assembly and LED lighting chain that includes integrated circuitry for use with decorative lighting products. The integrated circuitry serves to reduce or limit current, provide full-wave AC to DC rectification, provide overload protection, reduce voltage, protect against voltage spikes, and add blinking or flashing functions.
Seoul Viosys Co. v. Salon Supply Store LLC
On March 18, 2016, Seoul Viosys filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Salon Supply Store in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint asserted five LED patents:
U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, entitled “Light emitting element with a plurality of cells bonded, method of manufacturing the same, and light emitting device using the same”
U.S. Patent No. 7,982,207, entitled “Light emitting diode”
U.S. Patent No. 9,041,032, entitled “Light emitting diode having strain-enhanced well layer”
U.S. Patent No. 9,224,935, entitled “Light emitting diode package”
U.S. Patent No. 8,680,559, entitled “Light emitting diode having electrode extensions for current spreading”
The accused products include Salon’s Edge Medium Round LED Curing Lamp MAN-LED-TP27 and the 18W Salon Edge Curing Lamp Dryer Timer MAN-LED-TP35B.
Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)
Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Nichia filed two infringement suits against Vizio in March, one in the Eastern District of Texas, the other in the Central District of California.  In both cases, the technology at issue is LED-backlit televisions.
The Texas complaint, filed March 21, 2016, asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,530,250, entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body.”
The accused product is Vizio’s D-Series 28″ Class Full-Array LED TV D28h-C1.
The California complaint was filed on March 23rd and asserted four patents:
U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959, entitled “Liquid crystal display and back light having a light emitting diode”
U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631, entitled “Light emitting device and display”
U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375, entitled “Light emitting device and display”
U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092, entitled “Device for emitting white-color light”
The accused products are Vizio’s D-Series 28″ Class Full-Array LED TV D28h-C1 and E-Series 60″ Class Full Array LED Smart Television E60-C3.
LEDsON et al. v. Vision Light Worx, Inc.
In an action for design patent infringement, LEDsON sued Vision Light Worx on March 23, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Design Patent No. D651,739, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,683, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,684, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,680, entitled “Extrusion for light emitting diode based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,681, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
U.S. Design Patent No. D649,682, entitled “Extrusion for LED-based lighting apparatus”
Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Lamar Advertising Company et al.
In this lawsuit, Ultravision asserted four LED patents against Lamar Advertising and related companies as well as Irvin International.
Filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas on April 7, 2016, the complaint alleges that Lamar’s billboards and other outdoor advertising structures infringe the following patents:
U.S. Patent No. 8,870,410, entitled “Optical panel for LED light source”
U.S. Patent No. 8,870,413, entitled “Optical panel for LED light source”
U.S. Patent No. 9,212,803, entitled “LED light assembly with three-part lens”
U.S. Patent No. 9,234,642, entitled “Billboard with light assembly for substantially uniform illumination”
In addition to patent infringement, Ultravision asserts claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.
Tseng v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
An individual, Shen Ko Tseng, sued Skechers for alleged infringement of a patent relating to circuits for electronically controlling multiple LEDs and causing the LEDs to flash in predetermined lighting patterns.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,500,761, entitled “Circuit device for controlling a plurality of light-emitting devices in a sequence” (‘761 Patent).
The complaint alleges that certain Skechers LED illuminated shoes, including the Magic Lites line of footwear, infringe the ‘761 Patent.
RAB Lighting Inc. v. ABB Lighting, Inc. et al.
In another (mostly) design patent infringement suit, RAB has accused ABB, GenerPower, and GP Energy of infringing eight LED lighting design patents and one utility patent.
The asserted patents are:
U.S. Patent No. D547,484, entitled “Light fixture”
U.S. Patent No. D569,029, entitled “Light fixture”
U.S. Patent No. D691,320, entitled “Slim wallpack light fixture”
U.S. Patent No. D690,453, entitled “High bay LED light fixture”
U.S. Patent No. D579,141, entitled “Area light”
U.S. Patent No. D612,975, entitled “Square step light”
U.S. Patent No. D643,147, entitled “LED flood light”
U.S. Patent No. D747,534, entitled “Canopy LED light fixture with fins”
U.S. Patent No. 9,273,863, entitled “Light fixture with airflow passage separating driver and emitter”
The accused products include, inter alia, the LED Parking Garage Light, LED Canopy Light, LED Security Light, LED Slim Wall Light, and LED Wall Pack.
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Schneider Electric USA
Filed April 25, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lynk Labs’ complaint alleges that Schneider Electric is infringing three patents relating to LED circuits and drivers.
Specifically, Lynk Labs asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,905 (‘905 Patent) and 8,531,118 (‘118 Patent), both entitled “AC light emitting diode and AC LED drive methods and apparatus,†and 8,841,855, entitled “LED circuits and assembliesâ€Â (‘855 Patent).
The accused products are the Low Voltage Trac Systems manufactured and sold by Schneider and a company called Juno Lighting, which Lynk Labs sued separately for infringement last year.
Smart Grid
Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. Ericsson, Inc. et al.
Endeavor MeshTech (a wholly-owned subsidiary of patent monetization firm Endeavor IP) sued Ericsson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 24, 2016.
The complaint accuses Ericsson of infringing three patents in a family – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,379,981 (‘981 Patent),  8,700,749 (‘749 Patent), and 8,855,019 (‘019 Patent), each entitled “Wireless communication enabled meter and network.â€
The patents-in-suit relate to a self-configuring wireless network including a number of vnodes and VGATES.
The accused products and services are Ericsson’s SGN 3200 family of communication products including the SGN 3200 Smart Grid Node, the SGN 3260 Smart Grid Indoor Mini Node, the SGN 3280, Smart Grid Micro Node, the Smart Grid Node Manager, and the Smart Grid Node Manager Single Server.
Smart Meter Technologies, Inc. v. Duke Energy Corporation
Filed March 31, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in this lawsuit (Smart Meter Technologies, Inc. v. Duke Energy Corporation) Smart Meter Technologies accuses Duke Energy of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,058,524 (‘524 Patent) by distributing and installing advanced power meters.
The ‘524 Patent is entitled “Electrical power metering system” and directed to a wireless electrical power metering system including a processor having a multichannel power line transceiver, a wireless transceiver, and a power meter which measures power consumption information on a power line inductively coupled with the power meter.
The processor converts the power consumption information into IP-based data, and transmits same over the wireless transceiver to a remote monitoring station or across the internet for storage, analysis, and billing. The processor generates appliance control signals and generates same across the multichannel power line transceiver to remotely control appliances in response to power consumption trends.
Varentec, Inc. v. GridCo, Inc.
Varentec filed a patent infringement suit against GridCo on April 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The complaint alleges that GridCo’s SVC power management products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,293,922 (‘922 Patent) and 9,014,867 (‘867 Patent).
The ‘922 and ‘867 Patents are entitled “Systems and methods for edge of network voltage control of a power grid” and directed to systems comprising a distribution power network, a plurality of loads, and a plurality of shunt-connected, switch-controlled VAR sources.  The shunt-connected, switch-controlled VAR sources may be located at the edge or near the edge of the distribution power network where they may each detect a proximate voltage.
The processor may be configured to enable the VAR source to determine whether to enable a VAR compensation component based on the proximate voltage and to adjust network volt-ampere reactive by controlling a switch to enable the VAR compensation component.
