A number of new green patent complaints were filed in September and October in the fields of battery chargers, green cleaning products, LEDs, smart grid, solar mounting systems, and water conservation.
Battery Chargers
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
VoltStar sued AT&T October 19, 2016 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,833 (‘833 Patent) and 7,910,834 (‘834 Patent) relating to an energy saving power adapter/charger and accompanying cables.
The ‘833 Patent is entitled “Energy-saving power adapter/charger†and the ‘834 Patent is entitled “Energy saving cable assemblies.”  According to the complaint, the patents pertain to a battery charger and accompanying cables “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.â€
The accused product is the AT&T ZERO Charger and accompanying cables..
Green Cleaning Products
Greenology Products, Inc. v. HealthPro Brands Inc.
A North Carolina company called Greenology Products sued HealthPro Brands in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Filed September 13, 2016, the complaint alleges that HealthPro’s FIT Organic cleaning products infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,217,127, entitled “Organic cleaning composition” (‘127 Patent).
The ‘127 Patent is directed to an organic cleaning mixture comprising from about five percent (5%) to about ninety five percent (95%) by weight soapberry extract, from about 0.1% to about 95% percent (95%) by weight saponified oil, and from about 0.5% to about thirty percent (30%) by weight of one or more of sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, an alkali, and combinations thereof.
LEDs
Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. K-mart Corporation
In a lawsuit filed September 9, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Seoul sued K-mart for infringement of eight LED patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor componentsâ€
U.S. Patent No 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor components”
U.S. Patent No. 7,982,207, entitled “Light emitting diodeâ€
U.S. Patent No. 7,626,209, entitled “Light emitting diode having active region of multi quantum well structureâ€
U.S. Patent No. 7,906,789, entitled “Warm white light emitting apparatus and back light module comprising the same”
U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626, entitled “Light emitting device and method of manufacturing the same”
U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638, entitled “Light-emitting diode having an interlayer with high voltage density and method for manufacturing the same”
U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”
U.S. Patent No. 9,240,529, entitled “Textured phosphor conversion layer light emitting diodeâ€
The accused product is Spotlight’s Kodak LED Lighting Bulb 41063,
ilumisys, Inc. v. Woodforest Lighting Inc.
This lawsuit involves eleven patents relating to tubular LED replacements for fluorescent lighting tubes.
The complaint was filed September 15, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and accuses Forest’s MT8-120 and Univ8 TLED products of infringing the following patents:
U.S. Patent No. 8,093,823, entitled “Light sources incorporating light emitting diodes”
U.S. Patent No. 8,382,327, entitled “Light tube and power supply circuit”
U.S. Patent No. 7,976,196, entitled “Method of forming LED-based light and resulting LED-based light”
U.S. Patent No. 9,072,171, entitled “Circuit board mount for LED light”
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,338, entitled “LED lighting unit including elongated heat sink and elongated lens”
U.S. Patent No. 9,006,993, entitled “Light tube and power supply circuit”
U.S. Patent No. 9,222,626, entitled “Light tube and power supply circuit”
U.S. Patent No. 8,866,396, entitled “Light tube and power supply circuit”
U.S. Patent No. 7,510,299, entitled “LED lighting device for replacing fluorescent tubes”
U.S. Patent No. 8,282,247, entitled “Method of forming LED-based light and resulting LED-based light”
U.S. Patent No. 8,573,813, entitled “LED-based light with supported heat sink”
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. v. Energy Bank, Inc.
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. v. Green Creative LLC
In a complaint filed September 18, 2016 in federal court in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Orion Energy Systems (Orion) asserted two related lighting patents against Energy Bank.
The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,337,043 and 8,858,018, each entitled “Modular light fixture with power pack” and directed to light fixtures including first and second raceways, a support structure extending between and coupled to the raceways, a plurality of LEDs coupled to the structure and spaced apart, and a power pack  electrically coupled to the LEDs.
The accused products are Energy Bank’s LightSource light.
Orion brought another lawsuit, this one against Green Creative, alleging that the defendant’s 2X2′ and 2X4′ LED Troffer Retrofit Kits infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,206,948, entitled “Troffer light fixture retrofit systems and methods.”
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 30, 2016.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Cree, Inc.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Acuity Brands, Inc.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. General Motors Company
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Ledengin, inc.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Soraa, Inc.
Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Teledyne Reynolds, Inc.
Jakuta Diodes filed eight lawsuits on September 21, 2016 against a bunch of defendants including LED makers Acuity Brands, Cree, Ledengin, Soraa, and Teledyne Reynolds and automakers Honda, Ford and GM.
The complaints were all filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and all assert the same patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,079,854 (‘854 Patent).
The ‘854 Patent is entitled “Device and method for diffusing light” and directed to a lighting device to diffuse a beam of light such as a main light beam in a headlamp, thereby substantially reducing the glare experienced by oncoming drivers and permitting high beams of the headlamp to be used in the presence of the oncoming drivers.
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. DAMAR Worldwide 4 LLC
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. EiKo Global, LLC
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. Halco Lighting Technologies, LLC
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. Health in Motion LLC et al.
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. Hyperikon, Inc.
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. Innoled Lighting Inc.
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. LEDi2, Inc. et al.
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. RemPhos Technologies LLC
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. Tadd, LLC
Blackbird Tech, LLC v. LLC Espen Technology Inc.
Not to be outdone, Blackbird fired off ten complaints in Delaware federal court October 19, 2016.
Each complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747, entitled “Low-voltage apparatus for satisfying after-hours light requirements, emergency light requirements, and low light requirements” (‘747 Patent).
The ‘747 Patent is directed to an energy efficient lighting apparatus wherein the circuit board is positioned adjacent the ballast cover so that the plurality of light-emitting diodes protrude through the plurality of ballast cover holes in the ballast cover, the lighting apparatus is coupled to a wall switch, and the illumination of the light-emitting diodes is controllable based upon the position of the wall switch.
The Innoled Lighting complaint is representative and says the defendant is infringing the ‘747 Patent by selling linear LED lighting products.
Lexington Luminance LLC v. LG Electronics et al.
In a complaint filed October 27, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lexington Luminance accused LG of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851 (‘851 Patent).
The ‘851 Patent is entitled “Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing the same†and is directed to LEDs having textured districts on the substrate such that inclined layers guide extended defects to designated gettering centers in the trench region where the defects combine with each other. This structure reduces the defect density of the LEDs.
The accused products include various televisions, computer displays, mobile phones, and other electronic devices using LED illuminated LCD displays.
CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Light Efficient Design et al.
CAO Lighting brought an infringement action (cao-lighting-inc-v-light-efficient-design-et-al) against Light Efficient Design in federal court in Idaho on October 28, 2016.
CAO alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,961 (‘961 Patent), entitled “Semiconductor light source using a heat sink with a plurality of panels” and directed to an LED light source with a heat sink that has multiple panels. Each panel may host one or more LED chips, which can be arranged to transmit light in multiple directions.  More details on this patent can found in my previous post here.
The accused products include the 8000 Series lighting products such as the LED-8039E57 bulb and LED-8024E retrofit product.
Smart Grid
Grid Innovations, LLC v. The Electricity Reliability Council of Texas
GRID Innovations sued the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) for alleged infringement of two patents relating to trading and routing electric power.
The complaint was filed September 2, 2016 in federal court in Tyler, Texas and accuses ERCOT’s electric power trade and distribution systems, specifically the day-ahead and real-time energy markets of infringing the patents.
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 7,945,502Â (‘502 Patent) and 9,256,905 (‘905 Patent).
The ‘502 Patent is entitled “Online trading and dynamic routing of electric power among electric service providers” and directed to a method and system for trading electric power on a spot market and dynamically matching bids and asks and routing the electric power in accordance with the matches to effect the settled trades.
The ‘905 Patent is entitled “Intelligent routing of electric power” and directed to a method and system for dynamically routing electric power in real time in accordance with parameters submitted by buyers and sellers of electric power using a feedback control scheme.
Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Cascade Energy, Inc.
Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Siemens Corporation
Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. SmartLabs, Inc.
Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Wink Inc. et al.
Clean Energy Management Solutions (CEMS) filed three complaints on September 6, 2016 in federal court in Marshall, Texas asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,577,962 against Cascade Energy, Schneider Electric, and Siemens (Cascade Energy complaint; Schneider Electric complaint;Â Siemens complaint;Â SmartLabs complaint;Â Wink complaint).
Entitled “System and method for forecasting energy usage load,” the ‘962 Patent is directed to systems and methods for forecasting energy usage load for a facility including a parameter identification module for determining periodic energy load usage of the facility and a load prediction module for generating energy usage load forecast profiles for the facility.  A set of matrices may include a matrix for storing coefficients for determining periodic changes in energy load usage, and a model parameter matrix for storing load parameter information.
The accused products are Cascade Energy’s SENSEI system, Schneider’s PowerLogic ION EEM system, and Siemens’ SIMATIC B.Data system.
On October 28th and 31st, respectively, CEMS also sued SmartLabs and Wink in the same court, alleging that SmartLabs’ Insteon home automation system and Wink’s home security and automation system infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,035,479 (‘479 Patent).
The ‘479 Patent is entitled “Mesh network door lock” and relates to systems and methods for sending a code from a mesh network key and wirelessly communicating the code with one or more mesh network appliances over a mesh network such as ZigBee, receiving the code over the mesh network by a mesh network lock controller, and providing access to the secured area upon authenticating the code.
JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. S & C Electric Company
On October 20, 2016, JSDQ filed suit against S & C Electric Company in U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Illinois, alleging infringement of four patents relating to wireless routing systems used in smart grid networks.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,286,828 and 7,916,648, both entitled “Method of Call Routing and Connection,†RE43,675 entitled “Wireless Radio Routing System,†and RE44,607entitled, “Wireless Mesh Routing Method.â€
JSDQ alleges that S& CÂ Electric infringes the patents-in-suit because of its deployment of the SpeedNet Radio Networks.
Solar Mounting Systems
Rillito River Solar, LLC v. Wencon Development, Inc.
Rillito River Solar sued Wencon September 23, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The complaint alleges that Wencon’s Quick Mount roof mounting system infringes three patents relating to solar mounting systems.
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,526,701, entitled “Roof mount,” 9,010,038, entitled “Tile roof mount” and 9,422,723, entitled “Roofing grommet forming a seal between a roof-mounted structure and a roof.”
Water Conservation
Water Conservation Technology Int’l v. Roseburg Forest Products Co. et al.
This lawsuit involves five related patents pertaining to technologies for treating water in an environmentally friendly matter.
The patents are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,929,749, entitled “Cooling water scale and corrosion inhibition”
U.S. Patent No. 6,949,193, entitled “Cooling water scale and corrosion inhibition”
U.S. Patent No. 6,998,092, entitled “Cooling water scale and corrosion inhibition”
U.S. Patent No. 7,122,148, entitled “Cooling water scale and corrosion inhibition”
U.S. Patent No. 7,517,493, entitled “Cooling water corrosion inhibition method”
The complaint was filed by Water Conservation Technologies International (WCTI) September 9, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
WCTI alleges that the defendant continues to use the patented technologies for treating a cooling tower at defendant’s biomass cogeneration plant after termination of a contract between the parties.
