Author Archive
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-6843 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
March 7th, 2013

Altenera Technology (Altenera), a Maryland company, was recently chosen as one of just eight finalists to present at the Future Energy Pitching session of the ARPA-E Innovation Summit last month. Altenera achieved this honor due to its Oscillating Reed Wind Harvester technology. Â
The company calls its technology BreezBee®, which uses vibrating reeds to harvest energy from the wind under “virtually all wind conditions.â€
The BreezBee® technology is covered by U.S. Patent No. 8,258,644 (‘644 patent) entitled “Apparatus for harvesting energy from flow-induced oscillations and method for the same.â€Â The ‘644 patent describes “a device and method for harvesting electrical power from kinetic energy of a flow†where “the external gas or liquid flow causes a vibration of the assembly . . . producing electricity in proximity of a magnetic field.â€
The ‘644 patent can be better explained with reference to Figure 1(a), reproduced here from the patent.  As the fluid (7) flows over the elastic element (3), the integrated conductive element (8) moves back and forth in the (9) direction with reference to the magnetic field (8) created by the magnetic field source (6), producing electricity.Â

The magnetic field should be “fully or substantially perpendicular†to the conductive element.  The shape, form, and materials of the vibrating assembly can vary based on the application, and “are defined by the maximum conversion efficiency for a particular application.â€
The BreezBee® represents a functional application of the ‘644 patent. The LEGO-like hexagonal modules shown here allow for easy combination into arrays of various sizes, making them “easily customizable for any situation.†Â
The ‘644 patent discloses a number of such situations: (1) attached to flying vehicles to capture high altitude flows; (2) used in confined flow passages such as pipes or HVAC ducts; (3) used as a flow sensor while simultaneously providing the power to transmit gathered flow information; and (4) implementation as roof panels, providing a more cost-effective alternative to solar cells. Â
Further, because this technology has no moving parts, it is “a virtually maintenance-free source of electrical power.â€Â
While one blog has noted that the details on some of the specifics were limited during the presentation to investors, the modularity, low-maintenance, and customization makes the BreezBee® an attractive alternative to turbine power.Â
And if the noiselessness claim (see ieee blog above) made by Altenera’s CBDO, Chase McCarthy, is accurate, BreezBee® would have a notable advantage over turbine power by side-stepping the noise pollution problem that has plagued turbine power.
*Cliff Brazil is a contributor to 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.
: 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-6790 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-energy-efficiency category-green-patents category-ip-litigation category-led-patents">
 
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.Â
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.â€
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.Â
Â
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. . . .â€
Â
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.â€
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.