BNSF Railway, a Fort Worth, Texas company, is one of North America’s leading freight transportation companies.  The company has a rail network of 32,000 route miles in 28 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces.

Traditional rail transportation is highly efficient and uses significantly less fuel than highway alternatives.  BNSF intends to improve upon that efficiency and has been experimenting with a hydrogen fueled fuel cell locomotive for the past several years. 

Recently the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted BNSF’s patent covering fuel cell locomotives.

U.S. Patent Number 8,117,969, entitled “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrid Locomotives” describes a locomotive including a set of batteries for driving a plurality of electric traction motors for moving the locomotive and a fuel cell power plant for charging the batteries and driving the electric traction motors.

The hydrogen hybrid locomotive is based on a commercially available diesel-hybrid donor platform.  The locomotive design uses a cab section (101), which houses the control systems used by the controller, a center section (102), which contains the batteries and hydrogen storage tanks, a rear section (103) containing the hydrogen fuel cell power plant, and an adjustable ballast section (104) located under the chassis. 

Ballast is needed because the locomotive does not carry heavy diesel fuel, which means the weight is significantly under the weight needed to maximize the traction of the wheels on the rails.

In the embodiment disclosed in the patent and shown in Figure 2 above, hydrogen is provided to two fuel cell power plants based on two power stack modules (201a – 201b).  The fuel cells are proton exchange membrane cells and (in the preferred embodiment) are Ballard Power Systems, Inc Mk903 PEM fuel cell stacks. 

Hydrogen is provided to the power modules from 14 carbon-fiber composite tanks (204).  Power from the fuel cell is delivered to a DC converter (203) and to the locomotive systems including the traction motors (209a – 209d).  The power output of the fuel cell stacks can be varied depending on demand by adjusting the flow of air through the system.

BNSF has an operational fuel cell locomotive prototype serving in a demonstration project in Los Angeles.  Funding for the locomotive came from BNSF and the Department of Defense.  The prototype is a switch locomotive, which moves freight cars within rail yards and rail stations during train assembly and disassembly. 

The prototype was unveiled in Topeka, Kansas in January 2009.  It then traveled to Colorado for additional testing and was sent to California in 2010.  It was tested in the Los Angeles rail yards in Commerce and Hobart through 2010 and 2011.

Use of hydrogen fuel cells in locomotives can reduce the amount of particulate pollution around rail lines and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expelled into the atmosphere.  Hydrogen fuel cell locomotives can also reduce railroad dependency on fossil fuels.  Additionally, fuel cell locomotives can also act as mobile electricity sources, for example in disaster recovery scenarios.

You can read more about BNSF’s demonstration locomotive here, here, and here.

*David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past several weeks in the fields of biofuels, LEDs, lithium ion batteries, and industrial water purification.

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

On April 10, 2012, Gevo filed suit against Butamax and DuPont in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Butamax and DuPont are infringing one of its patents related to the production of isobutanol.  This suit is the latest salvo in litigation between Gevo and Butamax.  (see previous posts here, here, here, and most recently here.)

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,153,415, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the ‘415 Patent).  The ‘415 Patent issued on April 10, 2012, the same day Gevo filed this latest suit against Butamax. 

According to the complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint-4-10-12), the ‘415 Patent describes “recombinant isobutanol-producing microorganisms containing a disruption in the expression or activity of an endogenous 3-keto acid reductase activity and methods for producing isobutanol using such organisms.”

Gevo’s complaint alleges Butamax makes infringing microorganisms to produce isobutanol through deletion or inactivation of the YMR226c gene.  Gevo claims Butamax describes its infringing process in PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159853, entitled “Recombinant Host Cells Comprising Phosphoketolases”, and PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159998 entitled “Production of Alcohol Esters and In Situ Product Removal During Alcohol Fermentation”.

Gevo is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages.

 

LEDs

Whelen Engineering Company, Inc. v. CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment

Filed March 29, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Whelen’s complaint (Whelen Complaint) alleges CPS infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,641,284, entitled “LED Light Assembly”, and D500,384, entitled “Reflector for Light Assembly”.

Whelen also alleges CPS has infringed several of its trademarks.  The marks at issue are Whelen’s LINEAR-LED, FREEDOM and VERTEX marks.  Whelen claims CPS has either used identical marks or confusingly similar marks.

Whelen is seeking treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief.  They are also seeking CPS’s alleged infringing products be destroyed.

Lektron, Inc. v. iLight Technologies, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. The Sloan Company, Inc. dba SloanLED, Inc.

On April 6, 2012, Lektron filed three separate suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging that iLight, Philips and SloanLED have each infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,361,186 entitled “Simulated Neon Light Using LED’s” (‘186 Patent).  (Each complaint can be viewed here: (Lektron-iLight Complaint) (Lektron-Philips Complaint) (Lektron-Sloan Complaint)).

The ‘186 Patent describes a product designed to replace traditional neon lights with a more durable product that consumed less energy by replacing fragile glass tubes with energy efficient LED lights.  The Lektron product is sold under the LEON trademark.

Lektron is alleging direct infringement and is seeking injunctive relief and damages from each defendant.

Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd., and Emcore Corporation v. Nichia Corporation, and Nichia America Corporation

On April 19, 2012, Everlight filed suit against Nichia (Everlight-Nichia Complaint) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two of Nichia’s patents, and alleging Nichia is infringing one of its patents.

Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two patents owned by Nichia:  U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 entitled “Light Emitting Device Having a Nitride Compound Semiconductor and Phosphor Containing Garnet Fluorescent Material” (‘925 Patent), and 7,531,960 entitled “Light Emitting Device with Blue Light LED and Phosphor Components” (‘960 Patent).

Nichia recently filed suit against an Everlight customer in a Tokyo District Court asserting the Japanese counterpart to the ‘970 Patent (Japanese Patent No. 4350094).  Nichia also filed suit against Everlight in Germany asserting the European counterpart to the ‘925 Patent (European Patent No. EP 0 936 682). 

According to the Everlight complaint, Nichia has threatened litigation over several other patents in Japan, and Everlight prevailed in a patent infringement action initiated by Nichia in Taiwan.  This suit, filed by Everlight, is in response to the suits Nichia has filed and the threats Nichia has made to Everlight’s potential clients.

In addition to seeking declaratory judgment for non-infringement and invalidity, Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment that the ‘960 and ‘925 patents are unenforceable due to fraud and inequitable conduct during prosecution by Nichia.

Everlight is also asserting that Nichia infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,653,215 entitled “Contact to N-GaN with Au Termination” (‘215 Patent).  Everlight is seeking damages, attorney fees and costs.

 

Lithium Ion Batteries

Energizer Holdings, Inc., Eveready Battery Company, Inc., v. Wahl Clipper Corp., and Wahl Clipper Ningbo Ltd.

Filed April 11, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Energizer’s complaint (Energizer_Complaint) alleges that Wahl infringes several of its patents.  The patents in dispute are U.S. Patent Nos.:

5,290,414 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”;

7,923,138 entitled “Housing for a Sealed Electrochemical Battery Cell”;

7,968,230 entitled “High Discharge Capacity Lithium Battery”;

8,007,940 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”; and

RE41,866 entitled “Nonaqueous Electrochemical Cell with Improved Energy Density”.

Energizer claims Wahl makes, offers for sale, imports and is selling products containing the asserted patents in its Lithium Pen Trimmer.  They are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages and attorney fees.

 

Water Purification

Aquatech International Corp., and Debasish Mukhopadhyay v. N.A. Water Systems, LLC, and Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support

On April 4, 2012, Aquatech filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Water Systems and Veolia Water seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,815,804, entitled “Method for Treating Wastewater or Produced Water” (‘804 Patent), owned by N.A. Water and Veolia ( a subsidiary of N.A. Water), is invalid and unenforceable and that its products do not infringe the ‘804 Patent. (Aquatech Complaint)

Aquatech is a licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,925,255 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” and 6,537,456 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” (though these patents are not asserted in this complaint). 

Aquatech’s patents related to its HERO water purification process.  The HERO process uses the patents in a high efficiency reverse osmosis water purification process which is used in many industries including power generation, petrochemical, and microelectronics.  The HERO technologies have been licensed to companies such as General Electric and Intel.

Aquatech claims N.A. and Veolia have coerced and intimidated potential customers into using Veolia’s OPUS water purification process (described in the ‘804 Patent) under threat of patent litigation – claiming the HERO process infringes upon the OPUS process.  Aquatech claims Veolia knew, or should have known, that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process and that such claims of infringement were false.

Aquatech is seeking a declaration that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process, that each claim of the ‘804 patent is invalid, and that the ‘804 Patent is unenforcable due to inequitable conduct.

Our Green Off-Patent Report provides selected highlights of green patents which completed their 20-year term and expired within the last week or so (assuming the patentee paid all requisite maintenance fees; U.S. patents require payment of fees 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after issuance to stay in force).

Many of the green technologies in use today are off-patent, i.e., the patents covering the technologies have run their 20-year term and expired.

Knowing which technologies are off-patent is important because those technologies are in the public domain and can be exploited by anyone.  It’s also interesting because it provides a window into what was cutting edge technology twenty years ago.

The green off-patent searching is performed by Cleantech PatentEdgeâ„¢.

U.S. Patent No. 5,354,477 (Water Purification) entitled “Low Molecular Weight Amines and Amine Quaternaries for the Removal of Soluble Organics in Oil Field Produced Water.”  The patent describes a method for removing hydrocarbons from water by injecting low molecular weight amines and preferably amine quaternaries with strong acids into an oil and water mixture to remove oil based salts.  Filed April 7, 1992; issued October 11, 1994; expired April 7, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,324,433 (Soil/Water Restoration) entitled “In-situ Restoration of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater.”  The patent describes a method for removing and stabilizing in-situ soluble heavy metal contaminants from soil and groundwater by injecting an aqueous solution of naturally occurring ions.  The solution solubilizes the heavy metals into solution where they can be removed.  Filed April 16, 1992; issued June 28, 1994; expired April 16, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,261,970 (Photovoltaic Cells) entitled “Optoelectronic and Photovoltaic Devices with Low-Reflective Surfaces.”  The patent describes photovoltaic devices with low angle ‘V’ shaped grooves on the target surfaces.  The grooves increase the efficiency of the devices by promoting internal reflection of light from the target surface at the interface of the coverglass.”  Filed April 8, 1992; issued November 16, 1993; expired April 8, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,260,588 (LEDs) entitled “Light Emitting Diode.”  The patent describes a light emitting diode formed as reverse mesas with mirrored sloping surfaces which reflect light in the direction of the light emitting diode surface, improving the efficiency of each diode.  Filed April 14, 1992; issued November 9, 1993; expired April 14, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 5,317,979 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction) entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Complete, Dry Desulphurization of Combustion Waste Gases Comprising SO2 and Dust.”  The patent describes a method for removing SO2 from the combustion waste gases of coal dust.  The process includes heating the gas quickly to a temperature below the sintering temperature of the fly ash, then cooling the gas to a temperature where the distance between the temperature and the dew point is low and is below 25 degrees C.  This binds the SO2 gas to the ash, cleaning it from the combustion waste gas.  Filed April 16, 1992; issueed June 7, 1994; expired April 16, 2012.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Cyclone Power Technologies, a Pompano Beach, Florida company, focuses on solving our dependence on fossil fuels with its heat regenerative external combustion engines.  In a recent press release Cyclone announced that it has received a patent in South Africa for its waste energy recycling engine called the WHE, or the Waste Heat Engine.

The South African patent issued from the national phase filing of World Intellectual Property Organization International Patent Number WO 2010/062375 A2, entitled “Waste Heat Engine” (‘375 Patent).  The ‘375 Patent, in turn, corresponds to U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0107637 also entitled “Waste Heat Engine”.

The ‘375 Patent describes a Rankine Cycle heat regenerative external combustion engine, also known as a Schoell Cycle engine.  The engine is basically a modern day, high-tech, steam engine with a radial arrangement of cylinders.

Figure 10, below, represents the Waste Heat Engine (WHE) as shown in the ‘375 Patent.

According to the ‘375 Patent:

Referring to FIG. 3 [below], each cylinder (20) in the radial arrangement includes a reciprocating piston assembly (50), including piston head (52) that moves in a reciprocating motion within the cylinder (20) through a full piston stroke.

Figure 3

This engine works when steam enters the top of each of the six radially arranged cylinders (20) and pushs the pistons (54) downward in sequence. 

The rotating action of the pistons connected through the spyder bearing (60) turns the crank shaft (24) in an orbiting motion around the central longitudinal axis of the crankshaft (24). 

Steam escapes the cylinders through exhaust ports and is collected in a condensing unit (not shown) where it is turned back into water.

The engine does not use motor oil as water is both the working fluid and the lubricant.  The water system is a closed system, meaning the water does not need to be replaced or topped off.

The engine can run on any source of heat, including waste heat from industrial sources.  Industrial sources could include glass melting furnaces, cement kilns, incinerators, boilers, steel furnaces, and engine exhaust. 

Captured and reused waste heat puts waste to work, is an emission free substitute for fuels or electricity, and can be incorporated into existing infrastructure.

Cyclone recently announced a Teaming Agreement with Enginuity Energy LLC, an innovator and manufacturer of biomass gasifiers.  The agreement describes the companies’ “desire to develop and advance the commercialization of a modular 35kWe to 250kWe biomass-to-power generating system.”

Enginuity’s technology converts biomass into thermal energy that can be used by the WHE to produce electricity.

To view a short video on how the Cyclone WHE works, click here.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past several weeks in the fields of biofuels, home electrical control systems, battery chargers, and LEDs.

Biofuels

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC v. Gevo, Inc.

On March 12, 2012, Butamax filed suit against Gevo in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of one of its patents relating to the production of isobutanol with recombinant microorganisms. (Butamax-Gevo_Complaint_3-12-12).

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,129,162, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase using NADH” (the ‘162 patent).  The ‘162 patent discloses certain recombinant mutant ketol-acid reductoisomerase enzymes, commonly called “KARI Enzymes”.  The KARI Enzymes disclosed in the ‘162 Patent function efficiently in microbial systems designed to produce isobutanol.

Butamax alleges Gevo is making and using KARI Enzymes disclosed in the ‘162 Patent.  Butamax is seeking a judgment that Gevo is infringing the ‘162 Patent, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages.

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

On March 13, 2012, Gevo filed suit against Butamax in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Butamax infringed one of its patents related to the production of isobutanol.  This suit was filed the day after Butamax filed suit against Gevo, and on the same day Gevo’s patent issued and adds to the growing litigation between these advanced biofuels rivals (see previous posts here, here and here.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,133,715, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the ‘715 Patent).  According to the complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint), the ‘715 Patent describes “recombinant isobutanol-producing microorganisms containing a disruption in the expression or activity of an endogenous 3-keto acid reductase activity and methods for producing isobutanol using such organisms.”

Gevo’s complaint alleges Butamax makes infringing microorganisms to produce isobutanol through deletion or inactivation of the YMR226c gene.  Gevo claims Butamax describes its infringing process in PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159853, entitled “Recombinant Host Cells Comprising Phosphoketolases”.

Gevo is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages.

Home Electrical Control Systems

Powerline Innovations, LLC v. Elk Products, Inc., et al.

Filed March 13, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Powerline’s complaint (Powerline-Elk_Complaint) alleges defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,471,190, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Resource Allocation in a Communication Network System” (the ‘190 Patent).

According to the complaint, each defendant is accused of infringing the ’190 Patent in products they sell “which employ methods for establishing control relationships between plural devices in a home electrical system covered by one or more claims of the ‘190 Patent to the injury of [Powerline].”

Battery Chargers

Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. AT&T Operations, Inc, et. al.

Voltstar filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging AT&T infringes two of its patents.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,833 entitled “Energy-Saving Power Adapter/Charger” (‘833 Patent), and 7,960,648 entitled “Energy Saving Cable Assemblies” (‘648 Patent).

The patents describe an energy saving battery charger that automatically shuts off when a device is fully charged or not plugged in, eliminating “vampire load”.  The charger is designed to reduce power consumption and extend battery life.

Voltstar is seeking a permanent injunction and damages.

LEDs

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.

Filed on February, 13, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, GE’s complaint (GE-Agilight_Complaint) alleges AgiLight infringes four of its patents.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos.:

7,160,140 entitled “LED String Light Engine”

7,520,771 entitled “LED String Light Engine and Devices that are Illuminated by the String Light Engine”

7,633,055 entitled “Sealed Light Emitting Diode Assemblies Including Annular Gaskets and Method of Making Same”

7,832,896 entitled “LED Light Engine”

The patents relate to various components of LED string lights.  Some of the components GE asserts are infringing include overmolded wire housings, flexible electrical connectors, several annular gaskets, and dome shaped optical element covers for LED’s.

GE is seekeing injuntive relief and damages.

Koninklinjke Phillips Electronics N.V. et al. v. Nexxus Lighting, Inc.

Phillips filed a complaint (Philips-Nexxus_Complaint) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 26, 2012, alleging Nexxus infringed six of its patents.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos.:

6,013,988 entitled “Circuit Arrangement and Signalling Light Provided With the Circuit Arrangement”;

6,250,774 entitled “Luminaire”;

7,038,399 entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices”;

7,358,679 entitled “Dimmable LED-Based MR16 Lighting Apparatus and Methods”;

7,737,643 entitled “LED Power Control Methods and Apparatus”; and

7,802,902 entitled “LED Lighting Fixtures”

The accused products are Nexxus’ PAR 30, PAR38, R30, MR16, MR16-HO, R16-GU10 products.  Phillips is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Valence Technology is an Austin, Texas, company that develops and manufactures long-life lithium iron magnesium phosphate batteries. 

Valence recently won a victory in the European Patent Office (EPO) Opposition Board when the Board dismissed an appeal of a decision revoking a European patent held by rival Hydro-Quebec (HQ).

The EPO initially granted European Patent Number 0904607, entitled “Cathode materials for secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries” (‘607 Patent) to the University of Texas; the patent is now owned by HQ. 

Valence challenged the patent grant in an opposition proceeding filed in 2005.  The EPO Opposition Board revoked the grant in December 2008 because the patent lacked novelty (EPO_Revocation).  HQ appealed that decision. 

Last month the EPO Opposition Board dismissed HQ’s appeal, resulting in cancellation of the patent.

The ‘607 Patent is a European relative of U.S. Patents Nos. 5,910,382, 6,514,640, 7,955,733, 7,960,058 and 7,964,308, entitled “Cathode materials for secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries” (Cathode Materials Patents).

The Cathode Materials Patents relate to host materials for use as electrodes in lithium ion batteries.  In particular, the patents are directed to a synthesized cathode material containing a compound with an olivine structure comprising the general formula LiMPO₄ where M is iron, manganese, nickel or titanium.

According to the Cathode Materials Patents, these cathode materials provide a larger free volume for lithium ion motion that allows higher conductivity and therefore greater power densities.

Valence and HQ are not strangers to litigation involving the Cathode Materials Patents.  Read previous posts here and here about those cases, which the parties settled as part of a cross-licensing deal in October of last year.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Switch Lighting, a San Jose, California, company, was recently named as a 2012 Finalist for Best New Product for Energy and Sustainability by the Edison Awards for its Switch75 Light Emitting Diode (LED). 

The Switch75 is a liquid cooled LED designed to be used in any fixture, including those with dimmer switches, while providing warm white light.

The Switch75 is described in U.S. Patent Application Number 2012/0026723 entitled “Omni-Directional Channeling of Liquids for Passive Convection in LED Bulbs” (‘723 Application).

LEDs offer many advantages over incandescent and fluorescent bulbs, however, they also have some drawbacks.  One such drawback is that they cannot be allowed to get hotter than approximately 120 degrees Celsius.  LEDs are therefore limited to very low power, producing insufficient illumination for replacement of incandescent or fluorescent bulbs. 

The ‘723 Application describes a way to overcome this limitation by utilizing a thermally conductive fluid which passively circulates through the light bulb to transfer heat from the LEDs to the shell of the bulb, cooling the LED.

The ‘723 Application describes an LED bulb like the one depicted in Figure 1 of the application, reproduced below.   The bulb includes a base (112), a shell (101) encasing components of the bulb, and a plurality of LEDs (103) connected to LED mounts (107) made of any thermally conductive material. 

Figure 1

The bulb is filled with a thermally conductive liquid (111) for transferring heat generated by the LEDs (103) to the shell (101).  The liquid could be any thermally conductive material capable of flowing. 

Separating the LED mounts (107) are channels (109) which both increase the surface-to-area-to-volume ratio of the LED mounts, and facilitate efficient passive convective flow of the liquid (111).

Figure 2 of the ‘723 Application depicts the passive convective flow of the thermally conductive liquid (111) overlaid on a cross section view of the LED bulb shown in Figure 1.   Figure 2 depicts the bulb in an orientation where the base is located above the bulb.  This is but one of many orientations the bulb may assume. 

Figure 2

The arrows indicate the direction of flow of the liquid.  Once heated, the liquid rises and reaches the top portion of the shell (101) where heat is conductively transferred to the shell, cooling the liquid. 

As the liquid cools, its density increases, causing it to fall within the shell.  The heating/cooling process creates a convective cell.  This process is passive, meaning it requires no mechanical assistance.  The flow of the liquid is maintained merely by the heating and cooling of the liquid.

A cooled LED will allow the bulb to handle more power, illuminate brightly, and provide a lifespan much longer than an incandescent or fluorescent bulb. 

The Edison Awards winners will be announced at their Awards Gala in New York City on April 26, 2012.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Envia Systems is a Newark, California, company that develops high performance, low cost lithium-ion energy storage solutions. 

In a recent Press Release, Envia announced that they have achieved a world record 400 Watt-hour/kilogram (Wh/kg) energy density for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.  This milestone comes after much development and testing:

Dr. Sujeet Kumar, Envia Systems co-founder said “Since the inception of Envia, our product team has worked tirelessly and logged over 25 million test channel hours to optimally develop each of the active components of the battery: Envia proprietary Si-C anode, HMCR [High Capacity Manganese Rich] cathode and EHV [Envia’s High Voltage] electrolyte.”

The anode, cathode and electrolyte materials appear to be described in several patent applications owned by Envia.

The patent applications describing Envia’s cathode are U.S. Patent Application Publication No’s:

2010/0086853 (‘853 Application), entitled “Positive Electrode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries Having a High Specific Discharge Capacity and Processes for the Synthesis of These Materials”;

2011/0076556 (‘556 Application), entitled “Metal Oxide Coated Positive Electrode Materials for Lithium-Based Batteries”;

2011/0111298 (‘298 Application), entitled “Coated Positive Electrode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries”; and

2010/0151332 (‘332 Application), entitled “Positive Electrode Materials for High Discharge Capacity Lithium Ion Batteries”

Figure 1 below is a depiction of  a battery taken from the ‘853 Application.  The Figure depicts a battery (100), a negative electrode (102), a positive electrode (104), and a separator (103) between the positive electrode (104) and negative electrode (102).

Envia’s patent-pending process involves applying excess lithium, in the form of lithium manganese oxides, on the cathode to increase overall energy density. According to the ‘298 Application:

It is believed that appropriately formed lithium-rich lithium metal oxides have a composite crystal structure in which the excess lithium supports the formation of an alternative crystalline phase.  For example, in some embodiments of lithium rich materials, a Li2MnO3 material may be structurally integrated with either a layered LiMnO2 component or similar composite compositions with the manganese cations substituted with other transition metal cations with appropriate oxidation states.

At least one of Envia’s patent applications describes an anode: Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0111294, entitled “High Capacity Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries” (‘294 Application).

According to the ‘294 Application:

Desirable high capacity negative electrode active materials can be based on nanostructured silicon materials and/or composites with nanostuctured carbon materials.  In particular, nanostructure silicon can comprise elemental silicon nanoparticles and/or porous elemental silicon, as well as corresponding silicon alloys and composites thereof … carbon coatings can be applied over the silicon-based materials to improve electrical conductivity, and the carbon coatings seem to also stabilize the silicon based material with respect to improving cycling and decreasing irreversible capacity loss.

At least two patent applications describe Envia’s electrolyte:

2011/0052981 (‘981 Application), entitled “Layer-Layer Lithium Rich Complex Metal Oxides with High Specific Capacity and Excellent Cycling”; and

2011/0017528  (‘528 Application), entitled “Lithium Ion Batteries with Long Cycling Performance”

The common theme throughout all the patent applications is the effect small changes in battery chemistry and materials have on performance.  According to the ‘556 Application:

It has been found that relatively small amounts of metal oxide coating on a lithium rich metal oxide active material can provide desirable improvements in lithium-based battery performance with respect to both specific discharge capacity and cycling.

Envia’s batteries have environmental benefits in addition to their ability to store a record amount of energy.  According to the ‘853 Application:

These compositions [in the batteries] use low amounts of elements that are less desirable from an environmental perspective, and can be produced from starting materials that have reasonable cost for commercial scale production.

Envia’s new battery technology was tested by the Electrochemical Power Systems Department at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana.  The test results confirmed Envia’s claims regarding its batteries demonstrating an energy density between 378-418 Wh/kg. 

Envia’s Systems Chairman and CEO, Atul Kapadia noted the potential implications for electric vehicles:

In an industry where energy density tends to increase five percent a year, our achievement of more than doubling state-of-art energy density and lowering cost by half is a giant step towards realizing Envia’s mission of mass market affordability of a 300-mile electric vehicle.

In fact, drivers may see Envia batteries in future General Motors electric vehicles.  General Motors Ventures LLC invested $17 million in Envia in a 2011 equity investment round and, in a separate agreement, secured the right to use Envia’s cathod material in GM EVs.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

 

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past few weeks in the fields of hybrid vehicles, solar power, LEDs, and wastewater treatment.

 

Hybrid Vehicles

Paice LLC et al. v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

On February 16, 2012, Paice filed suit against Hyundai and Kia in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division.  The Paice-Hyundai_Complaint alleges Hyundai and Kia infringed three of Paice’s patents relating to hybrid vehicles.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, and 7,559,388.  All three patents are entitled “Hybrid Vehicles”.  The patents cover hybrid electric vehicles utilizing an internal combustion engine with series parallel electric motors, regenerative braking, and control circuitry.

Paice claims all three patents are infringed in Hyundai’s Sonata Hybrid and Kia’s Optima Hybrid vehicles and seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

This case is a major return to patent enforcement for Paice.  The company settled its litigation with Toyota in 2010 after Toyota agreed to take a license to Paice’s entire patent portfolio.

 

Solar Power

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole, Inc.

Filed on February 21, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Solannex’s Complaint (Complaint) alleges that Miasole infringes two of its patents relating to photovoltaic cells.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,076,568 entitled “Collector Grid and Interconnect Structures for Photovoltaic Array and Modules:, and U.S. Patent No. 8,110,737 entitled “Collector Grid Electrode Structures and Interconnect Structures for Photovoltaic Arrays and Methods of Manufacture”.

According to the complaint, the two patents relate to “interconnections of multiple photovoltaic cells.”  Solannex asserts that several products in Miasole’s MR-Series and MS-Series product lines are infringing.  Solannex is seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Solannex sued Miasole in January 2011 over a related patent. 

 

LEDs

Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. v. Formosa Epitaxy, Inc.

On February 21, 2012, Toyoda filed a complaint against Formosa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, alleging infringement of eight patents relating to LEDs.

According to the complaint (Toyoda_Gosei_Complaint), the following three patents describe, among other things, “a light-emitting semiconductor device … designed to improve luminous intensity and to obtain a purer blue color”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,005,258 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using Group III Nitrogen Compound Having Emission Layer Doped with Donor and Acceptor Impurities”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,265,726 entitled “Light-Emitting Aluminum Gallium Indium Nitride Compound Semiconductor Device Having an Improved Luminous Intensity”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,138,286 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using Group III Nitrogen Compound” (‘286 Patent).

The complaint describes the following patent as “a light-emitting semiconductor device having an improved metal electrode and semiconductor structure that lowers the driving voltage of the device”:

U.S. Patent No. 5,753,939 entitled “Light-Emitting Semiconductor Device Using a Group III Nitride Compound and Having a Contact Layer upon which an Electrode is Formed”.

The following two patents are described as a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor light-emitting device”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,040,588 entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device”; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,420,733 entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device and Manufacturing Method Thereof”.

Finally, the complaint describes the following patents as “’LED[‘s] ha[ving] a thin highly resistive or insulative layer formed below an electrode pad in order to divert current flow from the region below an electrode pad’ to obtain better current efficiency”:

U.S. Patent No. 6,191,436 entitled “Optical Semiconductor Device”; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,933,169 entitled “Optical Semiconductor Device”.

Toyoda is seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

 

Solar Power / LEDs

Jiawei Technology (USA) et al. v. Adventive Ideas, LLC.

On February 8, 2012, Jiawei filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement (Jiawei_Complaint) against Adventive in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Jiawei is seeking judgment declaring Adventive’s patents invalid and, in the alternative, that they have not been infringed.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.:

7,196,477, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors”, describing a garden light which has three different colored LEDs that are activated to produce a varying color light;

7,336,157, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which provides for a solar powered visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated pendulum assembly in a wind chime;

7,429,827, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors”, which relates to a garden light which has three LEDs that are activated to produce a varying color light;

7,967,465, entitled “Light Device” which describes a solar powered light enclosed in a translucent housing;

8,077,052, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which describes a solar powered visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated pendulum assembly in a wind chime;

8,089,370, entitled “Illuminated Wind Indicator”, which provides a visual indicator of wind motion at night by way of an illuminated wind chime and associated circuitry; and

8,104,914, entitled “Light Device”, which describes a solar powered light device with at least one power storage device and associated circuitry.

Wastewater Treatment

Aero-Stream, LLC v. Septicair Aid, LLC et al.

On February 24, 2012, Aero-Stream filed a complaint for patent infringement (Aero-Stream_Complaint) against Septicair Aid in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Aero-Stream asserts Septicair infringes several of its patents relating to septic wastewater treatment systems by offering for sale a “Quad Diffuser Aeration Kit” and “Economy Diffuser”.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.:

7,264,727, entitled “Septic System Remediation Method and Apparatus,” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system;

7,429,320, entitled “Wastewater Treatment System,” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system;

7,468,135, entitled “Portable Tank Wastewater Treatment System and Method” describing a portable wastewater treatment system comprising a wastewater holding tank and a generator positioned to provide oxygen, or ozone, or a combination of the two to the interior of the holding tank; and

7,718,067 entitled “Septic System Remediation Method and Apparatus” describing an apparatus and method of remediating a failing wastewater treatment system.

Aero-Stream is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

SunEarth (owned and operated by the Solaray Corporation since 1992) has been marketing and selling solar thermal collectors and related components under the SUNEARTH brand since 1978.

In 2009, SunEarth filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking federal trademark protection for the SUNEARTH word mark. 

The USPTO suspended action on the application in view of an earlier filed application owned by Ningbo Solar Electric Power (Ningbo) for the SUN-EARTH (and Design) mark:

Through a predecessor company, Ningbo had been using its SUN-EARTH design mark in China since 1978 and began using the mark in the U.S. in 2004.

A U.S. trademark application filed in 2006 for the SUN-EARTH design mark went abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use.

In 2008, Ningbo filed a second application to register the SUN-EARTH design mark.  This was the application cited against SunEarth. 

The USPTO granted Ningbo’s second application and issued it as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,886,941 (‘941 Registration) on December 7, 2010.  Ningbo changed its name to Sun-Earth Solar Power (SESP) in 2010.

After filing a proceeding in the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the ‘941 Registration and trying to negotiate a settlement with Ningbo, SunEarth sued for trademark infringement, cancellation of the registration, and other claims in the Northern District of California in October 2011.

The court recently granted a preliminary injunction against SESP, prohibiting it from using the SUN-EARTH name or mark in the United States.

According to the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, although SESP has a presumption of ownership of the SUN-EARTH mark due to its federal registration, SunEarth “[is] likely to be able to prove a protectable ownership interest in the trade name and mark that is senior to that of [SESP].” 

The Court based this on its determination that SunEarth was likely to have been using the SUNEARTH mark in the United States before SESP entered the U.S. market in 2007:

Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish legally sufficient market penetration over their trade name and mark prior to 2007.

The court also noted that SunEarth had produced some evidence of actual consumer confusion:

In addition to several instances of confusion by trade show organizers, Plaintiffs have proffered more than ten examples of actual customer confusion . . .

This case is a good illustration of the “first to use” system of trademark priority in the United States. 

A federal trademark registration creates a presumption of trademark ownership.  However, that presumption can be rebutted by showing a similar trademark was used by someone else in interstate commerce within the United States before the registered trademark.

This case also highlights the difficulties foreign based clean tech companies may face in protecting their green brands when they decide to enter the U.S. market.  We’re likely to see more of these types of cases, particularly from Chinese companies.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog.  David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.