Several new green patent complaints were filed in May and June in the areas of electric vehicles, eco-friendly pet products, LEDs, and lighting control technology.

Electric Vehicles

Nikola Corporation v. Tesla, Inc.

Nikola filed this lawsuit accusing Tesla of infringing three design patents for an electric heavy duty truck design.

The patents-in-suit are and a representative figure from the patents is shown below:

U.S. Patent No. D811,944, entitled “Fuselage”

U.S. Patent No. D811,968, entitled “Wrap windshield”

U.S. Patent No. D816,004, entitled “Side door”

The complaint alleges that Tesla’s Semi truck trailer design infringes the patents.

Green Pet Products

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Argento SC By Sicura Inc.

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Dogo Pet Fashions

These lawsuits involve pet pad technology that cools your pets without water or electricity.  The Argento complaint was filed May 11, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Dogo complaint was filed May 27, 2018 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,720,218 and 9,226,474, both entitled “Pressure activated recharging cooling platform” and directed to a cooling platform comprising a temperature regulation layer, a support layer, and a channeled covering layer.

The temperature regulation layer is adapted to hold a composition and has a plurality of angled segments, wherein angled segments within a sealed perimeter of the temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a predefined distance, and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side at a distance lesser than the predefined distance.

The complaints allege that Argento’s Avalanche Pet Cooling Mat and Dogo’s SICool Mat Gel infringe the two patents.

LEDs

Epistar Corporation v. V-TAC USA Corp.

Epistar sued V-TAC in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2018.

The complaint asserts infringement of seven patents:

U.S. Patent No. 6,346,771, titled “High Power LED Lamp”

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068, titled “Light Emitting Device”

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738, titled “Light-Emitting Diode Array Having An Adhesive Layer”

U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881, titled “Light-Emitting Device Package”

U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022, titled, “Light Emitting Apparatus”

U.S. Patent No. 9,488,321, titled “Illumination Device With Inclined Light Emitting Element Disposed On A Transparent Substrate” and

U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340, titled “Light Emitting Device”

The accused products are V-TAC’s LED filament bulbs.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed May 8, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of eight LED patents.

The asserted patents are:

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. 7,906,789, entitled “Warm white light emitting apparatus and back light module comprising the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,120,054, entitled “Light emitting diode package having heat dissipating slugs”

U.S. Patent No. 8,829,552, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, entitled “Light emitting diode chip having distributed Bragg reflector and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,982,207, entitled “Light emitting diode”

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,210, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor components”

The complaint alleges that Bed Bath & Beyond’s sales of several FEIT Electric LED products such as, inter alia, FEIT Electric’s BPC7/LED/CAN accent LED night light and OM60/580/LED/CAN 800 lumen 5000K Dimmable LED bulb infringe one or more of the asserted patents.

Smart Light Source Company, LLC v. Railhead Corporation et al.

This lawsuit involves LED headlights for trains.  Smart Light Source seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,499,180 (‘180 Patent).

The ‘180 Patent is entitled “Locomotive headlamp” and directed to a locomotive headlamp comprising one or more LED bulbs, wherein the headlamp reduces the parasitic load of the locomotive causes the heat generated by the LED bulbs to prevent snow and ice impaction.

The complaint was filed May 31, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Home Ever, Inc.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Revogi Innovation Co.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Revogi, LLC

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Brand W, LLC

In these lawsuits, Technical LED accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE41,685, entitled “Light source with non-white and phosphor-based white LED devices and LCD assembly” (‘685 Patent).

The’ 685 Patent is directed to a light source incorporating phosphor-based white and non-white LEDs, which may be raised off the floor of the optical cavity to permit light to be emitted from the base of the LED.  A reflective protrusion may be placed beneath the raised LED to aid in redirecting light forward, and the LEDs may be skewed in relation to adjacent LEDs to reduce interference.

The Home Ever complaint was filed June 6, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the Revogi Innovation complaint was filed June 7, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Revogi  complaint was filed June 27, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Brand W complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on June 18, 2018.

The accused products are Home Ever’s Lighting Ever light bulbs and ceiling lights, Revogi light bulbs and Delite 2 smart LED lights, Brand W’s MIPOW BTL-400-BK Playbulb and MIPOW E26 Bluetooth Smart LED.

NEXT Lighting Corp. v. General Electric Company

NEXT sued GE for alleged infringement of a relating to high brightness LED lighting units.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,491,165 (‘165 Patent), entitled “Lighting unit having lighting strips with light emitting elements and a remote luminescent material.”

The ‘165 Patent is directed to a lighting unit having a support structure, and one or more light emitting elements supported by a circuit board contacting the support structure.  A remote luminescent material may be provided on one or more optical elements.  Light emitting elements configured to excite the luminescent material such as highly efficient light emitting diodes may be directed towards the luminescent material.

Filed June 11, 2018 in federal court in Dallas, the complaint lists as an exemplary accused product GE’s Lumination LED Luminaire – LIS Series.

Lighting Control Systems

SIPCO, LLC v. RAB Lighting Inc.

Atlanta-based patent licensing and assertion company Sipco LLC sued RAB in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 8, 2018.

The complaint lists several patents relating to lighting monitoring and control technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,103,511, 7,468,661, 6,914,893, 7,263,073, 6,836,737,  and 8,924,587.

The accused products are RAB’s Lightcloud line of wireless lighting control systems.

There were several new green patent lawsuits filed in November and December in the areas of eco-friendly pet products, electric vehicle charging, LEDs, smart grid, and solar mounting systems.

Green Pet Products

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. PetEdge, Inc.

This lawsuit involves pet pad technology that cools your pets without water or electricity.  The complaint was filed December 29, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,720,218 and 9,226,474, both entitled “Pressure activated recharging cooling platform” and directed to a cooling platform comprising a temperature regulation layer, a support layer, and a channeled covering layer.

The temperature regulation layer is adapted to hold a composition and has a plurality of angled segments, wherein angled segments within a sealed perimeter of the temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a predefined distance, and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side at a distance lesser than the predefined distance.

The complaint alleges that the defendant’s Slumber Pet Cool Pup Pad infringes the two patents.

EV Charging

ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect

ChargePoint sued SemaConnect alleging infringement of four electric vehicle charging patents.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,956,570, entitled “Network-controlled charging system for electric vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 8,138,715, entitled “Network-controlled charging system for electric vehicles through use of a remote server”

U.S. Patent No. 8,432,131, entitled “Network-controlled charging system for electric vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 8,450,967, entitled “Network-controlled charging system for electric vehicles”

The accused products are SemaConnect’s Charge Prop community electric vehicle charging stations.

The complaint was filed December 15, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

LEDs

ETi Solid State Lighting, Inc. v. Satco Products, Inc.

ETi accused Satco of infringing two patents relating to flush mount LED lighting products for use with screw-in incandescent bulb sockets.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,500,352 and 9,541,270, both of which are titled “Integral LED light fixture” and directed to an integral LED light fixture for installation in an incandescent light bulb socket including a housing with a forwardly-extending portion and peripheral outer walls defining a recess, a rearwardly-extending socket base to be screwed into an incandescent light bulb socket, electrical components including a printed circuit board having a set of LEDs, and a lens for covering the printed circuit board and being attached to the housing.

Filed November 15, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the complaint lists as accused products include Satco-Nuvo screw-on utility fixtures.

Lemaire Illumination Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et al.

In this complaint, filed November 7, 2017 in federal court in Marshall, Texas, Lemaire has asserted three LED patents against Microsoft.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,095,661 (‘661 Patent), 6,488,390 (‘390 Patent) and 9,119,266 (‘266 Patent).

The ‘661 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for an L.E.D. flashlight” and the ‘390 Patent is entitled “Color-adjusted camera light and method” and these related patents are directed to an LED flashlight including  a control circuit for maintaining a predetermined light output level of the LED units as a charge on a battery varies.

The ‘266 Patent is entitled “Pulsed L.E.D. illumination apparatus and method” and directed to an illumination source for a camera including one or more LEDs and a control circuit for driving the LEDs with electrical pulses at a frequency high enough that light produced has an appearance to a human user of being continuous rather than pulsed.

The accused products are Microsoft Lumia 950 XL and Lumia 950 Single SIM smartphones.

Cree, Inc. v. Milwaukee Wholesale LLC et al.

Cree sued Milwaukee Wholesale December 28, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are selling knock-offs of Cree’s CPY 250 Canopy/Soffit luminaire.

The knock-offs allegedly infringe two design patents:  D721,844 and D743,084, each titled “Light fixture.” and infringe trade dress of Cree’s products.

General LED OpCo, LLC v. Pincipal LED, LLC

This lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No., 9,702,531, entitled “Retrofit system and method for replacing linear fluorescent lamp with LED modules” (‘531 Patent).

Filed December 20, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s Tap Out, Slim Stik, and Street Stik linear fluorescent lighting products.

The ‘531 Patent is directed to a system for replacing linear fluorescent lamps with LED modules in a cabinet sign including an LED module support structure.  The LED module support structure may be attached to the raceways of the cabinet sign or to the sockets formerly used for mounting fluorescent lamps between the raceways.

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. General Electric Company

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Cree, Inc.

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

In each of these lawsuits, Bluestone alleges infringement of  U.S. Patent No. 6,163,557 (‘557 Patent).

The ‘557 Patent is entitled “Fabrication of group III-V nitrides on mesas” and directed to group III-V nitride films fabricated on mesas patterned either on substrates such as sapphire substrates or on group III-V nitride layers grown on substrates. The mesas provide reduced area surfaces for epitaxially growing group III-V nitride films to reduce thermal film stresses in the films to minimize cracking.

All the lawsuits were filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint against Amazon (Bluestone Innovations LLC v. AMAZON.COM,INC.) on November 30, 2017 and the complaints against GE (Bluestone Innovations LLC v. General Electric Company) and Cree (Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Cree, Inc.) on December 4, 2017.

The complaints list as accused products various brands and models of LED lightbulbs with epitaxial film.

Smart Grid

Banertek LLC v. ecobee, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed November 17, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Banertek alleges that ecobee infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,839,731, entitled “System and method for providing data communication in a device network” (‘731 Patent).

The ‘731 Patent is directed to a system and method for facilitating data communications in a device network.  The system and method includes premises-server computing devices, a central communication device, and a number of client computing devices. Each client computing device communicates with the central communication device to request access to device data from the premises-server computing devices. Once access rights are established, the client computing devices communicate directly with specific premises-server computing devices.

According to the complaint, ecobee provides systems with premises server computing devices in communication with devices such as room sensors, HVAC fans, etc., a central communication device such as the ecobee server, and a client computing device.

Solar Mounting Systems

Rillito River Solar LLC v. IronRidge Inc.

Rillito River Solar LLC v. Wencon Development Inc.

The IronRidge complaint, filed December 6, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleges infringement of two solar mounting system patents.

U.S. Patent Nos. 9,774,292 and 9,793,853 are entitled “Roofing grommet forming a seal between a roof-mounted structure and a roof” and directed to a roof mount assembly including a piece of flashing positioned on the substrate.  The flashing includes a first surface, a second surface opposite the first surface and an aperture extending through the flashing.  A fastener extends through the flashing aperture, a bracket is connected to the flashing via the fastener, and a water-tight seal is positioned between the flashing aperture and the fastener.

The accused product is IronRidge’s FlashFoot 2 mounting system.

The Wencon complaint was filed November 22, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern Distric of California and asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701 (‘701 Patent).

Entitled “Roof mount,” the ‘701 Patent is directed to a roof mount including a base member, an attachment mount, and a spacer extending the base member to a roof surface. The base member has a protrusion, and the attachment mount defines a hollowed region for receiving the protrusion to form a compression fitting.  A substantially leak proof assembly is formed when the attachment mount is placed against the base member with a sealing material therebetween.

With its seminal patents and continual patent enforcement activity, hybrid vehicle technology company Paice has been a frequent subject of discussion in this space.  In fact, my first post almost ten years ago was about the company’s litigation with Toyota.

There have been a few recent developments to report.

First, in January Paice announced that it had settled its patent litigation with Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche.  The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential, though Paice said it resolved all legal issues.  Paice had filed an infringement complaint against the German automakers in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in April 2016.

After that, Paice turned its attention back to Ford, filing a complaint against the American car manufacturer in the ITC in February.

The ITC complaint asserts that Ford’s hybrid vehicles infringe the following patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347, entitled “Hybrid vehicles” (‘347 Patent)

U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388, entitled “Hybrid vehicles” (‘388 Patent)

U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097, entitled “Hybrid vehicles”

The patents are directed to a hybrid electric vehicle controller and related methods for coordinating the operation of the electric motor and gasoline engine of a hybrid vehicle to maximize performance, fuel economy, and emissions efficiency.

Paice alleges that Ford’s hybrid vehicle powertrains and components in the Fusion Hybrid, Fusion Plug-in Hybrid, and Lincoln MKZ Hybrid infringe one or more claims of each of the patents.

Paice and Ford have been involved in hybrid vehicle patent litigation in the past (see, e.g., a prior post here), and Ford has fought back on various fronts, including challenging the ‘347 Patent and the ‘388 Patent in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

After the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidated several claims of each patent in separate decisions, Paice appealed those decisions.

Last month, Paice suffered two setbacks when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decisions on both the ‘347 Patent and the ‘388 Patent (347 Patent Opinion; 388 Patent Opinion).

In each case, the Federal Circuit rejected nearly all of Paice’s arguments regarding interpretation of certain key claim terms, disclosure of the prior art, and obviousness determinations, finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings and there was no error in its conclusions.  For the ‘388 Patent, however, the Federal Circuit reversed as to claim 3, finding the dependent claim did not need to fall with the independent claims.

About a year ago, Tesla filed two new trademark applications in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – Application Serial Nos. 86/960,133 and 86/960,138 – the first for its three bars design and the second for the mark MODEL 3 with three bars:

Last month, Adidas filed an opposition proceeding in the USPTO opposing registration of the two applications.  The problem was that Tesla’s trademark applications were not for electric vehicles, but for clothing.

In its , Adidas argued that it would be damaged if Tesla were to obtain these registrations because consumers would be confused by the similar trademarks used on related products and such use would dilute the distinctiveness of Adidas 3-bar brand:

Tesla decided not to fight, instead withdrawing its trademark applications, which led the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to .

According to a few recent articles (e.g., on and ), Tesla has changed its logo from three bars to the number 3.

From a quick scan of the federal trademark records, it doesn’t look like Tesla has filed any new trademark applications since giving up on the bars.  However, the automaker has a pending application for MODEL 3 for clothing – Application Serial No. 86/301,896 – filed back in 2014.

Over the years this blog has covered important patent litigation and settlements involving hybrid vehicle technology company Paice and some major automakers, including Hyundai/Kia, Toyota, and Ford (see, e.g., the Ford post here).

Paice has notched up some big wins, including a $28.9 million jury award against Hyundai and Kia and a $4.3 million jury award against Toyota, and has and entered into at least three license agreements:  recently with Hyundai and Kia, with Ford, and back in 2010 with Toyota.

Although these cases have been litigated in various forums through the years, Paice was forced to make a tactical shift in venue selection after the U.S. Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision in 2006.

In eBay the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. courts’ long-standing practice of automatically issuing an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement and instead held that the traditional four-factor equitable test for injunctive relief must be analyzed in each case brought under the patent statute.

The eBay decision came down just as the Paice-Toyota trial court was deliberating Paice’s motion for an injunction against Toyota.  With the trial court suddenly bound to analyze the four injunction factors, it refused to grant an injunction, instead awarding Paice an ongoing royalty of $25 per infringing vehicle (a figure that was later raised to $98 per vehicle).

So Paice turned to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to seek an exclusion order that would have banned importation of infringing vehicles.

The ITC is a federal agency that investigates trade and importation issues, including conducting quasi-judicial proceedings involving alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by importation of accused products pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337).

It is a popular forum for patentees (though only injunctive relief is available, not monetary damages) because the proceedings progress much faster than those in the federal courts.

Also, critically for Paice and other non-practicing entities, the ITC is not bound by the eBay decision, which governs injunctive relief analysis under the patent statute, not Section 337 trade law (for a detailed review of the effect of eBay and the ITC on clean tech patent litigation see my article here).

Facing the very real prospect of an import ban, Toyota came to the negotiating table and, settled the suit, and entered into a licensing deal with Paice.

Which brings us to the latest news and the subject of this post.  Paice recently went back to the border and filed a complaint against Volkswagen (together with Porsche and Audi), asking the ITC to investigate alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, and 8,214,097.

The three related patents are entitled “Hybrid vehicles” and cover hybrid electric vehicles utilizing an internal combustion engine with series parallel electric motors, regenerative braking, and control circuitry.

The Paice technology, developed back in the 1990s, is called the Hyperdrive System and provides seamless switching between power from an electric motor and an internal combustion engine.

The accused products listed in the complaint are the VW Jetta Hybrid, the Audi Q5 Hybrid, the Audi A3 e-tron Hybrid, the Porsche S E-Hybrid, and the Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid.

The Paice complaint requests a permanent limited exclusion order that would stop the allegedly infringing hybrid vehicles and components from entering the United States.

It remains to be seen whether Volkswagen, like the other automakers, will determine that it is in its best interest to take a license to Paice’s hybrid vehicle patents.

A number of new patent infringement lawsuits were filed in January and February in the areas of electric vehicle charging, LEDS, smart grid, and solar battery phone cases.

Electric Vehicle Charging

Technology for Energy Corporation v. Hardy et al.

In a lawsuit against a former employee, Technology for Energy alleges various breach of contract claims, breach of an employment agreement, and requests a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and unenforceability.  The complaint was filed February 22, 2016 in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,020,771, entitled “Devices and methods for testing the energy measurement accuracy, billing accuracy, functional performance and safety of electric vehicle charging stations” (‘771 Patent).

The ‘771 Patent is directed to an instrument for testing electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).  Energy delivery from the EVCS to the load is monitored by the instrument to determine energy measurement and billing accuracy of the EVCS.

LEDs

Harvatek Corporation v. Cree, Inc.

This is the third lawsuit between these two LED makers involving white LED lighting technology (see previous posts here and here).

Filed January 26, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Harvatek’s complaint accuses Cree of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,841,934 (‘934 Patent).

The ‘934 Patent is entitled “White light source from light emitting diode” and is directed to an LED white light source that emits short wavelength color light.  The LED has a split metal substrate and a fluorescent glue that covers the LED chip and converts the short wavelength color light into white light.

Harvatek alleges that Cree’s CLM1 Series LED products infringement the ‘934 Patent.

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Sea Gull Lighting Products LLC et al.

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Hyperikon, Inc.

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. U.S.A. Light & Electric, Inc.

Lighting Science Group (LSG) filed three patent infringement lawsuits in late February, all in federal court in Orlando.

The complaint against Sea Gull was filed February 25, 2016 and asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (‘968 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 (‘844 Patent).  The accused products are Sea Gull’s Traverse Collection and Traverse II Collection products.

The complaint against Hyperikon was filed February 26, 2016 and alleges that Hyperikon’s LED Downlight products infringe the ‘844 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 (‘518 Patent).

Also filed February 26, 2016, the complaint against U.S.A. Light & Electric asserts the ‘968, ‘844, and ‘518 Patents and alleges that the defendant’s Recessed LED Downlight products infringe the patents-in-suit.

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.

Lexington Luminance LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al.

In a complaint filed February 25, 2016 in federal court in Marshall, Texas, Lexington Luminance accused Samsung 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 complaint lists a host of Samsung products including a number of Galaxy smartphones.

Smart Grid

Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. Rajant Corporation

Endeavor MeshTech (a wholly-owned subsidiary of patent monetization firm Endeavor IP) sued Rajant in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 4, 2016.

The complaint accuses Rajant 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.”

The patents-in-suit relate to a self-configuring wireless network including a number of vnodes and VGATES.

The accused products and services include Rajant’s BreadCrumb Wireless Nodes, InstaMesh Networking Technology, CacheCrumb, and Mesh Antennas.

Dipl.-In. H. Horstmann GmbH v. Smart Grid Solutions, Inc.

Horstman, a German company, filed this lawsuit against Smart Grid Solutions (SGS) in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia.

Filed on January 12, 2016, the complaint accuses SGS of trade dress infringement and various deceptive trade practices, as well as infringement of U.S. Patent No. D578,478 (‘478 Patent), a design patent entitled “Fiber optic cable.”

The ‘478 Patent protects Horstmann’s fiber optic cable design with each end including a semi-transparent curved end attached to the cable and a ribbed segment terminating at a flange.

Horstman alleges that SGS’s E-Scout FI-3C Underground Fault Indicator product infringes the ‘478 Patent.

JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Teco Energy, Inc. et al.

On February 2, 2016, JSDQ filed suit against Teco Energy and Tampa Electric Company, 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 RE44,607 entitled, “Wireless Mesh Routing Method.”

JSDQ alleges that Teco and Tampa Electric infringe the patents-in-suit because of their deployment of wireless mesh networking systems that incorporate Trilliant’s SecureMesh broadband mesh network.

JSDQ filed a similar infringement suit against Silver Spring and Pepco in September last year.

Solar Battery Phone Cases

iPowerUp Inc. v. Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc.

iPowerUp sued Ascent Solar Technologies (AST) for alleged infringement of two patents relating to solar battery charging cases for mobile phones.

The complaint was filed February 12, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,080,975, entitled “Portable and universal hybrid-charging apparatus for portable electronic devices” (‘975 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,604,753, entitled “Method of distributing to a user a remedy for inadequate battery life in a handheld device” (‘753 Patent).

The ‘975 Patent is directed to a modular hybrid-charger assembly comprising a rechargeable internal battery connected to a port operable to function as a tetherless connection to a portable electronic device and a device holder having a framework operable to receive, hold, and release the portable electronic device.  The ‘753 Patent claims methods relating to use of the hybrid-charger assembly of the ‘975 Patent.

The accused products are AST’s Enerplex Surfr and Enerplex Surfr Amp cases for the iPhone 6/6s and the Enerplex Surfr for iPhone 5/5s.

Envision Solar (Envision) is a San Diego-based company that makes solar parking structures that can be used to charge electric vehicles, support outdoor digital advertising, and enhance energy security.  What makes Envision’s products unique is that unlike most parking lot solar-powered vehicle charging stations, most of the company’s systems have the ability to track the movement of the sun.

According to Envision’s President and CEO Desmond Wheatley, 90% of Envision’s deployments have tracking capability.  Why tracking?  He echoed my thoughts exactly:  because it’s “cool.”

Also, parking lots are “hyper-restrained” in geography so a solar charger needs to maximize energy density in a very small space.  Incorporating tracking helps in that regard.

Envision’s two major product offerings are the Solar Tree® and the EV ARCâ„¢.  The company owns at least seven U.S. patents and pending applications covering various aspects of the technology in these products.

U.S. Patent No. 7,705,277 (‘277 Patent), issued in 2010, covers Envision’s original design.  Entitled “Sun tracking solar panels,” the ‘277 Patent is directed to a system for maximizing solar energy utilization by moving a solar panel to track movement of the sun from sunrise to sunset.  Movements of the solar panel are accomplished daily in accordance with a programmed schedule of consecutive cycles.

A subsequent patent issued in early 2014 is directed to a refined design better suited for solar tracking in a parking lot.  The system covered by U.S. Patent No. 8,648,551 (‘551 Patent) is significant, Wheatley said, because instead of the tracker causing the solar panel to swing in to the drive aisle, it instead bows.

According to the ‘551 Patent, the rotation of a cylindrical knuckle in the tracking system “allow[s] the solar panel to continuously reorient while maintaining a substantially stationary footprint.”

Wheatley told me the company’s most important intellectual property is that around the features of the EV ARCâ„¢.

Wheatley mentioned several advantageous features of the EV Arc.  First and foremost is its autonomy, i.e., it is not connected to the utility grid.  Some of the structural features are also important, including the ability for the thin base plate to support heavy vehicles and the high-traction material of the base plate, which allows it to remain stationary.

U.S. Patent No. 9,209,648, issued in November 2015, is entitled “Self-contained renewable battery charger” and is directed to a charging system (10) comprising a portable unit (12) that includes a moveable docking pad (16) having a base (18) and compartment (20) for holding a storage battery (18).

The portable unit (12) includes a column (24) having a first end (26) mounted onto the docking pad (16) and a second end (28).  A solar array (30) is affixed to the second end (28) of the column (24).  The unit has a structural canopy with a beam (32) and cross members (34) attached to the column (24) to support the photovoltaic modules of the solar array (30).

The company also has IP around the mobility and installation of its systems, including a specialized trailer and hydraulic ram, ARCâ„¢ Mobility, for transportation and deployment purposes.

Wheatley and Envision are very aware of the importance of patent protection in the U.S. and beyond.  The company’s patents, he said, “prevent smaller competitors from copying” their technology.  They also might stop larger customers from buying pirated products.  In general, a strong IP portfolio increases the company’s value in the investor community.

With investments of about $200 billion on EV charging, the company sees China as an important market and has filed patent applications there.  Wheatley told me that Chinese patents allow Envision to bring powerful partners aboard in China to protect the company’s business ventures there.

Envision Solar continues to innovate and isn’t stopping at car charging; they’re working on EV ARCâ„¢ eBike and eMotorcycle charging as well.  Many more patent applications will certainly follow.

In another big success for Paice, the hybrid vehicle technology company recently reached an agreement to license all of its tech to Hyundai and Kia.

This comes after a Baltimore jury found that the Korean automakers owed Paice $28.9 million in damages for infringing three patents relating to hybrid electric vehicles: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634, 7,104,347, and 7,559,388.  All three patents are entitled “Hybrid vehicles” .

Paice has been an extremely successful non-practicing entity, using patent litigation in the federal courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission to bring major automakers to the negotiating table.

In 2010 the company settled major patent litigation with Toyota over the Prius and other hybrid models when the Japanese automaker licensed all of Paice’s patents.  Also that year, Paice and Ford became embroiled in patent litigation over hybrid vehicles.

According to the company’s press release about the Kia/Hyundai deal:

Paice has now licensed all or part of its hybrid vehicle technology portfolio to Toyota, Hyundai/Kia, and Ford – three of the world’s six largest automakers.  These three companies currently account for 90% of all hybrid vehicle sales in the United States.

Does all this litigation and licensing make Paice one of the oft-maligned “patent trolls?”  I think not.

The company should not be put in that category for a couple of reasons.  First, the founder of the company and inventor of the technology, Alex Severinsky, is a true innovator and pioneer, having invented much of Paice’s technology at least as early if not earlier than the large automakers.

Most of the patent assertion entities we think of as trolls are not innovators, but instead buy patents to assert in litigation and offer to license.

Second, Paice made genuine efforts at ex ante licensing.  That is, the company approached Toyota with offers to license its technology before any hybrid vehicles were ever sold.

This is in contrast to the business model of acquiring and asserting patents, with licensing offers, after the allegedly infringing products have been manufactured and racked up lots of sales (ex post licensing).

Paice’s success is not a surprise when one understands the power of its patents.  A 2010 report by a patent analytics firm called Ambercite analyzed 58,000 hybrid car patents and their interrelationships using network patent analysis methodology and found Paice’s portfolio to be the strongest, better than all major car manufacturers’ hybrid car patents.

Back in 2012, hybrid vechicle technology company Paice filed a lawsuit against Hyundai and Kia in federal court in Baltimore accusing the Korean automakers of infringing three of its patents.

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

The Paice technology is called the Hyperdrive System and provides seamless switching between power from an electric motor and an internal combustion engine.

Recently, a Maryland federal jury returned a big verdict for Paice, deciding that Hyundai and Kia owe $28.9 million in damages for patent infringement.  The jury found that all of the asserted claims of the patents were valid and willfully infringed (see the report here on Autoblog and by Bloomberg news here).

The trial lasted eight days, but the jury needed just one day of deliberations to reach a verdict.

According to Paice’s press release, the $28.9 million sum represents a payment of $200 for each infringing hybrid vehicle sold by the defendants through June 30, 2015.  The cars at issue were the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and the Kia Optima Hybrid.

Paice has successfully enforced its patents before, most notably licensing its hybrid technology to Toyota, which signed a global licensing deal in 2010 covering all of Paice’s technology.

Hyundai and Kia are likely to appeal the decision.

In a recent lawsuit, a Ford Fusion owner has accused the automaker of misrepresenting the fuel efficiency of the hybrid vehicle and distributing a software update that displays false mileage figures.

In the proposed class action complaint filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, named plaintiff Dave DeLuca says that, not long after purchasing the vehicle, he realized its actual performance didn’t match the advertised performance.

Mr. DeLuca tested the car under “optimal conditions” as described by a Ford technician.  More particularly, he tested the car with the windows up, the air conditioner and stereo turned off, and driving at a speed of 62 miles per hour or less, and the car allegedly underperformed.

When Mr. DeLuca took the car into the dealership, the Ford technician tested the car under the same conditions, got the same results, but told Mr. DeLuca nothing could be done to fix the car because it wasn’t broken.

Up to this point, the allegations are pretty common for this type of lawsuit.  Most greenwashing cases against automakers include claims that the hybrid or electric vehicles fail to achieve the advertised fuel efficiency (see, e.g., previous posts here and here).

What’s new here is the software piece.  The DeLuca complaint also alleges that Ford issued a software update for the Fusion Hybrid, claiming the update would increase performance and mileage.  After the dealer installed the update in his car, Mr. DeLuca tested its performance again.

On a road trip to Sin City (Viva Las Vegas!), he drove the car under optimal conditions again and observed that the car’s monitor was indeed displaying better mileage and less gas usage.  But Mr DeLuca alleges, that was just smoke and mirrors:

[W]hen Mr. DeLuca filled his gas tank at a gas station, he realized the vehicle’s software relayed inaccurate mileage and use of gasoline.

The mileage had not really increased, according the complaint:

[A]lthough Ford’s software update displays a higher mileage, the vehicle’s mileage has not increased.

Mr. DeLuca performed one final test, doing comparative driving runs with gas-only Ford Fusion.  He found that the gas-only Fusion displayed accurate numbers while Fusion Hybrid displayed inaccurate figures.

It will be interesting to watch this case and see what, if anything, we learn about the alleged software greenwash.