Archive for the ‘Wind Power’ category
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-9653 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-eco-marks category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
September 22nd, 2017
In an interesting case at the intersection of patent and trademark law, as well as that of functionality and branding, Change Wind Corporation (Change) has lost its bid to register its turbine design as a federal trademark.
Change filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 86046590 (‘590 Application) in August of 2013 seeking registration of the following design mark for wind turbines and wind-powered electricity generators:

The application described the design as consisting of “four vertically extending turbine blades . . . obliquely curved in a twisting manner” and extending above and blow the “truncated cone” of a tapered “cylindrical base.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act, which prohibits registration of a mark that is functional.
Change appealed the refusal of the applied-for design and, in a recent decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirmed.
Prevailing case law holds that a product design or feature is functional if it is “essential to the use or purpose of the article” or if it “affects the cost or quality of the article.”
There are four categories of evidence the courts use to determine whether a design is functional. Â Those include evidence of a utility patent disclosing utilitarian advantages of the design, advertising materials touting the design’s utilitarian advantages, the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs, and facts indicating the design results in simpler or cheaper manufacturing.
The most damaging evidence for Change was its U.S. Patent No. 9,103,321 (‘321 Patent), which not only showed the applied-for design in the patent drawings, but also recited features of the design in its claims. Â Here’s FIG. 1A (almost identical to the design in the trademark application):

Here’s an excerpt from claim 1 of the ‘321 Patent:
A wind turbine comprising:
a frame structure;
a housing enclosing said frame structure;
a rotary, wing assembly supported by said frame structure, said rotary wing assembly including rotating eccentric cams and including asymmetric, helical swept wings that rotate to capture wind throughout a circumference of the rotary wing assembly from both windward and leeward sides so that a torque input spreads evenly to mitigate damaging harmonic pulsations that would otherwise arise without the torque input spreading evenly;
It clearly recites the curved blades / helical swept wings and their function. Â Thus, the Board found that the ‘321 Patent showed that the applied-for design features are functional:
The patent thus plainly discloses the functional role of the three components disclosed and claimed in Applicant’s drawing of the mark: the conical tower, the helical wings, and the boundary fences affixed to the helical wings. These features are necessary elements of the invention and are essential to the functioning of Applicant’s wind turbine.
The Board went on to find the evidence of record on advertising to be inconclusive, and also found that the design alternatives were “merely variations of a single basic” turbine design.
The Board found that the evidence, viewed as a whole, establishes that the design was functional because it was essential to the use or purpose of the product.
One lesson is to choose either the patent or trademark route for a technological design and go with it; often it’s not feasible to do both.
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-8652 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-ip-litigation category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
September 15th, 2015
A decision by the High Court of Justice in the UK has handed Enercon a blow in the enforcement of their patent related to power ramp down after the cut out wind speed (EP0847496).
Enercon first filed their patent in 1995 in Germany and has been commercially offering their ‘Storm Control’ technology on their own turbines for many years since. An image representing the power output control strategy is taken from the Enercon patent.

In invalidating the Enercon patent, the UK court seems to have taken an interesting interpretation of a paper from E.A. Bossanyi published in 1982 which dealt with an evaluation of performance the Boeing built MOD-2 wind turbine which was contracted by NASA and erected in 1980. Essentially, the Bossanyi paper contemplates a method for power ramp-down specially adapted to the variable speed, constant frequency (VSCF) MOD-2 wind turbine.
Siemens relied upon expert testimony in arguing that this approach could be applied to variable speed, variable pitch (VSVP) machines being developed around the time of the Enercon patent filing. The UK court agreed.

Siemens also referenced a 1980 patent filing by Toshiba in their attempt to invalidate the Enercon patent. The Toshiba patent describes technology which ramps down after the ‘conventional’ cut-out wind speed, but does not ramp all the way down to null output power. Nevertheless, the UK court did not favor the Siemens interpretation of the Toshiba patent that it teaches what Enercon claimed in their own very similar patent.

Open Opposition
Interestingly, Vestas had previously filed an opposition against the European version of the Enercon patent in a timeframe that would have allowed them to present new prior art. However, their opposition was rejected in November 2002 without citing either the Toshiba patent or the Bossanyi paper.
Nevertheless, a new opposition period against the Enercon patent filing was made possible as of January 2015 based upon an amendment to the Enercon patent triggered by the UK court matter. The prior art references and precedent set in the UK will likely influence a decision by the European Patent Office (EPO) on the validity of the Enercon patent.
However, invalidity of the European patent is not for certain and Enercon still has the opportunity to appeal the UK ruling. The European Patent Office does not have to accept the same conclusion as the UK court, so it will be very noteworthy if the European Patent Office takes the same approach regarding the Bossanyi reference in their review of the amended Enercon patent.
Since Enercon is likely to appeal the UK ruling, the Siemens matter is far from over yet.
Gamesa Litigation
This European patent filing from Enercon serves as the parent to both the UK as well as the Spanish patent which is the subject of the ongoing litigation with Gamesa. The precedent set in the UK is likely to have repercussions on the litigation in Spain if the UK court position on invalidity holds.
An invalidation of the European patent would likely negate the damage award against Gamesa in Spain, but there is still potentially room for Enercon to argue their position here, so the outcome is not guaranteed for anyone involved either.
In the meantime, Gamesa should at least be able to leverage off the non-infringement arguments in their appeal in the Spanish court.
New Precedent
The UK court potentially establishes another interesting precedent here, because there are certainly other patents held by companies in the wind industry which attempt to deal with component loading and fatigue which could also potentially be argued as obvious in light of the UK court’s interpretation of the technology developed for VSCF being applicable to VSVP based turbines.
The UK court judge refers to adjustment of the torque and pitch control “knobs†as a means to control generator rotor rpm as an obvious method in light of the Bossanyi paper, but also acknowledges other methods of implementing such technology:
…it required no inventive activity at all for a skilled person given Bossanyi in 1995 to think seriously about how to implement the power ramp down proposal in VSVP turbines. They would consider how to put that into practice and, in terms of controls, it was obvious to think about “turning†the electric torque “knob†and the pitch control “knobâ€. Reducing rotor speed as the wind speed increased as a way of reducing power accordingly is not the only way of putting Bossanyi into practice but it is an obvious approach. Reducing the speed this way has an obvious advantage in terms of loading and fatigue.
Final Thoughts
Over the past 10 years we have seen Enercon attempt to enforce patents on frequency and voltage regulation against Vestas unsuccessfully, with the result being an invalidation in Ireland and the UK. We have also seen MHI successfully challenge the validity of the GE zero voltage ride-through patent in the US leading to an overturning of the $169M judgement and a settlement of their other ongoing litigation matters.
The past history of the wind industry’s capitulation to licenses is likely at an end as companies arm themselves with information to defend against the onslaught of IP challenges they face. This new level of intelligence gained as well as a better understanding of the commercial implications of IP infringement risks are providing companies with the opportunity to invalidate competitor patents with greater rigor and frequency than ever before in the industry’s history.
The implications of all these proceedings introduces some potentially substantial commercial risks into the project development process. Now that companies are willing to target the turbine OEMs, project developers and even the EPC contractors for patent infringement liability, the proactive companies are already arming themselves with information to ensure they can proceed smoothly.
*Philip Totaro is the CEO of Totaro & Associates, a consulting firm focused on innovation strategy, competitive intelligence, product development and patent search. To find out more, or get in touch please visit www.totaro-associates.com.  Totaro & Associates delivers Innovative Solutions Enabled by Intelligence™.
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-8463 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-energy-efficiency category-ip-litigation category-wind-power">
April 29th, 2015
There are updates on a couple of green tech trade secrets cases, each involving allegations of misappropriation by Chinese companies and their employees.
First, as discussed in a previous post, the ongoing litigation between American Superconductor (AMSC) and Sinovel includes a criminal indictment against the Chinese wind turbine maker, two of its employees, and a former AMSC employee.
The defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit trade secret theft and criminal copyright infringement.  The technology involved is AMSC’s source code, software, equipment designs and technical drawings that relate to regulating the flow of electricity from wind turbines to the electricity grid
In a recent oral argument, Sinovel asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling and quash a summons, arguing it was improperly served on its U.S. subsidiary. Â An article about the oral argument can be found here.
The second is a lawsuit brought by Koninklijke Philips and Philips Lumileds against Chinese competitor Elec-Tech International (ETI), several ETI subsidiaries, two corporate directors, and a former Lumileds employee named Dr. Gangyi Chen.  Philips alleged theft of trade secrets relating to high-energy LED lighting technology.
Elec-Tech moved to dismiss the complaint for a number of reasons, including an inadequately pleaded claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the only federal cause of action in the case.
In a recent decision, a federal court in San Jose, California dismissed Philips’ case, holding that the federal law claim under the CFAA could not be sustained.
The CFAA prohibits various computer crimes related to accessing computers without authorization in order to obtain information or data. Â The problem for Philips was that Dr. Chen, who was alleged to have stolen the trade secret information, was authorized to access the Philips Lumileds network and did not exceed his authorized access while downloading the information prior to his resignation.
Specifically, the complaint was deficient because it lacked any allegation that someone without authorization accessed the confidential information:
By the Complaint’s own allegations, none of the CFAA Defendants accessed Lumileds’ information – Dr. Chen did, at a time when he was authorized to download this information.
While Dr. Chen may have misappropriated the information (a state law claim) and given it to the CFAA Defendants, the court held there is no “claim against those Defendants under the CFAA because they themselves did not hack Lumileds’ system.”
The court rejected Philips’ argument that Dr. Chen was an “agent” of the CFAA Defendants and they should be held liable based on their indirect, unauthorized access through Dr. Chen’s access, holding that the CFAA Defendants lack of access was fatal to the claim:
None of the CFAA Defendants entered or used Lumileds’ network. Â At most, they encouraged Dr. Chen to do so, and stood to benefit from alleged misappropriation. Â This action may give rise to a number of claims, but it does not support a theory of liability under the CFAA.
Expect this case to start up again in state court.
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-8178 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
September 17th, 2014

Totaro & Associates, a Houston, TX based research and consulting firm has released a new research report on the pace of wind turbine technology innovation and proliferation.
IP ownership rankings show General Electric still leading with over 1,400 patent families, and the ability to now leverage the Alstom wind portfolio, which puts the combined total above 1,550. Siemens has overtaken Vestas for #2 as predicted in last year’s report, and Mitsubishi drops from #4 to #5.
Previously outside the top 10, Guodian United Power has rocketed up into the #4 spot due to more patent filings in 2012 than any other company, although most filings were exclusive to China.
The top 10 wind turbine manufacturers control more than 56% of all wind patent filings, as well as over 77% of the patents which are broadly applicable to the entire industry or potentially infringed. This strongly suggests the concentration of innovation in wind lies with those who can afford it.
The pace of patent filings has finally dropped for the first time after an average CAGR of 47% during the 2007 – 2011 time-frame. The report indicates only a 7% growth in the number of global patent filings in wind in 2012 vs. 2011 and a slight decline for 2013 is expected as the recent market downturn has put a damper on research and development (R&D) spending and expenditure on IP protection.
Market conditions indicate that the pace is set to increase again in the coming years due to an increased commitment of expenditure on R&D. Some companies are spending up to 6% of their revenue on R&D, which is almost double the spend rate in 2010 after the financial crisis. Filings are expected to return to the levels seen in 2011 by 2015/16, although the average CAGR is expected to be a more modest 5 – 10%.
The research also shows that the US has the greatest number of patent filings on wind turbine technology, and companies have collectively spent over $162M on IP protection with over 8,365 individual patent filings there. Europe is second at $138M with over 6,100 filings and China third at $61M with over 5,000 filings. China is poised to overtake Europe for #2 within the next 12 months.
Globally, the entire wind industry has spent $522M to date on patent protection. Expenditure on IP protection by wind companies is expected to escalate, with $1B to be spent by 2019 and $2B by 2026.
The past year has seen the penetration of some non-practicing entities (NPEs), more commonly referred to as ‘patent trolls,’ into the wind market. These companies acquire orphaned intellectual property assets or develop their own patent portfolios specifically for the purpose of monetizing against the entrenched players in the industry.
With so many patents available for acquisition in the past 18 months, it is no surprise that these NPEs are seeing an opportunity to take advantage of market timing and attempt to drive up costs for operating companies in wind.
The full report is available from Totaro & Associates www.totaro-associates.com.
*Philip Totaro is the Principal at Totaro & Associates, a consulting firm focused on innovation strategy, competitive intelligence, product development and patent search. To find out more, or get in touch please visit www.totaro-associates.com.
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-7463 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
September 16th, 2013
Utility scale wind turbines have become so technologically advanced that they have improved the cost of energy (COE) of wind enough to compete with today’s conventional energy sources. The ensuing reduction in COE has been the result of two governing forces: public policy and technological innovation. Â
The technological trends which have emerged thus far and what might be in store for the future direction of wind turbine technology are explored here. Policy and governmental R&D support will continue to be essential, and barriers to wind technology commercialization must be further broken down.
The patent landscape can shed significant insight into what technological trends have emerged thus far and what we might be able to infer for the future direction of wind turbine technology. The patent landscape analytics, as well as extensive analysis of forward looking competitive intelligence, helps shape our view of future technology trends for the industry.

Figure 1 – Analysis Methodology
Â
The patent search results comprise over 8,665 patent families and over 32,834 global filings from 67 different countries, dating back to the year 1916 when some of the first grid connected technology took root. In addition to a component and technology keyword classification, an assessment of the relevance of each patent filing to the industry was performed and results were classified as Low, Medium, Medium/High, and High.Â
The assessment of industry relevance indicates the degree to which the patent owner has asserted its patent rights in the past or would be able to seek licenses or otherwise enforce the patent due to usage of that patent protected technology by their competition.

Figure 2 – Industry Relevance Assessment
Â
With the results grouped by assignee (or patent owner), it should come as no shock to industry watchers who are the top assignees for wind patent filings. The list largely coincides with the top market share holders in the sector, and the chart below shows the number of patent families held by each company.

Figure 3 – Assignees (by Patent Family)
Â
The industry relevance results indicate that only 0.8% of issued patents would have a high impact on the entire industry as a whole if those patents were universally asserted, with another 6.9% which may become relevant in the future depending on technology evolution and use. The remaining 92.3% of filings are merely providing owners with basic defensive IP protection on technologies they use in their own product lines, but are not widely used in the industry.

Table 1 – Portfolio Evaluation and Industry Benchmarking (Top 10 Companies)
Â
 All combined, the top 10 turbine OEM patent holders control 54.5% of patent filings. Only 67 patent families out of 8,665 catalogued thus far comprise technology which is broadly applicable to products and services offered commercially within the industry worldwide.
General Electric Company (GE) controls not only the largest number of patent families, but the largest percentage of all wind-related IP with over 15% of patent filings. While most companies are in-line with industry averages in terms of overall portfolio distribution of Low, Medium and High risk filings, GE’s High risk patents as a percentage of their overall portfolio is double the industry average at 1.8% vs. 0.8%. Their portfolio also comprises over 35% of all High risk patents held by all companies throughout the industry.

Figure 4 – Global Wind IP Ownership Share
Â
Also notable is that top-tier companies have a combined High and Medium/High set of filings which is above the industry average of 7.7%. The top 10 control over 77% of Medium/High and 80% of High risk patent filings. This confirms the strong correlation between investment in both R&D and IP protection and the commercial success of top-tier companies. There is a strong link between the reduced CapEx and optimized energy production resulting from the development and introduction of those patent protected technologies.
The heat map of the filing dates for the patent filings confirms that the majority of filings have occurred in the past decade or so. Comparison of this trend to turbine capacity additions worldwide is reflective of the shared influence of public policy on technology adoption and the subsequent cost efficiencies enabled by widespread deployment of wind turbines.
Please note that the 2012 – 2013 filings have not all yet published because of an 18 month window in which the patents are not made public. Filing count up to 2011 is comprehensive.

Figure 5 – Wind Industry Patent Filing Trends (Patent Families)
Â
Countries favored for filing include the US, Europe and China, with PCT applications being used heavily in the past few decades. Collectively, the wind industry has spent nearly US$430M (in 2013 dollars) to date on patent protection across all jurisdictions since 1916. Our projections indicate that the total will exceed US$1B by 2020 and $2B by 2030, with escalation of filing pace assumed to be consistent to that of the past 5 years. Annual expenditure will top US$100M per year by 2022.

Figure 6 – Global Wind Industry Patent Filing Costs
Â

Figure 7 – Global Wind Industry Patent Filings (Top 30 Countries)
Â
Clearly IP capture will continue to be an important consideration for top tier wind companies who are developing and commercializing new products.
*Philip Totaro is the Principal at Totaro & Associates, a consulting firm focused on innovation strategy, competitive intelligence, product development and patent search. To find out more, or get in touch please visit www.totaro-associates.com.
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-7196 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-copyrights category-trade-secrets category-wind-power">
July 25th, 2013

The AMSC- Sinovel copyright and trade secret dispute involving wind turbine control systems has been big news (see, e.g., previous posts here, here, here and here), but legally speaking, mostly civil.Â
That changed recently when the U.S. Department of Justice filed an indictment in federal court in Wisconsin alleging that Sinovel, two of its employees, and a former AMSC employee conspired to commit trade secret theft and criminal copyright infringement.
The technology involved is AMSC’s source code, software, equipment designs and technical drawings that relate to regulating the flow of electricity from wind turbines to the electricity grid. More particularly, the electrical control system includes the Power Module 3000 (PM3000) and the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), both of which use AMSC’s proprietaryLow Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) sofware to keep wind turbines operational during temporary dips in electricity flow in the electric grid.
According to the indictment, AMSC took reasonable measures to maintain the confidentiality of its trade secrets and proprietary information such as restricting access to authorized personnel only, requiring a unique password to enter the computer system, and requiring employee certification of ethics and confidentiality rules.
The 11-page indictment states that the purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to:
obtain AMSC’s copyrighted information and trade secrets in order to produce LVRT compliant wind turbines, and to retrofit existing wind turbines with LVRT technology, without having to pay AMSC for previously-delievered AMSC software, products, and service or for AMSC’s trade secrets and intellectual property, thereby cheating AMSC out of more than $800,000,000 USD.
The remainder of the indictment lays out the details of the alleged conspiracy, which it says took place from about January 1, 2011 to about December 20, 2012. The former AMSC employee allegedly copied or downloaded the PM3000 and PLC source code, adapted it for unlicensed use within Sinovel’s turbines, and emailed the modified software to one of the Sinovel employees.
In exchange, Sinovel allegedly offered the former AMSC employee an employment contract worth about double what he was being paid at AMSC, but the contract made it appear that he would be working for a different company – a Chinese wind turbine blade manufacturer -Â for a period of time.
The former AMSC employee allegedly traveled to China to work on adapting the proprietary and trade secret information for use in Sinovel wind turbines, and Sinovel allegedly conducted a successful “voltage sag” test using the updated LVRT technology. One of the Sinovel employees allegedly wrote in a Skype chat with the former AMSC employee that the success was “all because of you.”
Sinovel also allegedly copied the AMSC PM3000 source code into some wind turbines commissioned in Massachusetts in 2011 and 2012.
There are so many things that could be said about this case, which began with several civil infringement and contract suits in China. I will offer just a couple of observations.Â
First, it seems an excellent case for the feds to pursue criminal charges because it represents the nexus of two of the Obama administration’s policy goals: supporting the U.S. clean tech industry and dealing with IP theft in China.
Second, as eloquently explained by wind patent and technology expert Philip Totaro in this prior post, the case points up the critical importance of LVRT technology for the stability of wind energy in China and the economic viability of Chinese wind turbine manufacturers.
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-7069 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
May 2nd, 2013

One of the major trends in wind power is ever larger turbines for offshore use. This raises many technical challenges, including how to transport and install such large components at offshore sites.
A2SEA is a Danish company that has expertise in precisely these challenges and has developed technology for it. The company’s Sea Installer is a wind turbine installation vessel designed to operate in deep offshore waters.
A2SEA owns at least one U.S. patent and several international patent applications, including U.S. Patent No. 6,808,337 (337 Patent) and International Publication No. Wo2006/076920 (‘920 Application).
The ‘337 Patent is entitled “Vessel with vertically elevational support legs” and directed to a ship (1) which has a hull (2), a deck (3), and two auxiliary cranes (10) positioned on the deck. A console (5) is mounted on either side of the hull (2), and support legs (9) are disposed in the console (5).

There are two support legs (9) at either end of the console (5), and they are connected to a winch wire (8), which provides for the right pressure on the support legs (9) via a hydraulic system. A large crane (11) having a loading capacity of about 450 tons is positioned on either side of the hull (2).

During mounting of a wind turbine, the support legs (9) exert the proper pressure to lift the ship (1) and the winch is locked to maintain the stability of the elevated ship:
During the mounting of a windmill the ship will thus on all four legs exert a pressure of 300 tons, which will lift up the ship, whereafter the winch is locked such that a possible wave will not give rise to instability.
The ‘920 Application is entitled “Lifting device for a wind turbine generator” and directed to a lifting device comprising a yoke (5) connecting the hook of a crane (11) with a collar (17) on the tower (8) of a wind turbine (9). The yoke (5) surrounds the nacelle (113) of the turbine (9) and is designed to lift and move a complete wind turbine.

According to the ‘920 Application, the yoke (5)Â provides a stable lift because it is attached at a particular point of the wind turbine (9)Â that represents the turbine’s center of gravity:
In a suitable crane 35, the lifting yoke 5 can be mounted and designed to lift the WTG 9, which is attached at a predeteπnined point near the top of the tower 8 and below the nacelle 13. By lifting the WTG 9 at the top of the tower 8, it will be conveniently close to the centre of gravity that will make the lift of the WTG 9 a stable but heavy lift.
 
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.
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-6712 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
February 11th, 2013

Blade Dynamics is a UK-based company that develops advanced rotors for utility-scale wind turbines. The company focuses on modular assembly technology to enable longer blades and has developed and GL certified the world’s lightest 49-meter blade.
According to this TechnologyReview.com article, the Blade Dynamics makes blades entirely out of carbon fiber using smaller sections (12-20 meters) seamlessly spliced together. The company recently received funding from the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), a public-private partnership between the UK government and companies such as BP, Shell and Caterpillar, to build 80 to 100-meter blades.
Blade Dynamics owns at least one U.S. patent and at least eight pending U.S. applications relating to its wind turbine technology.Â
U.S. Application Publication Nos. 2010/0260611 (‘611 Application) and 2011/0103962 (‘962 Application) are each entitled “Wind turbine blade” and are directed to, respectively, a load-bearing spar and a blade comprising an elongate spar.  Â
The ‘611 Application is directed to a load-bearing spar (30) for a wind turbine blade (10). The spar (30) is connected to a root subassembly (20) and supports frame members (40, 50). 
Skin panels (60, 70) are mounted on the frame members to form a continuous outer surface of the blade (10).
The ‘962 Application is directed to a wind turbine blade having a sub-assembly including a spar (6) and a root (7). Successive skin panels (1) are bonded to the spar (6) with flange (4) adjacent to an opening (5) and being bonded to the spar (6).

U.S. Application Publication No. 2012/0294724, entitled “Aerodynamic fairing for a wind turbine and a method of connecting adjacent parts of such a fairing” (‘724 Application), is directed to methods for connecting the skin panels mentioned above. The ‘724 describes use of recesses (10, 11) and adhesive channels (14) defined in the skin panels (1A, 1B).

A bead of adhesive (17) is applied between the recess (11) and flange (16), which projects inwardly at an acute angle to form a hook-like structure. The distal end of the first skin panel (1A) is located within the groove formed between the recess (11) and flange (16) to ensure lateral alignment between the two skin panels. Spacers (12, 13) abut against the face of the recess (11), thereby precisely determining the dimensions of the adhasive channel (14).
Another bead of adhesive (18) is then applied to the outer surface of the assembled skin panels (1A, 1B) to seal the channel at the left-hand side. The adhesive runs along the adhesive channel (14), assisted by the flow channels (15), ensuring even distribution of the adhesive along the channel.
According to the ‘962 Application, this modular assembly structure eliminates the need for separate ribs used by prior designs, significantly reduces the number of components required to create a finished blade, and eliminates at least one alignment step in the construction process.
The TechnologyReview.com article quotes the company’s senior technical manager on other advantages such as enabling greater precision in aerodynamic structures and improving performance. In addition, because the company’s blades weigh less than fiberglass ones, they can provide longer blades for existing wind turbine designs.
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-6696 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-wind-patents category-wind-power">
February 7th, 2013
A new research report published at EWEA 2013 by consultancy Totaro & Associates has catalogued over 27,500 global patent filings related to horizontal-axis, utility-scale wind turbine technology. Totaro & Associates CEO and Principal, Philip Totaro says that, “We estimate there are ~45,000 to 50,000 global filings in total, and we are continuing our research to catalogue and evaluate them all.â€
Â
Arms Race
The top patent holders in wind are no surprise. GE, Vestas, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Enercon and Gamesa control almost 50% of all global patent filings. Totaro goes on to say that, “Other Tier 1 global turbine manufacturers, such as Sinovel and Goldwind are gaining ground, but historically, they have filed their patents exclusively in China.â€

Patent filings are up sharply across the entire industry since 2006, largely due to increased spending on research and development as well as intellectual property (IP) protection. “It seems like there is an IP arms race currently underway in wind,†says Totaro. The IP ‘Cold War’ has turned hot over the past 10 years with legal proceedings throughout the world over intellectual property rights between AMSC and Sinovel, GE and Mitsubishi, GE and Enercon as well as Enercon and Vestas, plus other non-public IP license and cross-license arrangements.
Â
Risky Business
According to Totaro, “Our analysis has shown that only about 1% of issued patents are a high impact on the products and services currently offered by the industry as a whole, with another 7% which may become relevant in the future depending on technology adoption. The remaining 92% of global patent filings are merely providing companies with basic defensive IP protection on their own distinct technologies, products and service offerings.â€
While most companies appear to be in-line with industry averages in terms of overall patent portfolio distribution of low, medium and high risk filings, GE seems to stand out. GE’s high risk patent filings as a percentage of their overall portfolio, are double the industry average at 1.9% vs. 0.9%. GE’s patent portfolio also comprises over 36% of all high risk patents throughout the industry, showing a concerted effort to gain a tactical advantage through capturing and aggressively enforcing IP rights. Meanwhile, the rest of the industry is trying to catch up.

Â
Technology Trends
In assessing the technology trends apparent from the research, the report indicates that component developments have historically been directed towards blades, gearboxes, generators and electrical systems, with newer filings directed towards controls and a continuing focus on blade performance enhancements. Totaro says that, “The blades, drivetrain and electrical systems were the problem children in terms of component reliability in the past, so they needed the most attention; the most improvement; the most innovation.â€

Technology developments have historically been directed towards component reliability, torque / speed control, frequency / voltage regulation, performance optimization and load mitigation, with newer filings directed towards manufacturing, construction and O&M. Totaro continues, “The manufacturing revolution, particularly with the move towards longer blades for both on and offshore has driven a substantial amount of innovation.â€

Looking towards the future, the report offers several areas to watch out for including blade manufacturing automation, materials such as hybrid fabrics for blades and graphene for power electronics, anticipatory and load mitigating controls, energy storage integration, VAR and ancillary services support, HVDC technology as well as condition monitoring / SCADA data analysis for predictive maintenance and spares scheduling.
Totaro states that “Out of all the future technology trends, we have long said that materials science will have the single greatest impact on further reductions in wind turbine and sub-component CapEx. But, as O&M costs have continued to escalate, the industry is shifting focus to services, particularly since turbine sales have dropped as of late.â€
Â
Technology Deployment Gap
Although, when it comes to deployment of these new technologies, Totaro cautions that a gap exists, “We presently see a commercialization gap amongst technologies being investigated and those actually being deployed. We believe this is due to project financiers not incentivizing the development and introduction of new technologies and products because of associated technical and commercial risks. These risks can now be better quantified and mitigated through tools which have been recently developed in the industry; such as the patent infringement risks which can now be mitigated through our IP risk profiles.â€
Totaro concludes, “Protection of intellectual property rights will continue to be a hot-button issue for years to come, and the deployment of new technology will be crucial for the industry to achieve sustainable cost parity with other energy sources.â€
The full report is available at http://www.totaro-associates.com.