Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update
Several new green patent complaints were filed in January and February in the areas of advanced batteries, waste-to-energy feedstocks, energy-efficient exercise equipment, and LEDs.
Advanced Batteries
Advanced Electrolyte Technologies LLC et al. v. ESDI LLC et al.
Advanced Electrolyte Technologies (AET) sued ESDI and several divisions of Samsung in a complaint filed January 18, 2017 in federal court in Austin, Texas.
AET alleges that the defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,033,809 (‘809 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,927,001 (‘001 Patent), which relate to electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries.
The ‘809 Patent is entitled “Lithium secondary battery and electrolyte thereof” and directed to non-aqueous electrolyte lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising an electrolyte dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent, wherein the solvent contains a cyclic carbonate, a linear carbonate, and a sultone derivative.
Entitled “Non-aqueous electrolyte solution and lithium secondary battery,” the ‘001 Patent is directed to non-aqueous electrolytic solution composed of two or more organic compounds dissolved in a solvent composed of a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in which both of the organic compounds have a reduction potential higher than those of the cyclic and chain carbonates, and in which one of the organic compounds has a reduction potential equal to that of another organic compound or has a reduction potential lower or higher than that of another organic compound.
The complaint contains a long list of accused products including batteries used in the Samsung Chromebook 3 and 7 Spin, as well as batteries used in several Samsung Galaxy devices.
Somaltus LLC v. Cummins, Inc. et al.
Somaltus LLC v. Honeywell International, Inc.
Somaltus LLC v. Minn Kota, Inc.
Somaltus LLC v. Pro Charging Systems, LLC
Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, filed four new lawsuits on January 12, 2017, all federal court in Marshall, Texas, against Cummins (Somaltus v. Cummins), Honeywell (Somaltus v. Honeywell), Minn Kota (Somaltus v. Minn Kota), and Pro Charging Systems (Somaltus v. Pro Charging Systems).
Each suit asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, entitled “Integrated battery service system (‘386 Patent).
The ‘386 Patent is directed to an integrated battery service system that performs a plurality of services related to a battery, such as battery testing, battery charging, and the like. In addition, the integrated service system provides services to devices/components that are coupled to the battery, such as starters, alternators, etc.
The accused products are the Cummins Energy Command (EC-30) power generation system, Honeywell’s 2.1 Amp Dual USB AC Charging Adapter, the 2.1 Amp Single USB AC Charging Adapter, and the Ovale 4.2 Amp Smart Charging Station, the Minn Kota Digital Onboard Charger, and the Pro Charging Systems Dual Pro Eagle Chargers.
Waste-to-energy Feedstocks
Accordant Energy, LLC v. Vexor Technology, Inc. et al.
In this lawsuit Accordant Energy accuses Vexor of infringing two patents relating to engineered feedstocks.
The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,062,268 and 9,523,051, each entitled “Engineered fuel feed stock” and directed to feed stocks for use as gasification and combustion fuels and methods of making the feed stocks. Components derived from processed MSW waste streams are used to make the feed stocks, which are substantially free of glass, metals, grit and noncombustibles.
Filed February 28, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the complaint names Vexor Engineered Fuel as the accused product.
Energy-Efficient Exercise Equipment
Green Fitness Equipment Co. v. Precor Inc.
It’s not every day you see patent litigation involving green exercising technology, but this one is about exactly that.
In a complaint filed February 8, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Southern Distric of California, Green Fitness alleges that Precor has incorporated its patented invention into its EFC Elliptical Cross-trainer products that include Active Status Light technology.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,884,553, entitled “Current monitor for indicating a condition of attached electrical apparatus” (‘553 Patent).
The ‘553 Patent is directed to a current monitor that indicates a condition of attached electrical equipment. The current monitor can determine a predetermined range in which current being withdrawn by the attached electrical apparatus lies. Based on the determined range, corresponding display electronic elements, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs), can be activated.
The commercial embodiment of Green Fitness’s patented invention is its Treadmill Saver product.
LEDs
Metrospec Technology LLC v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed February 3, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint asserts three patents relating to high intensity flexible light circuits.
The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,143,631, 8,525,193 and 9,341,355, each entitled “Layered structure for use with high power light emitting diode systems.”
The asserted patents are directed to a layered structure comprising an electrically insulating intermediate layer interconnecting a top layer and a bottom layer. The top layer, the intermediate layer, and the bottom layer form an at least semi-flexible elongate member which is bendable laterally to a radius of at least 6 inches, twistable relative to its longitudinal axis up to 10 degrees per inch, and bendable to conform to localized heat sink surface flatness variations having a radius of at least 1 inch.
Metrospec alleges that the NorFlex product offered by Hubbell’s Thomas Research Products division infringes the patents.
Unity Opto Technology Co. v. Cree, Inc.
Unity Opto Technology Co. v. Cree, Inc.
Unity Opto Technology (UOT) sued Cree twice in January, seeking a declaratory judgement that Cree’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,596,819 (‘819 Patent), 8,628,214 (‘214) Patent), 8,998,444 (‘444 Patent) and 9,052,067 (‘067 Patent) are invalid and that UOT does not infringe the ‘067 Patent.
The ‘819 and ‘214 Patents are entitled “Lighting device and method of lighting” and directed to a lighting device which emits light with an efficacy of at least 60 lumens per watt, and up to at least 300 lumens in some embodiments, where the output light has a CRI Ra of at least 90. The lighting device comprises at least one solid state light emitter, e.g., one or more light emitting diodes, and optionally further includes one or more lumiphor.
The ‘444 Patent is entitled “Solid state lighting devices including light mixtures” and directed to a solid state lighting apparatus including at least a first LED and a second LED. The first LED emits light in the blue portion of the visible spectrum and red light in response to the blue light. The second LED emits light having a color point that is above the planckian locus of a 1931 CIE Chromaticity diagram, and in particular may have a yellow green, greenish yellow or green hue.
Entitled “LED lamp with high color rendering index,” the ‘067 Patent is directed to an LED lamp that can emit light with a color rendering index (CRI) of at least 90 without remote wavelength conversion.
The first complaint was filed January 3, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The second complaint was filed January 6, 2017 in the same court.
Solar Mounting Systems
Rillito River Solar, LLC v. Bamboo Industries LLC
In a lawsuit filed January 26, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Rillito sued Bamboo Industries LLC dba SolarHooks for alleged infringement of three patents relating to solar mounting systems.
The complaint lists SolarHooks’ Composition Flashing Kit as the accused product.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,153,700 (‘700 Patent), 9,134,044 (‘044 Patent) and 9,447,988 (‘988 Patent).
Entitled “Roofing system and method,” the ‘700 Patent is directed to a roof mounting system which includes a roof substrate and flashing supportable on the substrate and an outwardly extending projection having a concave interior side and an aperture extending through the projection between top and bottom surfaces of the flashing. A seal is provided that is conformable with the concave interior side and can define a seal aperture substantially aligned with the flashing aperture.
The ‘044 and ‘988 Patents are entitled “Roof mount assembly” and directed to a mount assembly which includes a flashing including an aperture, a bracket including a first portion and a second portion, the first portion having an opening and a countersink extending around the opening, the second portion extending at an angle away from the flashing, the second portion including a slot configured to be coupled to the structure, a fastener, and a seal extending around the aperture and positioned between the flashing and the first portion of the bracket, the seal engaging the countersink of the bracket and being compressed against the flashing.
This article was originally published on Eric's Green Patent Blog.