Several new green patent lawsuits were filed in the last couple of months in the areas of LEDs, smart grid technologies, concentrated solar power, solar inverters, green dry cleaning solvents, and water treatment.
Cree, Inc. v. Harvatek Corporation et al.
North Carolina LED maker Cree filed a couple of patent infringement suits in September and October. In the first, Cree sued Harvatek for alleged infringement of six patents relating to white light LED technology. The complaint was filed September 15, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Three of the asserted patents are of a first patent family and share the same title. Another two are part of a second family and share a title. The patents-in-suit are as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175, entitled “Solid state white light emitter and display using same”
U.S. Patent No. 7,943,945, entitled “Solid state white light emitter and display using same”
U.S. Patent No. 8,659,034, entitled “Solid state white light emitter and display using same” (’034 Patent)
U.S. Patent No. 7,910,938, entitled “Encapsulant profile for light emitting diodes” (’938 Patent)
U.S. Patent No. 8,766,298, entitled “Encapsulant profile for light emitting diodes” (’298 Patent)
U.S. Patent No. 8,362,605, entitled “Apparatus and method for use in mounting electronic elements”
The complaint alleges that a number of Harvatek’s white LED products infringe the patents.
Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc.
The second suit accuses Honeywell of infringing the ’034, ’938, and ’298 Patents as well as U.S. Patent No. 8,860,058, entitled “Solid state white light emitter and display using same.”
Filed in the Western District of Wisconsin on October 28, 2014, the complaint alleges that Honeywell’s Automation and Control Systems and Aerospace business units are selling infringing products using Cree’s patent white LED technology for backlighting.
The accused products include liquid crystal display devices in Honeywell’s Aviation Lighting and Cockpit Displays, Environment & Combustion Controls, Scanning and Mobility devices, and Measurement and Control Systems as well as certain programmable thermostat products.
Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. EnergyHub, Inc.
On October 14, 2014, Endeavor MeshTech (a wholly-owned subsidiary of patent monetization firm Endeavor IP) filed a patent infringement complaint against Brooklyn-based EnergyHub in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint (Endeavor complaint part_1; Endeavor complaint part_2) accuses EnergyHub of infringing three patents in a family – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,379,981, 8,700,749, and 8,855,019, each entitled “Wireless communication enabled meter and network.” The patents-in-suit relate to a self-configuring wireless network including a number vnodes and VGATES.
According to the complaint, EnergyHub’s self-configuring wireless network marketed and sold under the name of its Mercury platform infringe the patents.
Concentrated Solar Power
Schott Solar CSP GmbH v. SkyFuel, Inc. et al.
Schott filed suit against SkyFuel and Weihai Golden Solar October 23, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,013,887 (’887 Patent) relating to solar absorption receivers used in certain concentrated solar power (CSP) applications.
Entitled “Absorber pipe for solar heating applications,” the ’887 Patent is directed to an absorber pipe having a central metal pipe, a sleeve tube, folding bellows, and an expansion compensation device that connects the metal pipe and sleeve tube so that they can slide relative to each other.
According to the complaint, the defendants sell infringing receivers and/or build and install CSP plants incorporating infringing receivers.
Enphase Energy, Inc. v. SolarBridge Technologies, Inc.
Inverter maker Enphase Energy sued SolarBridge, alleging infringement of three patents relating to solar inverter technology. The complaint was filed October 10, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,768,155 and 8,035,257, both entitled “Method and apparatus for improved burst mode during power conversion” and U.S. Patent No. 7,986,122, entitled “Method and apparatus for power conversion with maximum power point tracking and burst mode capability.”
The patents relate to systems and methods for converting DC power generated by solar panels to AC power for the electric grid and includes methodology for storing energy and drawing energy during burst periods and controlling burst modes to improve efficiency in low sunlight conditions.
The accused products are SolarBridge’s Pantheon microinverter and TrueAC module.
Green Dry Cleaning Solvents
GreenEarth Cleaning, L.L.C. v. Glyndon Laundry, Inc. d/b/a Glyndon Lord Baltimore Cleaners
Filed September 22, 2014 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, GreenEarth’s complaint accuses Glyndon of, among other things, patent and trademark infringement.
GreenEarth alleges that Glyndon is infringing its “base” patent – U.S. Patent No. 5,942,007 (’007 Patent) – as well as nine other patents which are “variations” of the ’007 Patent. The ’007 Patent is entitled “Dry cleaning method and solvent” and directed to methods of dry cleaning clothes using a cleaning fluid including a cyclic siloxane composition.
GreenEarth also accuses Glyndon of infringing its trademarks including its leaf and water droplet logo:
According to the complaint, GreenEarth licensed its trademarks and patented processes to Glyndon, but Glyndon stopped paying the requisite fees after August 2013 and continued to use the licensed intellectual property.
Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Acqua Concepts, Inc. (DBA Ag Water Chemical of California)
Deerpoint, a provider of water treatment solutions for the agriculture industry, sued Acqua and two former Deerpoint employees in federal court in Fresno, California.
Filed September 25, 2014, the complaint accuses Acqua of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,238,573 (’573 Patent) and 7,638,064 (’064 Patent) and alleges that its former employees misappropriated trade secrets including confidential products and services, client lists, and pricing information.
The ’573 Patent is entitled “Water treatment” and directed to a process for producing chlorine for water treatment including blending calcium hypochlorite and water to form a saturated solution of calcium hypochlorite and a sink of calcium hypochlorite and feeding chlorinated water to a water supply.
The ’064 Patent is verbosely titled “Continuously feeding chlorine to the irrigation system, monitoring an outer field point to determine whether at least a detectable level of residual chlorine is seen at that point, whereby chlorination disinfection system-wide is achieved.”