As with many things, July and August were slow months for green patent litigation. However, a handful of green patent complaints were filed in the last two months in the areas of solar power, green chemicals, smart meters, and, of course, LEDs.
Solar Power
Conlin v. Solarcraft, Inc.
Kevin L. Conlin sued Solarcraft on July 2, 2014 in federal court in Houston, Texas. The complaint alleges that several patents relating to portable solar power units are invalid or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Conlin further alleges that he should have been named as an inventor on the patents.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,832,253, entitled “Portable weather resistant gas chromatograph system”
U.S. Patent No. 7,843,163, entitled “Portable weather resistant enclosure”
U.S. Patent No. 7,750,502, entitled “Portable weather resistant flow meter system”
U.S. Patent No. 7,795,837, entitled “Portable solar power supply trailer with a security containment area and multiple power interfaces”
U.S. Patent No. 7,880,333, entitled “Method for weather resistant portable flow metering”
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. SunEdison, Inc.
A previous post discussed du Pont’s solar paste patent litigation with Heraeus and another post detailed the parties’ subsequent legal wrangling over a press release and customer letters du Pont wrote about the litigation.
Armed with a new solar paste patent, du Pont has sued SunEdison. Filed August 21, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Du Pont’s complaint accuses SunEdison of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,497,420 (’420 Patent).
The ’420 Patent is entitled “Thick-film pastes containing lead- and tellurium-oxides, and their use in the manufacture of semiconductor devices” an directed to a thick-film paste for printing the front-side of a solar cell having one or more insulating layers. The thick-film paste comprises an electrically conductive metal and a lead-tellurium-oxide dispersed in an organic medium.
Green Chemicals
Koch Agronomic Services, LLC v. Eco Agro Resources, LLC
In this lawsuit over a treatment agent for fertilizer, Koch accuses Eco Agro of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,698,003 (’003 Patent). The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on August 13, 2014.
The ’003 Patent is entitled “Formulation for fertilizer additive concentrate” and directed to solvent systems for the formulation of certain urease inhibitors. These formulations enable the preparation of stable concentrated solutions for storage, transportation, and impregnation onto solid urea fertilizers and incorporation into liquid urea fertilizers.
According to the complaint, Eco Agro’s N-YIELD product, an environmentally-friendly urease inhibitor used to treat urea-based fertilizers, infringes the ’003 Patent.
Smart Meters
Sensor-Tech Innovations LLC v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
On July 16, 2014 Sensor-Tech sued CenterPoint for patent infringement in federal court in Marshall, Texas. According to the complaint, CenterPoint’s Advanced Metering System infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,505,086 (’086 Patent).
Entitled “XML sensor system,” the ’086 Patent is directed to a sensor communication system comprising an array of sensors adapted to transmit sensor data in XML format.
LEDs
Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. JST Performance, Inc.
Philips has asserted eleven LED patents against JST in an infringement action filed July 23, 2014 in federal court in Orlando, Florida.
According to the complaint, the patents are infringed by JST products in the A-Series, D-Series, E-Series, SR-Series, SR-M, SR-Q, RDS Series, Q-Series, and Wake Flame product lines, and LED products used in LED Lighting Devices such as dome lights, deck lights, driving lights, fog lights, light bars, spotlights, floodlights, diffused lights, and marine lighting products.
The asserted patents are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire”
U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690, entitled “Luminaire based on the light emission of light-emitting diodes”
U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890, entitled “LED driver circuit with PWM output”
U.S. Patent No. 6,692,136, entitled “LED/phosphor-LED hybrid lighting systems”
U.S. Patent No. 6,788,011, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”
U.S. Patent No. 6,806,659, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”
U.S. Patent No. 6,967,448, entitled “Methods and apparatus for controlling illumination”
U.S. Patent No. 7,030,572, entitled “Lighting arrangement”
U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, entitled “LEDS driver”
U.S. Patent No. 7,348,604, entitled “Light-emitting module”
U.S. Patent No. 7,566,155, entitled “LED light system”
Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Curtis International Ltd.
Filed July 22, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Seoul’s 7-patent complaint accuses Curtis’s LED televisions sold under the Proscan brand name of infringement.
The following patents are listed in the complaint:
U.S. Patent No. 8,314,440, entitled “Light emitting diode chip and method of fabricating the same”
U.S. Patent No. 7,964,943, entitled “Light emitting device”
U.S. Patent No. 7,626,209, entitled “Light emitting diode having active region of multi quantum well structure”
U.S. Patent No. 7,572,653, entitled “Method of fabricating light emitting diode”
U.S. Patent No. 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor components”
U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554, entitled “Lighting apparatus having low profile”
U.S. Patent No. 6,007,209, entitled “Light source for backlighting”
