In a previous post, I discussed the infringement suit in which Kruse Technology Partnership (“Kruse”) accused several automakers, including Daimler, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen, Ford and Chrysler of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,265,562 (“’562 patent”), 6,058,904 (“’904 patent”) and 6,405,704 (“’704 patent”) relating to higher efficiency and lower
Tag:
infringement
A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks in the areas of biofuels, LEDs, gasoline recycling, and smart grid.
Biofuels
Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo, Inc.; Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels
A previous post discussed one of GE’s more recent wind patent infringement suits against Mitsubishi.
Filed in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, the complaint (gecomplaint.pdf) alleges that Mitsubishi’s 2.4 megawatt wind turbine infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,055 (’055 Patent) and 7,629,705 (’705 Patent).
In addition to the high legal fees and exposure to potentially hefty damages payouts that accompany allegations of intellectual property infringement, such lawsuits can also be dark clouds over defendants, hampering their ability to do business.
A salient example of this in cleantech is the news that
In a previous post, I wrote about patent litigation between Canadian utility Hydro-Quebec (H-Q) and Massachusetts based lithium ion battery maker A123 Systems (A123), in which A123 lost its bid to have its declaratory judgment action litigated in its desired forum of Boston.
Dutch electronics giant Philips and its LED subsidiary Philips Lumileds Lighting Company (collectively “Philips”) have launched the opening shot in what could become a major green patent war.
In a complaint (Philips-Seoul-Complaint) filed last month in federal court in Santa Ana, California, Philips accused its Korean
In a previous post, I discussed the patent litigation between Boston area lithium ion battery maker A123 Systems Inc. (A123) and Canadian utility Hydro-Quebec (H-Q).
A123 initially brought a suit in April 2006 against H-Q in federal court in Boston as a declaratory judgment (DJ) action for non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,910,382 (’382 Patent) and 6,514,640