September 8, 2010  
Contact Us
English Español
Top News
 
CH-3
The fight for cleantech patents

GS CleanTech filed six different suits for patent infringement in several states in the US. The suits alleges that several companies have copied the company's method of recovering inedible corn oil from the byproducts of corn-derived ethanol production.
By GreenMomentum staff | May 11, 2010
ford_ethanol.jpg
GS CleanTech filed six different suits for patent infringement in several states in the US. The suits alleges that several companies have copied the company's method of recovering inedible corn oil from the byproducts of corn-derived ethanol production.

According to a nice report from Business Week, Bloomberg, GreenShift Corp., a New York-based company that developed and commercialized clean technologies, sued 15 ethanol producers for patent infringement.

The company's GS CleanTech unit filed six separate patent- infringement suits May 3 in federal courts in Madison, Wisconsin; North Dakota; Chicago; Lafayette, Indiana; Minnesota and Iowa. The ethanol producers -- who make fuel from corn --are located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota.

All the suits allege infringement of GreenShift's patent 7,601,858, which covers a method of recovering inedible corn oil from the byproducts of corn-derived ethanol production. The oil can then be used for biodiesel, according to the patent.

GreenShift sued a unit of GEA Group AG for patent infringement the same day that patent was issued in October.

On May 6 GreenShift filed a request with the U.S. Judicial Patent on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all the pending patent suits to one federal court.

GreenShift said it would rather not sue ethanol producers for patent infringement. "We would much rather focus on win-win solutions," David Winsness, the company's chief technology officer, said in a statement May 7.

Defendants in the various new cases are Big River Resources West Burlington LLC of West Burlington, Illinois; Center Ethanol LLC of Sauget, Illinois; Lincolnland Agri-Energy LLC of Palestine, Illinois; Cardinal Ethanol LLC of Union City, Indiana; Iroquois BioEnergy Company LLC of Rensselear, Indiana; Amaizing Energy LLC of Denison, Iowa; Big River Resources Galva LLC of Galva, Iowa; Lincolnway Energy LLC of Nevada, Iowa; Al- Corn Clean Fuel LLC of Claremont, Minnesota; Bushmills Ethanol Inc. of Atwater, Minnesota; Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. LLLP of Benson, Minnesota; Heartland Corn Products LLC of Winthrop, Minnesota; Blue Flint Ethanol LLC of Underwood, North Dakota; ACE Ethanol LLC of Stanley, Wisconsin; and United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC, based in Friesland, Wisconsin.

The initial case, filed Oct. 13, is GS CleanTech Corp. v. GEA Westfalia Separator Inc., 1:09-cv-08642-LMM, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Ford Says Fusion, Escape Hybrid Vehicles Don't Infringe Patent

Ford Motor Co. is seeking a court ruling that it doesn't have to pay a Florida company patent royalties on sales of the Fusion and Escape hybrid vehicles.

In a complaint filed May 7 in federal court in Detroit, Ford asked a court to rule that a patent owned by Paice LLC is invalid and not infringed. Paice filed its own patent- infringement suit the same day against Ford in Texas, in a court district considered friendly to patent owners. Judges will have to decide where the dispute will be heard.

Ford said it had talks with Paice beginning in 2001, and in 2004 Paice sought to "strong-arm Ford representatives into using Paice's Hyperdrive system." On May 6, Paice contacted Ford about licensing the patent. Ford, quoting from a Paice letter, said the closely held company cited the "introduction of the new Ford Fusion Hybrid" and what Paice called "a clear use of Paice's patented technology."

Ford sued Paice in 2005, seeking a ruling that its Escape hybrid didn't use Paice's technology. The case was dismissed because the law at that time limited the filing of such pre- emptive suits. The Supreme Court has since changed the standard, making it easier to bring such cases.

Paice, which is an acronym for "Power-Assisted Internal Combustion Engines," won a 2005 patent-infringement trial against Toyota Motor Corp. over older hybrid models and has a suit, also pending in Texas, over newer models. It also has a case pending at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington that could result in a ban on imports of the newer Toyota models. A hearing is scheduled to begin in July.

Paice's patent is for a way to supply torque, or force, to a car's wheels from both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine.

The case is Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, 10-cv11866, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit). The Paice case is Paice v. Ford Motor Co., 10cv92, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana).

Source: Business Week


Add Comment:  
Name: E-mail:
Comment:  
Type these characters:
Comments
 
dWheeler | May 26, 2010
The Paice v. Ford/Toyota cases are just two more examples of how broken the patent system is today. One could make a strong argument that Paice should not have been granted a patent originally. The first granted US patent to cover the combination of torque from an internal combustion engine and an electric motor dates back the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1909, US Patent No. 288,181 was granted to Henri Pieper for a "Mixed Drive for Autovehicles". The '181 patent is the true grandfather of all hybrids and it is actually quite shocking how little we have improved upon it in the past 101 years. All of Paice's patents, indeed all pa...
 
 
LAWEA
Latin American Wind Energy Association
http://www.lawea.org
 
Dynamo One
INNOV4TIV3 THINKIN6 http://www.dynamone.com/
 
Grupo Public
Business Strategy Center http://www.public.com.mx/