Color temperature, from “warm” reds and oranges, to “cool” blues. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Adoniscik.

What is correlated color temperature?

Correlated color temperature (CCT) measures the color of a lighting source, from “warm” color temperatures (reddish, yellow hues) to “cool” color temperatures (blueish hues), and “pure white” in between.

In technical terms, the color temperature of a light is equivalent to the temperature of an ideal black body radiator that radiates light of a similar color to the light source. Consequently CCT is measured in kelvins (K), the unit of absolute temperature.

The chart below is from EagleLight’s LED University. It provides a good overview of different color temperature measures, and examples of each:

Examples of various color temperature ranges. Image Credit: EagleLight’s LED University.

In the LED industry, references to “cool white” or “warm white” light bulbs reflect the color temperature of the light emitted from the LED bulb.

Why is it important for lighting?

Light affects the body’s circadian cycles, i.e. the sleep and wake cycles of everyday life. This is due to light’s effects on melatonin, a hormone secreted by humans to regulate their circadian rhythms. Blue light, or blue light wavelengths in broad-spectrum light suppresses melatonin production. This is why bright midday sunlight, composed of more short blue wavelengths, encourages wakefulness, while a dark room encourages the production of melatonin, and therefore sleep.

Artificial lighting, done poorly, can disrupt the body’s natural circadian rhythms and aggravate sleep disorders by suppressing melatonin production. Too much blue light at night is a reason why many people do not sleep enough, and too little sleep can increase the risks of depression, diabetes, and cardiovascular problems. In addition, previous research suggests that prolonged exposure to blue light may cause retinal damage.

On the flip side, artificial lighting that mimics broad-spectrum sunlight and natural circadian rhythms can help contribute to well being and productivity. For instance, daytime office lighting with a high correlated colour temperature can improve alertness and workplace productivity. A 2007 report analyzed the effects of replacing 2900k flourescent lights with 17000k lights on shift workers, and found that the employees experienced a 26.9% drop in fatigue, 28.2% increase in alertness, and 19.4% increase in work performance.

In addition to the effects of blue light on health and well-being, color temperature can have pronounced aesthetic effects. If a “white light” is too yellow or blue, it will cast a yellowish or blue tint on the objects underneath it, and will not produce a saturated range of colours found under a broad-spectrum white light. This makes lighting with too high or low of a color temperature unsuitable for photography, film, art installations, and certain residential markets.

LEDs & color temperature control

White LED light sources are composed of more of blue light wavelengths than incandescents, and even flourescent bulbs. This is because most white LED bulbs user highly efficient blue InGaN LEDs to produce the light. The chart below, taken from patent US8253336, showcases the wavelengths of light emitted from these three devices (Curve B – incandescent, Curve C – flourescent, Curve D – white LED).

The wavelengths of light emitted from various light sources. Image taken from patent US8253336 “LED lamp for producing biologically-corrected light.”

The light output from the first few generations of white LEDs also had less than appealing aesthetic qualities. In order to produce the white light from these blue LEDs, manufacturere would coat the blue LED die with a yellow phosphor layer. These original YAG phosphors would produce a dim, yellow light.

Luckily, new phosphor compounds, remote phosphors, and advanced drivers and dimmers offer improved methods of controlling the color temperature of LEDs, with resulting benefits in aesthetics and human health.

For instance, patent application US20110084614, “Led Lighting System” from Summalux, describes a system for generating light “using spectral characteristics that resembles sunlight.” Through a system of user-inputted data on geography and time of day, sensors, white and color LEDs, and network controllers, the LED lighting system is able to display light from 1800K to 6500K – the range of color temperatures of daytime sunlight. In addition, the patent application discloses methods for adjusting the blue component of the light from 1-100%, even when color temperature maintains steady, to facilitate circadian responses.

Issued patent US8253336, “LED lamp for producing biologically-corrected light” from Biological Illumination, LLC, describes a system for generating broad spectrum light that minimizes melatonin suppression. This is accomplished through the use of color filters that subtract certain wavelengths of light.  One of the claims, for instance, describes the use of color filter Roscolux #87 Pale Yellow Green with a 2700K color temperature blue-pumped white LED.

Intematix’s issued patent US8203260, “Color temperature tunable white light source,” describes another means by which users can adjust the color temperature of a white LED. Here, the color temperature of the light source is controlled by altering the magnitude of the drive currents behind two led arrays of different color temperatures. A remote phosphor is attached to at least one LED of one of the arrays, and the varying magnitude of the drive current affects the wavelengths of light emitted by the remote phosphor. Another method for tuning the light involves controlling a duty cycle of the drive current, thereby controlling the relative proportion of time each LED emits light.

Consumers matter

Manufacturers and installers should push for the production and installation of higher quality, tunable white LED lights. Given the growth of the LED market, and individual and government demand for more energy-efficient, environmentally-friendly lighting solutions, it is tempting to push for immediate and mass development and installation of LEDs – and worry about health and aesthetic concerns later.

This, however, is a bad idea for consumers and the LED industry in the long term. We only have to look at previous consumer backlash to a new lighting solution – compact flourescents. Despite CFL’s energy saving property, many people baulked at putting them in their homes and offices due to their harsh lighting and poor aesthetic qualities. The emerging concern over the health effects of mercury found in CFLs prompted a second backlash against this new lighting technology.

In order for LEDs to stay in the market, manufacturers and installers need to prioritize broad-spectrum, biologically appropriate lighting sources to satisfy current and future consumer concerns, rather than focusing on just being the lowest-cost provider. This will be a win-win for LED makers and end-users alike.

After all, at the end of the day, we all need to be able to turn off our lights and get a good night’s sleep.

LED Patent Filing Geographic Trends 1992-2012

IP Checkups recently hosted and presented a four-hour IP workshop at the Strategies in Light conference in Santa Clara, CA. The workshop started with three slide presentations and ended with an interactive panel discussion. Panel members included IP Checkups’ team and four additional experts.

The first presenter was Paul Kallmes, the ex-head of licensing and patent portfolio manager at Color Kinetics. Mr. Kallmes spoke about IP Business Strategies in the LED industry and encouraged the audience to find ways to prioritize license agreements. He said, “If licensing revenue can be created, the nearly-100% profit margin can quickly become addictive”. Mr. Kallmes emphasized the importance of creating a strong technology platform, continuous monitoring of the IP Landscape, and treating IP as a strategic business asset, not just a legal function.

Next, Kathryn Paisner spoke. Kathryn is the Director of Research at IP Checkups. Using examples from IP Checkups’ patent analytics tool, LED PatentEdge^TM, Dr. Paisner presented an overview of patenting trends in the LED industry with a specific focus on the Philips portfolio.  The presentation also featured a snapshot of industry-wide patenting trends, including patent filing rates and top assignees in different technology areas, such as color mixing and LED Phosphors. Dr. Paisner’s presentation ended with a brief overview of some of the smaller players in the LED space, including SiOnyx, Evident Technologies, Brasscorp, Yipi Pte., among others.  She concluded by articulating how competitive patent data provides an excellent source of competitive intelligence for business development, legal, marketing, and R&D departments.

IP Checkups Co-Founder and President, Matthew Rappaport updated the audience on the state of the patent monetization market. He described and defined the unique and overlapping characteristics of various patent monetization business models including patent assertion entities (PAE’s), patent trolls, patent privateers, defensive patent aggregators and others. Mr. Rappaport highlighted a few case studies including Unwired Planet’s recent acquisition of patents from Ericsson, and Mosaid’s complex deal with Microsoft and Nokia, to exemplify the sophistication of the patent monetization market. Mr. Rappaport concluded his remarks by emphasizing the importance of staying on top of the broader patent landscape by researching and analyzing competitive patent information.

After a short break, four panelists were invited to speak about their experiences in the LED industry.

The panelists featured Peter Kim, IP Strategy Consultant, Peter Kim Consulting; Albert Harnois Sr., Associate General Counsel, Bridgelux, Inc.; Chad Stalker, Regional Marketing Manager of the Americas, Philips Lumileds Lighting Co.; and Rob Kramer, Patent Litigation Partner, Dentons LLP.

Mr. Harnois answered questions related to the upcoming implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA) on March 16^th, 2013. He focused specifically on the US Patent Office’s switch from a ‘first to invent’ system to a ‘first inventor to file’ system. Next, Peter Kim presented “Top 10 Things I Learned from Being a Patent Troll”, drawing on his experiences at Acacia and Rambus. Then, Rob Kramer discussed various strategies to ward off patent litigation, and how to deal with the new laws regarding the scope of prior art, introduced through the AIA. Finally, Chad Stalker provided insight from his days at Color Kinetics (CK). Along with Paul Kallmes, Mr. Stalker discussed the challenges of trying to negotiate licenses and market the CK portfolio to “customers” for double digit royalties.

All in all, this was a very successful event. IP Checkups was pleased by the diversity of its panel members’ backgrounds and the overall level of engagement from the audience. For a copy of IP Checkups’ slides, click here. If you are interested in getting in touch with the other panelists please contact us.

IdleAir electrification stations for truck drivers. Image courtesy of www.idleair.com.

Clean Air From a Good Night’s Sleep?

IdleAir is an innovative company that provides long-haul truck drivers an alternative to idling their engines during rest periods. Through nationwide truck stops, IdleAir provides heating, AC, internet, and TV services to truckers – allowing them to get a good night’s sleep without emitting the diesel exhaust from an idling engine. In addition, IdleAir users save a gallon of diesel fuel per truck per hour and prevent wear and tear to their vehicles, lowering truck maintenance and repair costs for an entire fleet.

The company made headlines recently for its new partnership with GM subsidiary Chevrolet. On January 31, 2013 the car company announced its intentions to invest in the IdleAir technology and expand its availability across the nation. This initiative is part of Chevrolet’s broader carbon-reduction campaign to reduce carbon emissions. Launched in November 2010, Chevrolet seeks to invest up to $40 million in various carbon-reducing projects with a goal of reducing eight million tons of CO2.

Bouncing Back from Recession

Founded in 2000 in Knoxville, Tennessee, IdleAir once had more than 130 sites in 34 states. Unfortunately, recessionary pressures got the best of the company, and IdleAir filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2008.

Luckily for IdleAir, and truck drivers, a group of cleantech-minded investors and businessmen bought the rights to IdleAir’s core intellectual property and technology in 2010. The new investment group, Convoy Solutions, LLC set out to restore IdleAir’s business and ramp up locations across the United States. Since the relaunch in 2010, IdleAir has secured over $15 million, in addition to the as yet undisclosed investment dollars from Chevrolet.

IdleAir Technology

IdleAire, Inc., IdleAire Technologies Corporation, and parent company, Convoy Solutions LLC, currently own five pending patent applications, and four issued patents.

 Application Database: Assignee IdleAire or Convoy

Patent Database: Assignee IdleAire or Convoy

IdleAir’s patents relate to two core features – a conduit, containing air ducts and cables, connected to a supply panel/ ventilation head. Unlike many patent documents, the images in the IdleAir patents correlate pretty fairly with how the product currently looks.

The conduit, pictured below, looks like a giant bendy-straw. Truck drivers install a removable window adapter, that forms an airtight seal between the truck window and the conduit.

IdleAir electrification station technology. Image from US Patent 6,482,080.

The supply panel/ ventilation head, pictured below, includes a HVAC unit, interactive touch screen display, and credit card reader. After inputting payment information, truck drivers can access the touch screen display to adjust the temperature, charge their phones, or access internet/TV services.

IdleAir’s service module, featuring an HVAC unit and interactive touch screen. Image from US patent 6705938.

IdleAir’s service module, as featured on its website. Image courtesy of www.idleair.com.

What’s Next?

For IdleAir to be successful, it will need to ensure that the costs of using IdleAir stations can compete with the costs of idling. Chevrolet’s investment will help on this end. If IdleAir stations are ubiquituous, truckers will not have to make costly decisions to change their routes or stop early to take advantage of its services.

Of course, in the long term, alternative technologies may make diesel truck engines obsolete – electrification of trucks perhaps? In this case, we hope IdleAir continues to push the boundaries of innovation, and maybe, just maybe, become the rest stop and battery charging station for the fleet of the future.

The power of information sharing! Image of a scientific “collaboration network”. Source: USCD Jacobs, http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=299

When IP Checkups launched Case IV Thicket last October, I had the fortune soon thereafter of speaking with Aaron Greenspan, founder of Plainsite, about our project. Plainsite is an online legal database dedicated to bringing transparency to the legal system.

Mr. Greenspan had read about our project to uncover Intellectual Ventures, and became excited about the possibilities of cataloging the USPTO patent assignment database in a more intelligent way. He launched his own initiative to research Intellectual Ventures’ shell companies, and just yesterday, published the results on Plainsite.

The full list of over 2000 potential Intellectual Ventures shell companies is available here, and more details of the methodology behind the list can be found on the Plainsite blog.

Mr. Greenspan has given us permission to post the full list of shell companies on our public NPE Tracker – to be launched mid-January. Over the next few months, IP Checkups and outside volunteers will vet the data to remove any non-IV affiliated companies, and determine if additional IV shell companies can be found through this data.

US Design Patent (D670596 “Christmas Decoration”) assigned to Santa’s North Pole Light Factory AB in Sweden.

The movement towards a clean energy future demands the hard work and ingenuity of our scientists and engineers – people who spend their days imagining and creating solutions for our most pressing energy needs. As the holiday season approaches, we would like to take the time to recognize some of the top renewable energy inventors of 2012.

Biofuels:

The top biofuels inventors, as measured by number of US patent grants in 2012 (as of 12/11/12).

The top biofuel inventors of 2012, by a long stretch, are co-inventors Aniket Kale, Milton Sommerfeld, and Qiang Hu of Arizona State University (ASU). This is not surprising, given Professors Milton Sommerfeld and Qiang Hu‘s years of experience researching and optimizing various strains of algae for fuel production, pharmaceuticals, foods, and other applications.

Most of Kale, Sommerfeld, and Hu’s 2012 patents are assigned to Heliae Development, an algae technology company based in Gilbert, AZ. The relationship between ASU and Heliae has lasted over 4 years. In 2008, Heliae signed a technology licensing agreement with ASU, and in return, contributed $3 million towards biofuel R&D at ASU. In 2010, Science Foundation Arizona, ASU, and Heliae partnered to develop a world-class algae R&D center at ASU.

Congratulations again to Kale, Sommerfeld, and Hu for being the top biofuel innovators in 2012! We look forward to hearing more about your algae research in the years to come.

Solar:

The top solar inventors, as measured by number of US patent grants in 2012 (as of 12/11/12).

The top solar inventor of 2012 is Bulent Basol. Basol claims his fame from his work on high-efficiency thin film solar cells, in particular, low-cost electrodeposition methods for CIGS solar cells.

Bulent Basol was the founder of SoloPower, a San Jose-based company that researches and produces flexible CIGS solar panels based on Basol’s research. Just this past October, Solopower received a Solar Industry Award from Solar International magazine. Basol was chief technology officer at SoloPower until 2009, before moving on to form EncoreSolar. Another San Jose-based company, EncoreSolar uses Basol’s innovative electrodeposition techniques to produce cadmium-telluride (CdTe) solar cells.

Congratulations Bulent Basol on being our top solar inventor and developing new ways to produce low cost solar cells!

Wind Power:

The top wind power inventors, as measured by number of US patent grants in 2012 (as of 12/11/12).

In wind power, we have a tie for top US patent grants between two foreign inventors:

Jacob Johannes Nies is an engineer for General Electric, and is based in the city of Zwolle, Netherlands. Most of his inventions relate to improving the mechanics of wind turbine blades to improve their efficiency and reliability. For instance, his most recent US granted patent (US8321062 “Systems and method for operating a wind turbine having active flow control”) addresses the removal of debris from wind turbines, through a combination of computer monitoring systems,  air pumps/fans, and robotic cleaning devices.

Numajiri Tomohiro is an engineer for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and is based in Nagasaki, Japan. His work focuses on improving the structure of wind power towers and generators. His latest US granted patent (US8313266 “Construction method and construction apparatus for offshore wind turbine generator”), addresses the adverse ocean conditions of constructing an offshore wind turbine. His patent outlines a crane ship that can grip an offshore wind turbine while doing maintenance work, thereby avoiding alignment issues between a crane and a turbine caused by ocean waves.

Congratulations again to Jacob Nies and Numajiri Tomohiro for being the top wind power inventors of 2012! We hope to see your patents in action soon on the next GE and Mitsubishi wind turbines.

Do you know a cleantech inventor that has done amazing things and should be featured on our blog? Send an email to info@ipcheckups.com, subject “Inventor,” with details about your hero inventor. We will let you know within a few days if we will highlight the inventor in our next blog.

Top U.S. assignees in the lithium-ion battery space, ranked by their lithium iron phosphate patent holdings. More information regarding patent ownership and patent filing rates in LiFePO4 electrodes, advanced batteries, and other energy storage technologies can be found in the CleanTech PatentEdge.

In August, Chinese industrial giant Wanxiang announced its intent to rescue Waltham, Massachusetts-based lithium-ion battery manufacturer A123 from insolvency. In a memorandum of understanding released by the two companies, Wanxiang pledged to invest up to $450m in A123, provided that–among other things–A123 maintain its current level of R&D and engineering operations (including any associated personnel).This condition, along with Wanxiang’s past investment in struggling U.S. cleantech companies, appears to indicate that Wanxiang is interested in A123′s technical know-how.

A123′s patent assets may also be a factor. Transferred to Wanxiang earlier this year, A123′s patent portfolio is unlikely to be worth $450m on its own; however, it does represent the largest collection of U.S.-issued lithium iron phosphate (LFP) patents (and pending applications) owned by any company–domestic or otherwise–operating in the United States. For a company looking for business opportunities in the alternative energy storage space, this must be a highly attractive asset.

Diagram of Rentricity’s Flow-to-Wire (SM) energy recovery system. Image taken from US patent application: US20060082159.

Rentricity, a startup based in New York City, seeks to generate electricity from untapped pressure in drinking water pipes. Rentricity was one of four finalists selected from the 2012 Cleantech Open Northeast Regional Competition, and will advance to the Cleantech Open Global Forum later this week.

When most people think of hydropower, they think of large installations like the Hoover Dam. Rentricity rethinks hydropower on the micro scale, producing electricity from excess pressure in residential and industrial water pipes.  This pressure comes from many sources, including water moving downhill, chemical reactions in the water, and compressed gas that is released in the pipes.

Currently, utilities install pressure reduction valves (“PRVs”) in pipes to relieve this excess pressure, but do not convert this hydrokinetic energy into something useful. Rentricity’s “flow-to-wire(SM)” system combines a coupled turbine and generator, to produce electricity from water flow, with a complete electrical control and sensor unit, to send and receive signals from the water utility or power grid. This allows Rentricity’s technology to feed electricity back to the water utility (or directly to the grid) in a controlled manner.

According to Rentricity’s profile on the Cleantech Open website, the company hopes to use part of any “cash and in-kind services awarded…to strengthen the intellectual property portfolio so vital to raising a successful venture capital round.” This will be very necessary for the company, since as far as we can tell, Rentricity only has one published US patent application – US20060082159, and no US patent grants.  In fact, it looks like this patent application was abandoned in 2007 for failure to respond to a USPTO office action.

Of course, given the 18 month delay in patent filing and patent publication, it is possible that Rentricity has filed additional patents in the past 18 months that have yet to publish. Either way, Rentricity has to improve the scope and quality of its patent portfolio soon, or risk losing the patent battle to potential competitors.

For instance, a quick search of Rentricity’s technology reveals a granted patent (US7357599) held by Criptonic Energy Solutions in Michigan. Criptonic’s patent discloses a system that generates power from piped sewage and wastewater. The patent even cites an article about Rentricity’s technology! Rentricity needs to file new patents soon, or risk additional competitors following the same tactic as Criptonic, and patenting other innovations on Rentricity’s core technology.

In the end, we wish Rentricity luck in the Cleantech Open Global Forum this week. If Rentricity’s technology can succeed at scale, this will be a boon for water utilities and consumers across the country.

Crowdfunded Indiegogo campaign to shed light on Intellectual Ventures.

If you haven’t heard – we at IP Checkups have launched a crowdfunded Indiegogo project to reveal Intellectual Ventures patent portfolio to the public. Check out our campaign site here: www.indiegogo.com/iv-thicket

During our fundraising, many backers have asked us for examples of our research methodology and process. Below is a sample of the initial patent searches and analyses that we will use for Case IV Thicket. Within a week or so, all of the data described below will be uploaded to PatentCAM, our web-based patent database tool, for the public to see. Check back here for updated website details!

Initial Steps:

Let’s begin by looking at US reassignment data, the USPTO’s records on changes in patent ownership (i.e. patent assignment). By searching for companies that have reassigned patents to IV directly, we can create an initial list of companies that have done business with IV through patent sales or licenses or have reassigned patents to third parties that have done business with IV through patent sales or license. This list may include IV shell companies, large corporations, research institutions, universities, bankrupted startups, and single inventors.

Next, we looked at the patent holdings and addresses of two potential IV shell companies: Purple Mountain Servers LLC and Rose Blush Software LLC. We chose these two companies since they are mentioned in numerous articles and reports such as NPR, Intellectual Assets Magazine, and Forbes.

Once we have the corporate addresses of Purple Mountain and Rose Blush (2711 Centerville Road, DE and 2215-B Renaissance Drive, Las Vegas, NV respectively), we can search the USPTO for other companies that have patent holdings at the same address. Since businesses often use the same mailing address for multiple shell companies, this may reveal other entities affiliated with IV.

This gives us three unique lists (Excel file: IV Thicket – Addresses and Reassigns – 11022012):

1) All patents, reassignee address at 2711 Centerville Road, Willmington DE 19808

• Search String: 2215-B Renaissance NOT Intellectual ADJ Ventures or 2711 Centerville
• 2712 Results

2) All patents, reassignee address at 2215-B Renaissance Drive Las Vegas Nevada 89119

• Search String: 2711 Centerville Rd NOT ((Intellectual ADJ Ventures) OR 2215-B Renaissance Drive
• 5266 Results

3) All patents, reassignee Intellectual Ventures

• Search String: Intellectual ADJ Ventures NOT((2711 Centerville Rd) OR (2215-B Renaissance Drive))
• 1640 Results

The next, and more difficult step, will be to vet all of the patent-holding entities to confirm whether or not they are IV shell companies. After removing known corporations and entities, we can check and see if the companies from any of these three searches have the following characteristics (not an exclusive list):

• reassigned patents to IV/ obtained patents from IV
• retained the same attorney or patent agents as IV or other potential IV shell companies
• engaged in litigation and disclosed any ties to IV or other potential IV shell companies
• employ officers that work at IV or other potential IV shell companies
• own patents that share the same inventor as IV patents or other potential IV shell companies
• maintained patent portfolios that complement IV’s portfolio or other potential IV shell companies

For example, David Martin Monro is listed as an inventor on multiple IV patents (e.g. US7907068, US7990289, US7974488). When we look at the list of patents for address 2215-B Renaissance Drive in Las Vegas, this same inventor is listed on patent US6990145, which is assigned to Ayscough Visuals LLC. Given that Ayscough Visuals shares an inventor with IV and the address of one of IV’s shell companies, Rose Blush, Ayscough is a potential IV shell company.

But we can dig deeper – if we look at the reassignment history of patent US6990145, we notice that Ayscough Visuals has another address in Los Altos – 171 Main Street #271. Guess what? This is the same address as the Los Altos office of Purple Mountain Server (see US7453752)!

As you can see, once we reveal more shell companies, this becomes an iterative process. With enough diligence, we can slowly unravel IV’s web of patents, as we compare the characteristics of each new potential IV shell company with former companies that we have vetted.

US Patent Filings by Cleantech Industry Sector (2000-2011)

IP Checkups, a Berkeley-based boutique patent analytics firm, today released the CleanTech PatentEdge (CTPE) Quarterly, a report on the latest trends in cleantech patent filings.

According to the report, cleantech patent filings in the United States have increased 40% annually since 2010, following a sharp decline in patent filings from 2007-2009. Much of this growth is driven by innovation in renewable energy generation, particularly solar and biofuels. In 2010, renewable energy generation accounted for 8464 patent filings in the US, followed by energy storage (5863 patent filings) and efficiency innovations (5634 patent filings).

Companies that file the most cleantech patents worldwide include automobile manufacturers like Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. In the United States, automobile makers also have a strong position in cleantech (Honda, Toyota, GM, and Nissan). Recent clean air initiatives and fuel mileage standards are the likely cause of these automobile innovations.

The CTPE Quarterly spotlights green nanomaterials as an emerging sector in cleantech. Universities and other research institutions like University of California, Tsinghua University, and Japan Science & Technology Corporation all have robust patent portfolios in this space. For the United States in particular, government plays a large role in the development of green nanomaterials, with the Department of Energy and U.S. Navy as two of the top patent holders in the space.

The full report is available here: CTPE Quarterly 10-2012.pdf

Data for the CTPE Quarterly is provided by IP Checkups’ CleanTech PatentEdge, an online database of over 1.6 million cleantech patents in 150 market categories. For more information, please visit <http://www.cleantechpatentedge.com>.

Patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) is on the rise.

Last October, Popular Mechanics reported that non-practicing entities (NPEs) may have “bled companies for half a trillion dollars” between 1990 and 2010. Sometimes called “patent trolls” by their detractors, NPEs are generally defined as companies that obtain most of their revenue from the licensing and/or enforcement of their intellectual property.

Not all NPEs are created equal. Some, such as the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial  Research Organization (CSIRO) are public institutions (or the licensing arms thereof), focused primarily on research and education. Others, such as Tessera Technologies (NASDAQ: TSRA) and Intellectual Ventures, combine legitimate research enterprises with patent licensing/enforcement units, where the latter form the basis of the companies’ revenue streams. The third type of NPE exists solely as a patent enforcement/licensing organization, and is far less common than the aforementioned research-and-licensing outlets.

If most NPEs perform legitimate research, why are they called “patent trolls”? Shouldn’t companies (and individual inventors) be encouraged to profit from their innovative efforts?

The answer to this is simple, at least on the surface. It takes a lot of hard work, and substantial financial resources, to develop a prototype into a marketable product. NPEs reap the benefit of successful products without investing heavily in development, marketing, and logistics.

Companies that have transformed an idea from lab bench prototype to marketable product are naturally irked by the notion that someone who had a similar idea — yet never developed it into anything useful — could be entitled to a substantial portion of their profits. Much of this irritation is likely tied to the magnitude of the financial awards that NPEs have enjoyed in recent years, as much as it is to any quibbles over innovators’ intellectual rights.

According to IPEG Consultancy, the median damages awarded to NPEs in patent infringement lawsuits was more than three times the median damages awarded to product-producing companies. The source(s) of this imbalance are likely multitudinous; however, one key factor could be that NPEs wait to ensure that a product is successful before pursuing infringement suits. Also, unlike product-producing companies, who generally enforce patents early, NPEs “frequently continue to litigate to the verge of [patent] expiration.”

As patent assertions continue to skyrocket, costly litigation–with both NPEs and industry competitors–has become more commonplace, and more public. Despite numerous public outcries, there is no indication that this trend will abate anytime soon. Therefore, innovative companies would be wise to remain current on patented technologies that are relevant to their product offerings.

A quick perusal of IP Checkups’ CleanTech PatentEdge indicates that NPEs own over 1200 cleantech patents, in a variety of different sectors. The table below documents patent ownership NPEs with a strong presence in the cleantech space.

Cleantech owned by NPEs. *Refers to the type of NPE, as previously described, where 1 is primarily a research organization; 2 is a licensing/enforcement organization that also performs research; and 3 is a company that enforces and/or licenses its IP holdings, yet does not perform any research. ‡Only patents formally assigned to Intellectual Ventures are listed in this table. For more on Intellectual Ventures, check out our recent press.

NPEs also have relatively broad patent holdings in the LED lighting industry. The following chart, created from data contained in IP Checkups’ LED PatentEdge, our pre-packaged LED lighting industry patent management and monitoring solution, shows some of the top patent-owning NPEs in this space — and the industry sectors in which (some) of their patent holdings are focused.

Patents owned by NPEs in the LED lighting space, in a variety of different industry sectors. All data comes from IP Checkups’ LED PatentEdge, which is available for purchase via inquiry. Intellectual Ventures’ patent holdings include only patents formally assigned to Intellectual Ventures.

As always, remaining aware of potential threats may mitigate their ultimate impact. Staying up-to-date on the patent holdings of both competitors and NPEs is necessary for innovators who want to maintain a strong position in the ever-evolving IP landscape.