Continental AG, a massive German automotive supplier, has substantial business operations in the US under their US affiliate Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (collectively, “Continental”).  In addition to making premium tires for consumers like you and I (the top European marques often shod these skins when new), Continental has massive engineering operations both in the US and abroad relating to all manner of sort of the road/rubber interface.  One of their businesses concerns tire pressure monitors.

Tire pressures monitors [Wiki TPMS] were mandated [Wiki TREAD Act] as original equipment on passenger vehicles as of September 1, 2007.  Additionally, the alerts they provide can urge people to air up their tires, which can save fuel [video of Obama's controversial campaign pledge to save energy via air pressure].  Big business, as you can imagine.  I for one like the devices for their added safety, but somewhat resent the seasonal effect they have on tires in Minnesota (winter is the season of orange lights on my dashboard).  Perhaps that’s more a statement about the weather than the technology.

In any case, Continental has sued [PriorSmart] Schrader Electronics, Inc.  Continental is asserting three patents: US Patent No. 6,998,973, US Patent No. 7,284,418, and US Patent No. 7,463,952 [USPTO].  A quick check of the USPTO Assignments database shows that the ’973 patent is assigned to Siemens VDO Automotive of France.  The ’418 patent was assigned to Motorola first, then to Temic Automotive, then to Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., then to Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.  The final patent, the ’952 patent, was assigned Siemens VDO Automotive, then to Continental Automotive Systems of France.

Two thoughts.  One, this action shows the entities, Continental and Siemens VDO, party to a somewhat recent (2007) merger [MotorAuthority], acting in concert.  Two, I find it strange that the complaint does not name the owner of two of the patents asserted.  I suppose that will be addresses as the suit continues.

In any case, this conflict reminds me of the recent suits brought by a non-practicing entity MHL Tek.  In their patent-suit pathway, they hit some bumps [Patently-O] related to assignment.  Further, a quick reading of justicia.com shows that at least one suit has found the patents asserted in the MHL matters as not infringed [justicia.com].  Time will tell whether Continental will have more success.

I often think about how GreenTech overlaps with plain old engineering.  GreenTech is not just about paradigm-shifting technologies like heliostats; GreenTech also recognizes that it is important to provide even small gains in efficiency. GreenTech does not always give us the transformer, but it may give us a transformer that is slightly more efficient.

Better than good enough is generally a fun thing to pursue for inventors.  That’s why I think inventions like the one claimed in U.S. Patent 7,927,049 to James Adams of Frisco, Texas are interesting.  Sure, it may increase safety by providing a visual indicator of a detorqued wheel fastener (“lug”), but it also would arguably result in a truer wheel, which could decrease rolling resistance or the amount of energy absorbed by vibration.

It appears that the device provides an opportunity for a vehicle user to quickly perform a visual inspection to ensure that wheel fasteners are torqued as desired.

Mr. Adams has sued SKF USA, Inc., for infringement.  SKF USA, Inc. sells the following device:

Image from SKF USA website

Upon visual inspection, do you think the devices are similar?  I am curious to see what the court finds.

The UK patent office has reported grant of the 100th subject to their green technology accelerated examination program.

According to the UK Patent Office, more than 450 patents have been made through their “Green Channel” program, and time to grant is 8 months versus 36 month for a normal application.

The 100th patent is assigned to Protean Electric.  I believe the patent referred to is GB2472392, which is titled, “Regenerative braking system having an electric drive means to actuate a mechanical braking device.”  A link to the patent is here.

Read the UK Patent Office presser here, or as quoted here:

100th green patent granted to Protean Electric

Surrey based Protean Electric have been granted the 100th patent which has been examined under the Green Channel acceleration scheme. Protean Electric are a leading clean technology company that designs, develops and manufactures in-wheel electric motors for hybrid and battery electric vehicles.
The Green Channel enables inventions with an environmental benefit to be given priority within the patent system.
Over 450 green patent applications have been made since the service was launched in May 2009. The service can dramatically reduce the amount of time it can take for a patent to be granted. Under the Green Channel an application is granted after an average of 8 months from request for acceleration, compared to an average time of 36 months for a normal application to be granted.
Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Wilcox said:
“Fast tracked green patents provide innovative businesses with a great incentive to develop green products that can be brought quickly into the marketplace.”
“There is a growing demand for low carbon products across the world and we want the UK to be at the forefront of developing this kind of technology. With the granting of the 100th green patent we are helping to support businesses and encouraging them to come up with innovative and green ways of thinking for the future.”
The 100th patent granted was to Protean Electric for a regenerative braking system for electric and hybrid vehicles.
Intellectual property manager for Protean Electric, Chris Harrison said:
‘The green channel patent system adopted by the UK Intellectual Property Office has, from the start, been central to our company patent strategy, allowing us to obtain patents on our innovative green technology within a year of initial conception. This has been of significant importance both in attracting investment and allowing us to demonstrate our leading edge electric vehicle technology to potential customers.
Our first granted patents provide protection for core aspects of our in-wheel electric motor technology that removes the need for traditional drive train components such as internal combustion engines, transmissions, drive shafts, axles and differentials while also being scalable for use in different applications.
These have been granted as soon as 10 months after filing at the UK Intellectual Property Office which, for a relatively young company that is keen on obtaining protection for their innovation, is of enormous value.’
To qualify for the green patent scheme, The applicant must make a request in writing, indicating:

• • How their application is environmentally-friendly; and
  • How their application is environmentally-friendly; and
  • Which actions they wish to accelerate:-search, examination, combined search and examination, and/or publication.
  • Which actions they wish to accelerate:-search, examination, combined search and examination, and/or publication.

The service is available to patent applicants who make a reasonable assertion that the invention has some environmental benefit. The IPO will not conduct any detailed investigation into these assertions, but will refuse requests if they are clearly unfounded, for example if the application relates to a perpetual motion machine. Applications will only be accelerated when requested by the applicant.
The written request can be made at the same time as filing the application, or can be made on a later date.
Further information on the scheme can be found on the Green Channel for patent applications.