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.