Posts Tagged: "General Electric"

Today, we check in with General Electric to see what technological systems it’s trying to protect through the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Many of the published USPTO documents we feature here discuss improvements to energy systems. These include two patent applications, one that would protect smart energy storage for in-home water heaters and another that would protect a system of monitoring damage to power cables. An issued patent discusses GE’s development of a self-healing electrical power grid. We also take a look at two other patent applications that showcase General Electric’s activities in other areas of consumer and industrial innovation. One application is filed to protect a detachable dishwasher door that makes it easier for technicians to provide maintenance. One final application we include discusses a system of trapping gaseous carbon dioxide exhaust from power plants in a solid state.

Recently published patent applications include documents filed to protect a more efficiently designed turbine blade and an electronic sensor that can determine if corrosive forces have damaged a turbine blade. Another application is for a light reflective substance that can help warn birds away from turbine blades, which may at first seem insignificant but a major obstacle in the adoption of wind energy are complaints from environmentalists relating to the number of birds killed each year. GE has also received a few patents recently granting them the legal right to protect certain wind energy system designs. These include a new tapered tip design that increases energy generation efficiency and a new method of pre-assembling internal components to reduce costs.

On Friday, July 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in General Electric Co. v. ITC. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman with Chief Judge Rader and Judge Linn, did not give GE a total victory, but victory enough over Mitsubishi. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the original decision of the ITC, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the decision. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 15 of the ‘985 patent, correctly construed, covers the domestic industry turbines. Of note, the CAFC continues to interpret “connected to” and “coupled to” as not requiring physical separation.

General Electric was not the only large U.S. corporation not to pay taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, General Electric had some company. In fact, American Electric Power, Dupont, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, FedEx and Honeywell all had tax rates between -0.7 percent and -9.2 percent for the stretch between 2008 to 2010. On the other hand, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to have user funds siphoned off, making the USPTO a much larger taxpayer than the largest U.S. corporations.

There is some irony that on the day we mark the 30th anniversary of the decision that launched the modern biotechnology industry we are still awaiting a decision on a patentable subject matter case — Bilski v. Kappos. Bilski has the potential to not only kill business methods, but also the software industry, the biotechnology industry and much of the medical innovation we see growing by leaps and bounds. So for today I toast the Supreme Court decision that launched the biotech industry, created millions of jobs and has lead to innumerable cures and treatments. I just hope that tomorrow (or whenever the Supreme Court issues its Bilski decision) it is not all for naught.

GE asserts that the Mitsubishi 2.4MW wind turbine is an example of an infringing product. The 2.4 MW wind turbine is a large-size wind turbine with a 2.4 megawatt rated output. According to the Mitsubishi website, the MWT92/2.4 and MWT95/2.4 (versions of the 2.4MW wind turbine) “are strategically targeted at the global market for large-scale wind turbine generators. MHI developed the MWT92/2.4 proprietarily and, since January 2006, has verified its performance and reliability through testing…”

General Electric Company (NYSE:GE), and Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., announced on February 11, 2009, that the two settled the patent litigation between the parties. Also announced on February 11, 2009, was a settlement between BCD and Power Integrations. Although BCD maintains it did not infringe, and the claims asserted by Power Integrations are under final rejection in reexamination, the settlement was for business reasons so BDC could move forward.