Seeking Alpha

EBuiel

EBuiel
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    Here is the article from BEST magazine that just published in case anyone wants to read it.

    http://bit.ly/1QqH84A

    -E
    Jun 3, 2015. 06:20 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    The really awful thing here is that we had a design for heat removal in 2009. Single cells with terminal heat sinks. That is the only way to get it out. To bad it was abandoned like good judgement from the senior management team. Oy vey!
    Jun 2, 2015. 01:47 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    But no plans to move sheeting line from the basement at Clover lane. YIKES!
    Jun 2, 2015. 01:45 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    No gall at all. There is no exit/launching pad. Sell the battery plant. Pay themselves a little longer. Easy to auction assets at Greenridge. They exit is bankrupcy. Nothing more nothing less.
    Jun 2, 2015. 01:44 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    Maybe they should use a battery that is specifically designed for cooling, like the G4 Synergetics advanced NiMH battery...

    You can't get heat out of a battery that takes 48 hours to cool so you can complete a cold crank test.
    Jun 2, 2015. 01:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 398: May 26, 2015 [View instapost]
    Just got a call from someone asking about the battery manufacturing facility. Apparently Axion is going to sell the battery plant and moving all PbC development to the Greenridge facility. I can't think of anything more ignorant. Seems they are just trying to prolong their salaries as long as possible... Yikes.
    Jun 2, 2015. 08:50 AM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    You should be careful about assuming that Axion needs to license the Russian patents. If you do a patent search, you will see a host of patents that were filed between 1970 and 1999 that predate the Russian IP that describe MO2 positive electrodes and supercapacitor negative electrodes where M is a metal. Many of these patent specifically call out Pb. You will even find many H2SO4 electrolyte claims. This is primarily due to work on aqueous supercapacitors and Ruthenium Oxide pseudocapacitors.

    This leaves a lot of prior art, not referenced by the Russian IP, that could be used to build a strong case for invalidation of the patent. The more we looked the more we found and it seemed unlikely that any of the Russian IP would remain after scrutiny.

    Before our Aristotelian experts try to take what I have said in unfounded directions, let's deal with such misinterpretations now.

    Does this mean Axion needs to license this prior IP? NO - it has either expired or claims include items that are not found in the PbC battery.

    Does this mean Axion's original patents (C&T) are also invalid? Not necessarily. The addition of Pb in the negative electrode makes this invention novel and different from prior art. The Russian IP really just claims elements from different patents with nothing new or novel. So for this reason, I think UB would be in trouble. It will be very hard for them to find prior art to the Axion patent that describes Pb and carbon in the negative electrode or any device. This makes the situation very different for UB infringing Axion patents. Said another way, Axion has a strong case to invalidate Russian IP. UB has a very poor chance of invalidating Axion IP pertaining to UB.

    Knowing that basic device patents would be subject to scrutiny, Axion also filed many more patents on processes and further inventions that would be necessary to economically or practically produce PbC batteries. It is this picket fence that Axion built that would make building and selling PbC batteries very difficult for anyone other than Axion.

    Axion's patent strategy was developed with attorney's and litigators. I wasn't going to build something and then get sued and screwed. If Exin, ESMA, or AEP sued us for '252, it would have been invalidated, or the case made so strongly that damages would have been limited.

    In the case of UB, you really can't get your hands on one of their devices to prove that it infringes Axion IP. They have made it very difficult. This is very different from the cases described by EdM that dealt with freely sold consumer products. Without this analysis you could easily argue that you had to wait to sue. I think the situation is very different.

    So if someone brings a case against Axion for deceiving shareholders, I think you would find in discover that Axion's patent position can be well defended or at least was well thought out and pretty thorough. Up to the end of 2010, Axion also looked like a pretty good company with BMW, GM, US Military, PowerCubes, Norfolk Southern, etc. all working directly with Axion on game changing technologies. Hard to argue that they were misleading investors up to that point.

    You would really need to bring a case against Axion management for being incompetent 2011 onward. I think they are guilty for sure, but can you really sue a company for being hopelessly incompetent? Or is this just a reflection on the shareholders who put money in after this point that they couldn't see the forest for the trees? There were quite a few posts on the concentrator, including some by me, that they were hopeless and I even said so explicitly and told everyone I was selling all of my shares for this exactly reason. I was ridiculed and my motives questioned but it did turn out to be turn and everyone was forewarned.

    Just as a note, I am still very bitter personally. In 2006, after we purchase New Castle Battery, I bought Axion shares at $4. At the time it was everything we owned, all of our savings and investments were with Axion, and we had children on the way. I sold those shares years later at $0.34.

    Axion still has great technology and the ability to build PbC and PbA to do things that no one else can do. With recent FERC rulings you would think that almost anyone could make Axion a partial success but no. Aquion is doing so much more with so much less because they have a decent management team. Still, Axion just keep Phucking it up.

    There is only one conclusion that you can come to with Axion and that is that the blame lands squared with the BOD. It is their role to ensure the correct management team is in place and they have failed completely in their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders - me included.
    May 17, 2015. 10:13 AM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    Read the patent claims and tell me why you think a license from Russian could help East Penn? There are apples here and oranges. They are not the same.
    May 9, 2015. 01:33 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    NBTF - how exactly is UB going to get around the Axion patent? It clearly predates theirs and every element of the Axion patent first claim is clearly in their battery by their own admission? Like I've said, this has been discussed with patent attorneys and especially litigators. The only thing the could do is try to find prior art and invalidate the Axion patent? Please don't suggest that because Axion doesn't practice their own invention means that the patent is invalid. This argument holds no water in Federal Court.
    May 7, 2015. 03:49 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    If you read the patent wrapper you will realize "Eskin" is actually the company Exin. Just search for US 6195252 and Exin.

    So, you have two owners of US 6195252. Exin and ESMA. ESMA teamed with AEP in one of the most dysfunctional relationships I have ever seen. AEP came to Westvaco (2001-2002 era before I was at Axion) where I was the Group Leader for Energy Storage Products including Activated Carbon for normal supercapacitors. AEP wanted to put these all over the grid as a low cost battery that would cycle longer than lead acid. They created Universal Supercapacitors, LLC that was jointly owned by AEP and ESMA. Money went to ESMA to provide prototypes and we worked to produce activated carbon and carbon sheet for this project. There was a change of hands at AEP and the project was essentially deserted. It changed hands a few more times but is essentially dead. Neither company can really do anything with the technology without the other and I don't think anything is happening there. You'd need to go down the Axion path with a lead acid battery plant and I have not heard anything to suggest this is happening.

    This leaves Exin. I really don't know if they are doing anything with the technology/patent. I don't even know if they still exist.

    So, to answer your question, the patent is out there, Universal Supercapacitors, LLC paid the fees (AEP) and I doubt they will continue. I think you could buy out AEP's position pretty easily at this point. This was my longer term strategy. Wait until we were selling batteries in reasonable number such that the liability of patent infringement was reasonable, (i.e. you actually have profits on the product) and then go back to AEP to try to purchase their position in Universal Supercapacitors LLC. My initial conversations with them was that it would likely just take enough money to make it "worth their while" maybe $250K. Another thought was to try to get them to do a grid storage project with PowerCubes that we could provide in exchange for their ownership in USC, LLC. I don't think this would have been much of a problem.

    You see, any one of ESMA, AEP, or Exin can sell their position or license in the technology and thus they've somewhat killed it's value.
    May 7, 2015. 03:44 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    I did go for '252. If you pull the patent wrapper you will see it is jointly owned by Exin and Universal Supercapacitors LLC. The latter is jointly owned by ESMA and AEP. You can get a license from either independent of the other.
    May 7, 2015. 08:09 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    The ESMA patent does not include lead. It would be useless to EP. The Axion patent contains lead. Not good for PbC but very clearly describing the UB battery. This is pretty basic and should be easy to understand.
    May 3, 2015. 06:37 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    Read claim 1, tell me what I am missing.

    You think an EP license to the technology is being held secret??? Not in any SEC documents? Any royalties in Axion's financials?
    May 3, 2015. 06:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 397: Apr. 30, 2015 [View instapost]
    How can you read the first claim of '429 and say UB does not infringe?

    PbO2/PbSO4 positive? Yes
    Sulfuric acid? Yes
    Polarizable carbon negative? Yes
    Negative contains lead? Yes

    ALABC is an organization with a mandate to promote LAB R&D. The better question is why are they promoting one members product at all? Ask JCI, my understanding is that they are pretty upset about the whole thing.

    And lets not pretend that the battery field has not been the source of some pretty crazy and immoral actions. Maxwell v. Nesscap, BASF v. 3M now, MIT v. Phostech. All crazy.

    What about 2.4B in ARRA funding to companies like A123, GE, EnerDel, SAFT, etc. Where the heck did all the $$$ go?

    Maybe irrational is normal for the battery industry.
    May 3, 2015. 06:31 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Axion Power Concentrator 396: Apr. 16, 2015 [View instapost]
    The claim says a "a polarizable electrode made of a carbon material." So it would have to be a high surface area carbon material. Then it would be infringing.
    May 2, 2015. 10:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
161 Comments
0 Likes