Time filter

Source Type

Portland, OR, United States

Swiss battery manufacturer Leclanché has been selected by Hecate Canada Storage II, LLP, an emerging Canadian Project Development and Electrical Systems Integrator, to deliver a 13 MW/53 MWh energy storage system. The system will stand as one of the largest grid ancillary storage services projects in North America. According to Solar Server, Leclanché will provide all battery storage systems for the contracted facilities to be built near Toronto. In this project, Leclanché will team with Deltro Energy Inc. When the project goes online in this year’s fourth quarter, Deltro will operate all of the facilities using an energy management system provided by Greensmith Energy. As part of the 53 MWh project, Greensmith will supply its GEMS5 software technology, a leading platform used to deliver 6 grid-scale systems in 2015 on both sides of the meter. Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator, IESO, awarded the contracts through a competitive solicitation process in 2014 as part of its Energy Storage Procurement Phase 1 project. IESO plans to use the energy storage systems to meet its needs for fast-reacting ancillary services. The principal service provided under these contracts is voltage control and reactive power support, an application that’s becoming increasingly important for Ontario and other regions with significant amounts of intermittent wind and solar power now on the high-voltage transmission networks. “After an intense round of competitive bidding among many of the world’s largest energy storage providers, we have decided to team up with Leclanché for this project because of their high quality battery storage products, very professional approach and ability to provide thoughtful solutions for the complete design and construction of a full battery power plant,” said David Del Mastro, Deltro CEO. Anil Srivastava, CEO of Leclanché said he hopes to start the construction in spring 2016 and start operation by the end of the year. Images: Emission-free grid stability via Deltro; battery graphic via Leclanche’    Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.”   Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10.   Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.  

Despite prognostications of constrained capital and distressed asset sales during the year, global oil and gas mergers and acquisitions declined sharply in 2015 compared with activity in 2014, according to a report from Deloitte LLP.

Despite prognostications of constrained capital and distressed asset sales during the year, global oil and gas mergers and acquisitions declined sharply in 2015 compared with activity in 2014, according to a report from Deloitte LLP.

News Article
Site: cen.acs.org

A judge decided last month that key pieces of a lawsuit filed by a former Harvard University grad student against the prestigious school over patent royalty distributions will proceed to trial. The $10 million suit was filed in 2013 by Mark G. Charest, who had previously worked as a grad student in the lab of Harvard chemistry professor Andrew G. Myers and who had helped develop a new synthetic route to tetracycline antibiotics. Charest alleges that he was coerced and threatened into accepting low royalty payments for his work on the antibiotics and that after he protested his poor treatment, he was denied a fair appeals process. On Feb. 16, judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the U.S. District court in Massachusetts issued an opinion addressing Harvard’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Woodlock dismissed a number of items, including Charest’s claims about the initial royalty distributions being too low. Myers was also dismissed as a defendant. Still to be addressed, says Woodlock’s strongly-worded opinion, are allegations against Harvard, in which Harvard failed to offer Charest a proper appeals process and withheld royalty payments after Charest’s appeal. Brian D. O’Reilly, a partner at Epstein, Drangel LLP, who is representing Charest, says he and his client plan to take the case to trial in the next year. “We are pleased that five of seven claims have been dismissed at this early stage of the case,” says Harvard spokesman David Cameron. “We look forward to presenting evidence to defeat the two remaining claims in the next phases of litigation.” The tetracycline synthesis he helped develop, which produced compounds that are potentially effective against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, was patented in 2005, and Charest was lead author on the resulting Science paper (2005, DOI: 10.1126/science.1109755). Harvard licensed the patent to the company Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, which Myers founded in 2006. The university ordered the distribution of 50% of royalties to Myers and the rest divided among the other group members, with 18.75% eventually allotted to Charest. In 2010, this patent was combined with a second patent on a different project not involving Charest, diminishing Charest’s royalties further. Charest again protested and alleges that the university responded by lowering his royalty share and withholding royalty payments. Intellectual property experts tell C&EN that it’s rare for a student to take on a behemoth university, citing the power imbalance between students and their professors and institutions, especially when millions of dollars are at stake. “The situation at Harvard is not unusual, but the lawsuit is,” says Thomas G. Wiseman, an intellectual property attorney with a chemistry background, at Smith, Gambrell & Russell. Although Shihong Nicolaou, intellectual property manager at the University of California, San Diego, also says she finds the suit unusual, she believes that Charest’s position is “extremely weak.” Given the accusations, money, and documentation, “this lawsuit could turn uglier for all concerned, even if it’s just reputational,” says Kendrew H. Colton, an intellectual property attorney specializing in chemistry with Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, who is also on C&EN’s advisory board.

News Article | March 22, 2016
Site: motherboard.vice.com

Illma Gore, the artist behind a popular image of a nude Donald Trump with small genitalia has been facing a bizarre and confusing battle with Facebook over the status of her account and a copyright claim. In the past few weeks she has been blocked; unblocked, then blocked again by Facebook and asked to provide government ID to verify her identity; and had her access partially restored but without the ability to post images. The artist says she's also now worried about being sued over the image. Facebook notified Gore that a third party filed a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) infringement notice against her. She was then asked to upload an official government-issued ID to verify her account. Facebook also offered an opportunity to fill out a counter-notification denying the copyright infringement. The notice sent by Facebook doesn't disclose the identity of the third party filing the DMCA violation or identify which specific image violates the law, so Gore has had difficulty responding. The only hint as to who filed the claim came from a threatening phone call. Gore says someone who identified himself as a member of the Trump organization called and advised her to stop posting the nude image of Donald Trump or "face legal action." It’s unclear what copyright claim Trump or anyone else would have over the image Gore created. "Service providers tend to approach these notices in a rather risk-averse fashion," said Jonathan Tobin, a founding partner at Counsel for Creators LLP, a Los Angeles-based law firm serving clients in arts, media and technology. In other words, Facebook might send a notice like Gore received on a "just in case" basis. "If one is actually filing a suit for copyright infringement, the plaintiff will need to specifically identify the allegedly infringed and infringing images,” Tobin said. “A copyright suit can only succeed if the two images can be compared." Gore says the art is original and not a copy of any existing copyrighted images of Donald Trump, nude or otherwise, so it seems Trump would have difficulty pursuing legal action in this situation. However, after being contacted by Motherboard, Facebook said it was all a mixup. In a statement issued to Motherboard a Facebook spokesperson says "The account was disabled in error and restored as soon as we were able to investigate. Our team processes millions of reports each week, and we sometimes get things wrong. We're very sorry about this mistake.” As of Monday afternoon, Gore was able to access her Facebook account but could not post images. The statement doesn't explain the DMCA notice, but it does give insight as to why they might have sent the warning: Just in case. Here is a timeline of Illana Gore's struggle with the rendering of Donald Trump, Facebook and legal notifications: January 6: Gore posts a video of her drawing on Instagram with the caption, "working on something small but huge." February 9: Gore unveils image of a nude Donald Trump on Facebook and Instagram. It's flagged on Facebook but not on Facebook-owned Instagram. February 10: Gore replaces the graphic image with a censored version, which is subsequently also flagged, and receives the first account suspension notification from Facebook. In response, she makes the uncensored image available for public download on her website. March 7: A person who identifies himself as a member of Trump's legal team calls Gore and advises her to remove the imagery of Trump or face legal action. Facebook notifies Gore of a new 13 hour ban, after she's already been blocked for two days. March 11: Facebook sends Gore a notice saying she used Facebook as a platform to promote an image that violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. March 11: EBay also removes the image from their site citing it as "nude art." The image was listed for sale in a charity auction posted by Gore. March 14: Facebook institutes a new seven day ban on Gore. In a separate notice Facebook asks her to provide a government ID to verify her identity and the account. March 18: Gore is notified that she's banned for an extended 24 hours. Gore is currently in London planning her next steps, and a possible show involving the image. In January the UK Parliament debated banning Donald Trump for hate speech. Gore doesn't want to reveal any specific plans yet but says she has more of an opportunity to be heard there.

Discover hidden collaborations