Paice v. Toyota: patent rights for hybrids

[Dr Mordrid]

This is just the test case. If successful Paice will extract bux from every parallel and split-mode hybrid car maker selling cars in the US, and perhaps the world if international trade agencies get involved.

The case is based on the 'all elements rule' (Wiki article)

Court filing....

Paice LLC mission page....

US Patent No. 5,343,970 (or the “‘970 patent”) dated 1994

The Paice Patents

The ’970 patent covers a hybrid electric vehicle that includes both an internal combustion engine and an electric motor. In a hybrid electric vehicle, fuel economy may be increased and harmful emissions may be reduced depending on the vehicle’s driving mode -- whether to provide torque to the wheels of the vehicle from the motor, the internal combustion engine, or both..

The ’970 patent describes a system that includes a microprocessor that receives control inputs and uses these variables to determine whether the internal combustion engine, the electric motor, or both should provide torque to the wheels. The ’970 patent describes a system that also includes a powerful electric motor that is provided with energy from a battery at high voltage and low current to dramatically increase the efficiency of the system.

Reuters story....

US panel to hear hybrid patent case vs Toyota

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. trade panel that hears patent disputes said it would investigate allegations that Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), the world's largest automaker, infringed patented technology to make its popular hybrid vehicles.

The U.S. International Trade Commission said on Tuesday that Paice LLC, based in Bonita Springs, Florida, had asked it to order Japan's Toyota to stop using the infringing technology to make the cars and to bar imports with the fuel-saving gasoline/electric technology.

The suit is similar to one that Paice filed in a U.S. court in Texas, a popular venue for infringement suits, where David Folsom issued an order in April requiring Toyota to pay fees to Paice based on the number of cars sold.

Toyota has appealed Folsom's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
>

[Brian Ellis]

Personally, I can't see how a 1994 patent could ever hold water, there is so much prior art. I remember discussing this subject with Dr Chr. Rentsch of the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment in 1988, including a sketch of what was to become the Prius system (and the Honda and Volt systems) to illustrate what we were talking about. Dammit, if all this was in the public domain so many years beforehand, including microprocessor controls, any refinements that did not introduce a new technology would be classed as either obvious or equivalent.

[Dr Mordrid]

I would tend to agree, but this particular Federal court is noted for finding patent rights where the history is similar. Very likely to end up at the SCOTUS.