1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Toyota Under Fire for Hybrid Technology

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by ryogajyc, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. ryogajyc

    ryogajyc Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    985
    165
    0
    Location:
    Reseda, CA
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    Full Article
    US Patent 5,067,932

    A technology company is taking aim at Toyota, saying that the company's gas-electric hybrid Prius and Highlander vehicles infringe on its U.S. patents.
    Solomon Technologies, Inc. announced today that it has expanded its litigation against Toyota by filing a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C. This action is in addition to the action already filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida last September.

    The ITC acts as an administrative investigative body to determine, among other things, whether or not goods imported into the United States infringe U.S. patents.
    Solomon president Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr., said, "The filing of the ITC complaint is the next step in our effort to fully prosecute the alleged infringement by Toyota and to protect our valuable intellectual property. We believe that the ITC's streamlined administrative process, as well as the technical depth of the ITC staff, will be helpful in expediting and supporting our claims." He continued, "While the ITC can not assess damages against an infringer, it can issue an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing technology. We will continue our effort to protect our intellectual property to the fullest extent possible."

    Solomon brought suit against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 12, 2005, claiming infringement of a number of claims in Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932, primarily relating to Toyota's use of the technology in its Prius and Highlander Hybrid vehicles.

    If Solomon were successful in its ITC action, Toyota could be prohibited from importing into the United States infringing combination motor and transmission systems and those products containing such systems, including the Toyota Prius and Highlander models.
     
    #1 ryogajyc, Jan 13, 2006
  2. mdmikemd

    mdmikemd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    436
    13
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    Glad I got mine in time!
     
    #2 mdmikemd, Jan 13, 2006
  3. malorn

    malorn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    4,281
    59
    0
    Location:
    "Somewhere in Flyover Country"
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Just curious, where did the headline come from?
     
    #3 malorn, Jan 13, 2006
  4. slortz

    slortz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    316
    0
    0
    #4 slortz, Jan 13, 2006
  5. ceric

    ceric New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    1,114
    53
    0
    Location:
    Fremont, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Those things usually got settled out of court before the real drama begins. I wouldn't worry about it at all. Soloman is making noises in an effort to get more money for its alleged patent. I own seveal US patents myself. US Patent application/approval process is ... (how should I put it gracefully?) lousy. A person or an entity owning a patent in US does not mean one is sided with the law. It is up to legal challenge to determine whether the patent itself is even valid. In short, patent approval in US does not mean US goverment agreed that one's patent is, in fact, a patent. :(
     
    #5 ceric, Jan 13, 2006
  6. tag

    tag Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    2,526
    19
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yup! Put it this way; Solomon has a current market cap of around $6 million while Toyota has cash and cash equivalents of around $15 billion. Can't see a whole heck of a lot to worry about there.
     
    #6 tag, Jan 13, 2006
  7. Jack 06

    Jack 06 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    2,556
    0
    0
    Location:
    Winters, CA: Prius capital of US. 30 miles W of S
    Mebbe we'll be ordering '07 Solomons.
     
    #7 Jack 06, Jan 13, 2006
  8. DaveG

    DaveG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    806
    6
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    All Toyota has to do is prove prior art and this patent will vanish in a puff of smoke...

    Toyota has been in business long before this patent was filed - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if having a CVT using a planetary drive system was in their engineering portfolio long before that, even if they didn't bother announcing it to anyone (why would they?).

    Heck, the Ford Model T had a planetary drive system around 1910...


    [​IMG]
    ​

    Look just a bit familiar? Of course it's not the same thing as there's only one power input, but given the basic concept is that old, I find it difficult to believe there's no prior art before 1990...

    It's a non-issue :p

    (of course as a last resort, Toyota could just send a team of ninjas over to vanish the patent holders :)

    Dave
     
    #8 DaveG, Jan 14, 2006
  9. mdmikemd

    mdmikemd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    436
    13
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    And those Ninjas will be heavily armed...with checks with lots of zeros! :lol:
     
    #9 mdmikemd, Jan 14, 2006
  10. spwolf

    spwolf Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    3,156
    440
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Europe
    US company that decided to sue Toyota in GERMANY? :). So much for that...
     
    #10 spwolf, Jan 14, 2006
  11. ryogajyc

    ryogajyc Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    985
    165
    0
    Location:
    Reseda, CA
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    The use of a planetary gear in the drivetrain with one power input doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me. If there was prior art showing a planetary gear with an engine as one power input and motor as another power input, I'd be more inclined to agree the patent does not hold water. Please don't get me wrong, I like Toyota and I like my Prius. It's just from reading the patent and not knowing of any examples of applicable prior art, Solomon seems to have a legitimate case.

    What is this about Germany?
     
    #11 ryogajyc, Jan 16, 2006
  12. tag

    tag Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    2,526
    19
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Germany is a different case.
     
    #12 tag, Jan 16, 2006
  13. shagpal

    shagpal Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    19
    1
    0
    the patent looks very cryptic, but it appears that it is trying to be that way on purpose.

    what it seems to try to do, is to patent how a differential or a planet gear system works, which intuitively is like trying to patent the wheel. I see that as too broad, and the patent might invalidate itself with respect to this law suit, and to me, that is Solomon's biggest risk.

    also, a differential by it's very nature is a split power device. the entire patent claims to employ either a diff or a set of planet gears, but not both at one time. reads to be an either or approach.

    what the patent does attempt to do is to imply that electric motor componets are "rigidly" attached to certain elements of the diff, or of the planet gears. to me, all systems are somehow "rigidly" attached to gears. for instance, A car windshield is rigidly attached the frame, which is rigidly attached to the motor...you get the picture. simply being attached means that the motor is attached to the tranny, which is attached to the driveshaft, etc. etc.

    to me, the weakness of the patent is not that it does not have merits, but that it's claims are too broad, and fail to corral the whole concept of gearing arrangements that have been around for a very long time. remember, in patent law, all portions of a patent that try to claim previous inventions, existing, or expired inventions invalidate those portions of the patent that are claiming a new invention. even tho the USPTO granted that patent, it doesn't mean that any claims within the patent have a valid merit as new inventions. and because none of their art work appears to resemble any prius component, I don't think the law suit lacks merit.
     
    #13 shagpal, Feb 18, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)