Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Prius Under Fire For Patent Infringement
tekiegreg writes "According to Auto Service World, Toyota (and possibly other hybrid companies) are guilty of violating a patent with their Prius hybrid Systems. The patent in particular looks like it covers most of how the drive-train and even the braking system of a Toyota Prius functions. The implications of which are big if there is no deal or settlement made (such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States)."
Remove the braking system. No more patent violation!
Czech language for absolute beginners
It's the oil companies in disguise!
Demented But Determined.
Man, people who deliberately use "submarine patents" to try and make money off a popular technology really bug me. As do "technology companies" whose sole business model is to own patents. They wait and see, and if the tech becomes successful, they pounce. If it flops they stay away and let the infringer take the loss.
I respect the rights of patent owners, and I'm not sure how you could legally sanction this berhaviour without harming patent holders' legitimate rights, but the practice is just plain sleazy.
Now it may be that they have had suit against Toyota ever since the hybrid came on the market, and this is just a recent expansion of that suit, in which case they are not being weasels...
Freedom: "I won't!"
The article just says that Solomon is taking their complaint to the ITC to block Toyota from importing more vehicles. ITC can't rule guilt or fine Toyota. If Toyota manufactured the vehicles here, it likely would circumvent anything the ITC could do. There has been no admission of guilt by Toyota so the only other place guilt can be determined is in a court of law. Until the case currently in US District Court is ruled on, there is no guilt. Only accusations.
No. In the case of the article it just would mean Toyota couldn't import hybrid vehicles of this design (presuming they don't license the patent and settle the District Court case). They would either have to make them state-side or find a different design. Beleive it or not, there is more then one way to design a hybrid vehicle. This ruling wouldn't have an immediate effect on other manufacturers of hybrid vehicles although it might set a precident for future litigation.
Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device, which is a constantly-engaged planetary gear set that acts as a transmission and drives (or is partially driven by) the electric motor/generator. Which appears to be exactly what the patent describes.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Thank heavens we have those patents to encourage innovation. The invention would never have happened otherwise.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Cobasys, a Texaco subsidiary, holds a patent for NiMH batteries. One of the reasons for the hybrid itself is that it carefully skirts this patent by having the internal combustion engine as the prime mover. A battery-only or battery-mostly vehicle might be subject to prohibitive license fees. This is why pluggable hybrids have not been commercially produced either.
Oil company conspiracy? You decide...
[Their] patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming [braking] energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier [than] that.
I seem to recall an article that was published in the late 1980s in Popular Science profiling a prototype hybrid car that was called the Uniq. It had regenerative braking.
Rail locomotives have had "Dynamic braking" for decades, in which energy is reclaimed from the wheels, but it is subsequently burned off in a huge resistor, but it is at least half of the formula.
So that takes regenerative braking itself off the table as far as prior art. That leaves the combiner gearbox.
The Uniq used no combiner gearbox, and neither do Honda's hybrids. Toyota has done a better job at marketing their hybrid drive, but Hondas are actually getting better MPG without the combiner gearbox (though a pure electric mode is not possible).
The bottom line is: There is some prior art; it is probably not enough to help Toyota with their immediate problem, but not all hybrids are affected.
www.wavefront-av.com
Lesson 1: READ THE CLAIMS.
:)
Note that every claim is either a "base claim", that is, that starts a new description, or is a
"subsidiary claim" that depends or extends another claim.
Lesson 2: READ THE BASE CLAIMS TWICE.
The base claims are the patent's "weak spots" - if you can just dodge every base claim, then
the patent doesn't apply to you.
Notice that in this patent every base claim says "electrical" on both power inputs. That's
a major flaw; this patent has no claims that cover the case of only one electrical power
input and one of a totally other kind of power.
Lesson 3: THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT IF NONE OF THE CLAIMS APPLY.
The Prius driveline doesn't use an electrical motor on BOTH inputs, only on one. Hence it does
not infringe.
Next?
There's a group of companies developing lithium batteries that have created a patent pool. If your company develops technology for lithium batteries, you pay a fee to get into this group and then you can use for free any lithium patent from any company in the group. Of course, they get to use your patents as well, but with so many people looking out for submarine patents and the fact that your competitors signed a technology sharing agreement, the chance of a lawsuit is minimal.