In Hybrid Vehicle Suit Paice Severs Lexus Nexus
In the hybrid vehicle patent war between hybrid technology company Paice LLC (Paice) and Toyota Motor Corp. (Toyota), Paice has withdrawn from one front after the parties reached a very limited truce.
Specifically, Paice agreed to a covenant not to assert U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (’970 patent) against the Lexus GS450h and the Lexus LS600h and recently filed a Second Amended Complaint (paice-amended-complaint.pdf) in a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas dropping allegations that the two Lexus models infringe the ‘970 patent.
The suit, which Paice originally filed in July of 2007, now alleges that the Toyota Camry hybrid infringes the ‘970 patent and that the second generation Prius, the Highlander SUV, the Lexus RX400h SUV, the Camry hybrid and the two other Lexus models infringe the ‘970 patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,104,347 and 7,237,634.
The ‘970 patent is directed to a hybrid drive train that uses a microprocessor (48) and a controllable torque transfer unit (28) that accepts torque input from both an internal combustion engine (40) and an electric motor (20).
The microprocessor (48) controls the amount of torque provided by the internal combustion engine (40) and the electric motor (20) by locking or releasing a bevel gear assembly (not shown) and holding torque inputs constant.
Paice and Toyota have an ongoing history of litigation over Paice’s hybrid vehicle patents. In the fall of 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that the Prius, Highlander and Lexus SUV infringed two claims of the ‘970 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
In that case Paice was awarded about $4.3 million in past damages and an ongoing royalty of $98 per infringing vehicle sold. Paice later sued Toyota again, asserting that the Highlander and Lexus SUV infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,392,871.
August 12th, 2009 at 21:00
This is an interesting development. For a small 1 town company Paice may think it has done very well from its litigation - perhaps $10 million gain overall?
But I think Toyota has been the real victor here. The damages are tiny compared to the Toyota R&D budget alone (~$7Billion/year) and it could have been a lot worse. Toyota’s attornies should be very pleased with swatting away this mosquito!
Justin Blows
PS. Some interesting Prius IP comments at my blog www.cleanip.com.au
August 16th, 2009 at 07:11
i agree with justin toyota will be the victor ,just on sheer size
October 7th, 2009 at 11:12
No the loser, if Paice is sucessful is the US public, because the trade comission has proven in the past that they are not particularly responsible in their decissions. If the trade comission seeks an injunction we lose one of two manufacturers of hybrids, not to mention Ford which uses the same system. So this is the case of jurers with not technical skills making a decission based on testimony which is always flawed on one side or the other. The reality is that Paice has never done anything with the patent and has no ability to do anything with it. I think if they can’t prove theft of the concept then they are out of luck. This technology is not that complex that it couldn’t have been reached independently, so Paice should prove that the technology was stolen, which they haven’t.