Toyota Prius Under Fire For Patent Infringement 504
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)."
Diagram (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is a little misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
> energy with an electric motor was thought of,
> and used much earlier then that.
Around 1870 in fact.
sPh
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
I know I saw Telma [telmausa.com] retarders on buses, long before 1990. They work on the same principle.
Re:The patent (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device [howstuffworks.com], 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.
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:5, Informative)
From their FAQ:
What is the Electric Wheel(TM)?
The Electric Wheel(TM) is a new technology motor (first patented in 1991) that significantly improves and exceeds the net horsepower output of existing electric and fossil fuel motors. Solomon Technologies currently provides three series of motor systems built on this technology; the ST37, the ST58 and the ST74. They have been designed for use in marine environments. The ST58 combines variable torque converters, brushless motors with Neodymium Iron Boron (NeFe B) magnets, and a powerful regenerative feedback function that converts the motor(s) into a generator of electricity to recharge the batteries while under sail, and provide electrical power to other appliances on the boat.
So looks like they are legit (or are a very elaborate front
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:5, Informative)
If a product that uses your patent without an agreement in place is on the market for X months and you, the patent holder, do not challenge such use, a license is automatically granted for that product.
If you have reason to believe a product is using your patent, you can file a challenge with the patent office stating so. The company offering the product has to respond saying that they are or are not violating your patent. If they say they are not, the previous "X month" window gets extended to the full term of the patent for that product. If they aren't using your patent, this has no effect. If they are using your patent, and tell the patent office they aren't, you now have the full term of the patent to prove them wrong.
You can only exercise this challenge Y times over the life of the patent. Y will not include any challenge that is upheld, either initially or after the fact.
Re:Summary is a little misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, hence the correct usage of the word "probably".
Don't laugh! (Score:5, Informative)
Oil company conspiracy? You decide...
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
[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.
Re:good patent? (Score:4, Informative)
> Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right?
> You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it
> cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the
> patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.
Pharmaceutical companies do spend a fair amount on R & D. However, it is nowhere near as much as they spend on marketing. The reality is that they are using patents to control the market, not to recoup their R & D investment.
Re:Blah (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
Under the US Patent System, it counts as prior art if it was published by "others" (this means any person or group of persons different from the applicant) before the invention of the device. This is called 102(a) and they can swear behind this using the whole first to invent idea. Initially, items are considered "invented" when tey are filed. It also counts if a publication is made or it is in "use" (in the terms of in the public already) by anyone (including applicants) more then 1 year prior to the earliest US filing date. This is a 102(b) and a so-called "statutory bar". There is no way to swear behind these kinds of references. The final one that is commonly used is if a published US application or Patent was filed before the filing date of the current invention by another (this also applies to WIPO filing dates). This is called a 102(e) and like 102(a) is based on invention date so it can also be sworn behind.
I think you need to clarify the prototype being officially made statement. I cannot speak certainly for EPO or other patent offices, but the general idea is that the item described in the Patent Application has actually been invented. As such, there had better be a prototype of some sort sitting around somewhere. Most all patent laws center around a publication or existance of an item that is known to the public in same.
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Due Diligence (Score:1, Informative)
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Informative)
The main reason for making it so long is that people and companies typically file the patent while R&D is still going on. It can take 5-10 years (or more) after the patent is filed for the product to come to market. This is especially true with drugs in the United States, as the process with the FDA takes an extremely long time.
Re:Diagram (Score:1, Informative)
Perhaps the images are collected under the LARGE RED OUTLINE BUTTON LABELED "IMAGES" at the top of the linked page.
Sincerely,
A patent attorney.
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Diagram (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Informative)
If say I invented X and didn't know that you too had invented X, would I then be in infringement?
If they are the same design, they patent theirs, and you try to sell yours, then yes, you are in infringement.
I come to think about the Clean Room Design method where one apparently is allowed to reverse engineer any copyrighted product as long as you recreate a design spec solely based on "observation".
Can the same be done for patents issues? Say you had invented X, could I then "observe" and "reinvent" X?
Yes, as long as you really just observed it, and don't end up with the same exact design by chance.
While researching Genetic Algorithms, I came across a story about someone who had built a GA that designed circuit boards. When he executed it, telling the machine to design a board for a particular use, the GA designed many resulting boards, 4 of which infringed on existing patents.
Re:/tin hat (Score:4, Informative)
That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market [sweetpoison.com]. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The [mercola.com] headaches [mercola.com]are actually caused by brain lesions [metroactive.com]. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness [ethicalinvesting.com]is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there [sumeria.net])
Re:Easy way around that: switch to lithium (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Informative)
Without the breaking system advantage, your hybrid car won't get any significant fuel efficiency boost.
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
I first heard about ECD in this transcript [pbs.org] of a Scientific American Frontiers episode. Two segments on them, one talks about storing hydrogen as a solid (in alloy hydrides) and the second talks about their solar panel tech. Sort of ironic to see them pop up in this thread...
Patent Length (Score:3, Informative)
Although, the length of utility and plant patent protection (patent term) was previously seventeen years from the date of patent grant, utility and plant patents filed after June 8, 1995 now have a patent term of up to twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application. Utility and plant patents which were applied for prior to June 8, 1995, and which were or will be in force after June 8, 1995, now have a patent term of seventeen years from the date of patent grant or twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application, whichever is longer. Utility patents are subject to the payment of periodic maintenance fees to keep the patent in force. Patent terms can be extended under some specific circumstances. See the U.S. Code Title 35 - Patents for a full description of patent laws.
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
KFG
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
The Efficiency Advantage of EVs and Power Plants
EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique
efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as
efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline. See Table 4. Although there
are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are
significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power.
[ table showing 28% for EV's, 14 for ICE]
Since EVs operate more efficiently then their ICE-powered counterparts, overall fuel
economy is higher. However, making a direct comparison between the fuel efficiencies of
both vehicles is difficult. By applying a common unit of energy, such as British Thermal
Units (Btus) we can get a fair comparison between the two.
Read the rest. It is VERY eye opening.
http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf [evadc.org]
Re:/tin hat (Score:3, Informative)
And I don't know what nut(s) modded you "insightful". The only "evidence" supporting such a crazy claim is a bunch of urban legends. Name one technology that OPEC "bought up" and kept secret. Ah, that's right. It's being kept secret! Complete absence of evidence is the sureset sign the conspiracy is working, right? Does it not seem odd that in fifty years of this (or similar) story floating around that not once has there been a leak, or a parallel discovery by a non-bought off inventor? Gimme a break.
Don't panic (Score:4, Informative)
There have certainly been some interesting innovations that make modern hybrids possible since then, primarily the interesting motor/generator/transmission gadgets, but the fundamentals that are critical to all hybrids go back way further.
Re:/tin hat (Score:1, Informative)
Once you start selling something you can't retrospectively patent it.
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Informative)
. .
Yes, regenerative braking can add to the efficiency of hybrids under certain conditions they are not a primary reason for the efficiency of the system and may under other circumstances actually degrade it, even with the advances made since the above was written.
A properly designed hybrid gains its efficiency through reducing the weight and friction of the conventional drivetrain and by operating the fuel engine at a constant rate tuned for maximum efficiency.
The current line of commercially available hybrid cars are not properly designed, their designs being determined by various legal, political, social and marketing reasons, not engineering.
They actually gain what little added efficiency they possess through reducing weight and aerodynamic drag in ways that are perfectly applicable to a fuel powered vehicle. They are compelled to marketing these cars as gaining added efficiency through regenerative braking because that is the one feature they can point to that is unique to their vehicles, not because it actually works as well as it is promoted.
Give me a Prius shell and I can turn it into a conventional fuel powered car with equal or greater fuel economy without giving up, and perhaps gaining, performance.
If past experience in putting forth this inforamation is any guide, I am about to recieve any number of retorts telling me I have to be an idiot to believe that regenerative braking does not add to the efficiency of a vehicle, because the point seems obvious.
But the point is not obvious, which you would know if you had ever actually designed and built one of these things as I have.
Regenerative braking can add to the efficiency of a particular vehicle under certain circumstances, but says nothing about whether another vehicle can be designed and built with greater efficiency without using regenerative braking.
And I'm sorry, but cars like the Prius are relatively crude designs whose efficiency could be increased by converting them to conventional diesels (or even gas) without the benefit of regenerative braking, especially in highway cruising mode where hauling the system around is just a leech on the fuel economy.
And that's just the way it is.
A proper hybrid never runs on anything but electric power, using the fuel engine solely to turn a generator which drives the electric motors directly and the batteries function as a reserve energy sink, not the prime energy source.
And even in this kind of hybrid regenerative braking can result in a net loss of fuel economy if you are primarily driving it at constant speed on the highway, because you don't do much braking in the first place.
KFG
Re:/tin hat (Score:4, Informative)
The standard Pharmaceutical company trick is shortly before the patent expires, they introduce a new version with a trivial (but newly patented) "improvement". Aggressive marketing tries to get all their current customers switched to the new drug. When the patent expires, other companies can make generic versions of the original drug, and these may for all practical purposes be just as good at treating whatever it is, but pharmacists can't make the substitution for the new one without a new prescription.
The other trick is to find new uses for current drugs, and patent those new uses, which gets weird in that eventually generic companies can make the exact same drug, but not market it for the new purpose.
Both of these seem to me like side effects of applying patent law, which works reasonably well for things like mechanical engineering, to other realms.
Toyota might be safe... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:5, Informative)
When you consider the emmisions cost of the entire system, production, energy production/transmission and disposal, the current commercially available hybrids are unmitigated environmental disasters hidden by ignorance, smoke and mirrors.
How to get 10 mpg better milage while reducing emmisions from a standard, gasoline burning Accord:
Regear and retune the engine to give maximum efficiency while producing the same level of performance as a Prius.
Notice in the above post that the driver achieved his milage in the Prius through modification of his driving technique.
As a demonstration I once achieved 40 mpg from an completely box stock, 1976 Ford Fiesta on the open road simply by driving with my mind on efficiency rather than performance. If I had modified the car to run in this manner innately it would have reduced its emmisions greatly as well.
The Prius owner quoted above is an efficiency minded fellow who drove his car with his mind on driving as efficiently as possible. It is a biased anecdote.
Gas powered CRX drivers reported getting 60 mpg with low overall emmisions. The cars were simply tuned for economy rather than performance as well as being smaller and lighter than a Prius. It did not sell well, because it lacked performance. Buyers of this car, and the buyers of the Prius, are innately people who are willing to sacrifice performance for efficiency and the purported benefits of the hybrid system come mostly from this sacrifice of performance, not from the hybrid system.
Give me a blank sheet of paper and I will design you a vehicle that can sustain 30 mph on only 60 watts of power, is fueled by pizza and exhausts relatively small amounts of CO2 balanced by the carbon cycle.
But you would not likely buy such a vehicle because it would not make you happy.
The current line of hybrids are designed to make people happy by giving them the impression that they are achieving reduced fuel use and emmissions over some other system.
As an engineer I love electrics and hybrids and have been involved with them since the mid 70s. They are elegant. I appreciate that elegance.
But the claims surrounding the current crop of hybrids are faith based, not engineering based.
And people will defend their faith no matter.
KFG
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Informative)
If it turns out Toyota lifted Solomon's tech, Solomon deserves to be compensated. The market will find a way for this tech to continue to exist.
But, from a user point of view, the thing that really needs to happen is for batteries to get better and cheaper.
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:4, Informative)
Where cars themselves are especially stupid, and if you look at the packaging of a Prius it is obviously not a city commuter model but is equiped as a long range family hauler, because that is what people expect and will put their money down for.
. .
You are efficiency and environmentally concious and you drive ten minutes to work, including two to three minutes stopped at lights and a train crossing?
I would be ashamed of such an admission and all of your Prius, used as such, represents nothing but fuel waste in the first place.
the Prius gasoline engine TURNS OFF. So typically, I spend 2 to 3 minutes of my average 10 minute drive not poluting at all.
Are you aware of the fuel and emmissions costs of simply turning on a gasoline engine? They can exceed those of an engine idling for a minute or two. You would gain more benefit from this is you commuted on the Long Island Expressway, not in your short commute.
Also, a very simple engineering fact is that the amount of polution released in the atmosphere is directly related to the amount of fuel that is combusted.
No, this is intuitively obvious, but it is a simple engineering fact, that is to say empirical, that it is not always true, because a gasoline burning engine does not operate with a flat burning efficiency curve.
. .
Which energy was produced by the elves that live under my bed?
Thus the Prius will be expelling less waste (pollution) than the other vehicle.
From its tailpipe. This is not at all the same thing as saying that its use expells less pollution. You have fallen prey to the smoke and mirrors. You are expelling that added pollution into my backyard instead of yours. I don't necessarily appreciate your treating me in such a fashion.
Even if that difference is less than 1%, it's still better than nothing.
Have you ever driven a conventional gas engineed car designed and tuned to your particular commute and measured it's fuel efficiency and emmissions against the Prius?
You are, I'm afraid, one of these people who see certain gross functions of the vehicle and translate that into a feeling that you are coming out ahead, without actually knowing that you are.
Your use is faith based.
You can crunch all the numbers you want on emmisions and functioning of the Prius system. .
Q.E.D.
KFG