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)."
Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier then that.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:2, Interesting)
A quick search on Google resulted in the following article from Trains magazine:
http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/00
They bascially state that modern Dynamic Braking, where the locomotive's traction motors are set as a generator, slows the train. The resulting electrical current is simply disposed of as heat via banks of resistors.
However, the article mentions that in its predecessor, Regenerative Braking, the electrical current developed by one train's braking was applied toward another train's accelleration.
Sounds like prior art to me, but I didn't RTFA to see how specific the patent was.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good patent? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Limited problem (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just submarine patenting. Toyota put out commercials describing the basics of the car. If that's not enough to get you to take a closer look for possible infringment, then you should lose any chance of getting money.
Due Diligence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Limited problem (Score:2, Interesting)
This patent doesn't cover Prius' s drive (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Easy way around that: switch to lithium (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems semi valid (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing / hoping Toyota and this company will both be reasonable and find a fair way to settle this. Where this isn't a 'completely frivolous' case, where the patent holder is a company setup to make money off it's patents (which it doesn't use), I think they'll at least be reasonable.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:3, Interesting)
Regenerative braking is a red herring. What's special about Toyota's HSD on Prius is the drivetrain, and that's exactly what they're talking about in the patent.
The caveat - the patent was filed in 1991, don't patents expire after 14 years?
Re:Limited problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I would venture a guess that many companies go patent hunting before creating new products, and if Toyota were to perform such a practice they surely would have noticed this one in their search (you would think). There are several possible reasons for a five-year delay in a lawsuit.
They would need to first show some degree of infringement. This would require them to examine the specifications of the Toyota Prius. The next step would be to contact Toyota and offer then licensing. You do not jump straight to court. Afterall, why rush into a court case when the company might be reasonable and notice the infringement is there? Believe it or not, this does happen on occassion. After giving reasonable time for a response, a few months to a year probably, you would then begin collecting your evidence and filing your briefs.
So I would say 5 yrs for this entire process is not completely ridiculous.
Re:/tin hat (Score:5, Interesting)
Pharmaceutical companies do this sort of thing all the time.
Re:/tin hat (Score:2, Interesting)
More seriously, the problems with aspartame have been known for a long time. It's rather toxic stuff in the long term and for people with fast growing nervous systems (ie. kids). I don't suppose the new stuff is any healthier, it's just got more years before the patent expires so it's "worth" defending -- if viewed from the limited scope of the companies. As public health issue, it's probably still a problem.
Hybrids are a pipe dream anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
We are far better off investing in both straight electric and high efficiency diesel technology. Both are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow for a wider range of fuel sources.
Re:good patent? (Score:1, Interesting)
To my knowledge, no pharmaceutical company has every provided a further breakdown of the latter line item.
Do it's disingenuous at best to say they spend more on Marketing than on R&D.
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:4, Interesting)
I kinda suspect a bit of prior art somewhere.
That's just it though... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Prius is pretty much unheard-of in the UK and EU. There are a few hybrids about, but I've seen *one* Honda Insight in the past 12 months. No-one wants the expense and complexity of hybrids, when diesels are so good.
Eminent domain (finally a good use) (Score:2, Interesting)
Prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:2, Interesting)
What are the comparative performance figures?
produce significantly less tailpipe emissions
As I have alluded to elsewhere I am not particularly interested in tailpipe emmissions. Those are smoke and mirrors when promoted as reduction of pollution.
As many folks have mentioned, hybrids get much of the economy gains by using engines tuned for fuel economy
Yes, I have mentioned that myself. That is one of the primary points of a hybrid. The other being to reduce the drivetrain to the absolute minimum.
Granted, you could make the engine and CVT changes to a non-hyrbid and probably get as good or possibly even better fuel economy. .
Exactly!
. .
I am not particularly interested in tailpipe emmissions. I am interested in reducing pollution.
. .
Nonesense.
And please note that the post to which you are responding was only intended to address the issue of regenerative breaking. I have written about other issues elsewhere over the years, which I have done because I like hybrids.
KFG