Toyota hybrids to be banned for patent infringement?
The enviable, ecologically-correct halos surrounding Toyota's little green clean machines, the Prius and Highlander Hybrids, stand to shine just a little less brightly in light of an intellectual property lawsuit filed by Solomon Technologies, Inc. against the Toyota Motor Company.
According to AutoServiceWorld.com, the complaint filed with United States International Trade Commission (ITC) last week alleges that technology employed in the company's Hybrid Synergy Drive componentry illegally infringes upon Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932. Solomon Technologies had already filed a similar motion in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa division in September of 2005.
If the ITC rules against Toyota in this case, it could elect to ban the Prius and Highlander Hybrids from further importation and subject the automaker to massive fines.
It will be interesting to watch how Toyota's legal team reacts to this issue, and to see if this purported technology patent-infringement will also be legally applied to forthcoming Hybrid Synergy Drive applications (e.g. the Camry Hybrid and Lexus LS hybrid).
Thanks to iDave for the tip.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ShagPal 5:09AM (2/20/2006)
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.
Reply
Al 11:18AM (4/06/2006)
Another company which is also suing toyota for patent infringements is Antonov-transmission
look at its press release.
http://www.antonov-transmission.com/press_273.htm
Reply
ii3W 12:16PM (9/30/2008)
we filed b4 toyoda, wasn't until 94' the g21 group asked to inspect our powertrain suggesting a collaboration effort. Mr 'Unchi'yamada (trans= of the mountain of sh**) simply took what we built to look at and never called us back
A. Solomon (nephew)
Reply
Car-la 9:58AM (1/16/2006)
And in the end nothing is going to happen. If the court decides against Toyota, the latter will pay a license fee, Solomon Tech will have earned a lot of money (isn't that what it's all about?), and everything will be fine.
I think the least possible scenario is that Toyota will stop selling Hybrids in the US.
Reply
Dan 10:13AM (1/16/2006)
Don't panic.
Name a large, successful corporation. Any one. You can bet that they're fighting a number of patent lawsuits. See the BusinessWeek article, below, for more details. In a nutshell, these lawsuits take years to resolve, and even in the worst case for Toyota, where they're found to infringe the patent, they'll just end up shelling out a royalty payment to the patent holder.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966086.htm
Reply
Slippery Pete 10:30AM (1/16/2006)
Never, ever, ever happen. Toyota can litigate Solomon into the ground. And even if Solomon does win (in 20 years), Toyota will merely have to pay them a small royalty. But even that much is doubtful.
Reply
jason in boston 11:07AM (1/16/2006)
just more evidence of the differences in open U.S. law and capitalism and the japanese version...their companies funded by their government, will do anything to jump a market. smart and ruthless and can steal an idea and make it golden. the core of japanese business morality is "just steal and make it better." the U.S. market has always been sitting ducks to the aggressively protected Japanese businesses. our government is reactive to U.S. business' needs and health. glad the bad guys got caught.
Reply
John B 12:08PM (1/16/2006)
Jason:
Check the press - there has been a lot written lately about "patent trolls". These are companies (and lawyers) that look for very loosely written patents and then proceed to try and shake down legitimate companies - often for hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe the U.S. Patent Office is now reviewing how patents are granted and how detailed and specific the patents must be to be valid.
Reply
emulous1974 12:20PM (1/16/2006)
Wow jason in boston, so much for the belief in the U.S. innocent until proven guilty. I guess I was also taught differently about what happened in Japan after WWII, where it was the U.S. that gave Japan information on how to run a business successfully to help rebuild after what we destroyed, because none of the businesses in the U.S. would listen to our experts.
I haven't done the research on how Toyota is funded, but you come off as someone completely jealous that American companies don't compete well with Japanesse companies because they are more concerned about keeping what they think they have rather than looking to the future to get what they want.
If Toyota is guilty of stealing intellectual property then they should be held to the strictest of laws and have to pay out the ass. I'm a firm believer in Capitalism, but you seem to miss out on some of the most important aspects that make it possible.
Reply
Whydrive 12:28PM (1/16/2006)
Obviously Slippery Pete hasn't heard of the Eolas lawsuit against MS. Companies, no matter how large or powerful, can be significantly affected.
Reply
LuboDuboLoL 12:28PM (1/16/2006)
Patent was made in September 2005? Didn't the Prius come out a few years ahead? What's going on here... unless Toyota decided not to patent their hybrid tech just like how Madame Curie chose not to patent her Radium discovering technique. I hate money mongers like solomon. POS Big Time!
Reply
Vince 12:48PM (1/16/2006)
It's funny how people are defending Toyota blindly without knowing the facts. Toyota themselves brought litigation against Ford (or somebody) over patent infringements about their hybrid technology not that long ago.
Reply
Source1 12:50PM (1/16/2006)
Anyone familiar with the Japanese 'way of doing business' knows full well the possibility of this. Japan is known for taking shelved or discarded technologies of others and 'reinventing' or improving them. Whether Toyota did this or not is in question, but it certainly wouldn't be hard to fathom.
Reply
LK 1:02PM (1/16/2006)
According to the U.S. Patent office, Solomon's original patent (5,067,932) was filed on November 28, 1990 - well before Toyota came up with their current hybrid technology.
Reply
klaatu 1:43PM (1/16/2006)
So, LK, that would explain why Toyota had a 1975 Toyota Crown hybrid on the road as a prototype, eh?
Toyota have been working on this since the 1973 fuel crisis (as a guess, given the timing of the first prototype).
It was probably battery technology which lagged, and possibly computer technology. The "mechanical and electrical bits" were probably solved years ago.
Toyota could just buy up this biting gnat of a company (whether they're right or wrong, it matters not) for less than pocket-change and be done with it. Hell, Toyota could buy GM for pocket change. But they're too smart to do something stupid like that.
Reply
klaatu 2:09PM (1/16/2006)
Here's an interesting article from EVworld - especially interesting is the part about changing our entire fleet of vehicles over to gas-electric (and plug-in) hybrids, and using shut-down auto plants to build wind-generators.
GM, here's you chance to keep people at work and utilize those closed or closing factories.... Ford, too.
See
http://evworld.com/general.cfm?
pageIDENT=brown_planB2.cfm
and also look at part one
http://evworld.com/general.cfm?pageIDENT=brown_planB1.cfm
If the links don't work, go to EVworld.com and look about 1/2 way down the page on the right "Lester Brown's Plan B"
Reply
Lithous 2:17PM (1/16/2006)
Didn't Donald Trump brag about the kind of stuff Slippery Pete is talking about? He would get a small company to install carpets in his hotel so that when they screwed up any MINOR details as is normal with any project (except Toyota's of course) Trump could have the power to make them do it all over again. They basically couldn't afford to say, "NO".
I can't wait for Ralph Nader and Michael Moore to come out with the book and documentary on this one. Oh, wait, that's right, that kind of stuff is only done to the American companies.
I think it is just that Toyota doesn't believe in that Patent and Copyright protectionism stuff (well, unless it is them with the patent or copyright, I'm guessing). You know, some companies might get lazy if they can get a good idea and not have to share it. Toyota is just protesting potential laziness.
...
Yeah Toyota, steal them all. You could build the ipod better, steal that one too. What else, what else? I'd love a 40" LCD for about $1000. Toyota, I beg of you, steal the patents and make it for me. The world would be so much better if you could just build everything.
...
Oh, wait, that was just an import fanboy dream I accidently stumbled upon, sorry.
Try this in a google search:
1975 hybrid site:toyota.com
I don't see much from the overly talkative Toyota exec about their 1975 hybrid on the Toyota site.
Anyway, I believe batterys have been in cars with gas engines way before 1975 (Toyota was so excited the first vehicle they added a battery to for the lights and stuff that they called it a hybrid.). Gotta love it.
Reply
JIm 2:21PM (1/16/2006)
Jason has a point. I lived in Japan for a number of years. Exports are Japan's lifeblood. One could argue their government, unlike our own, works WITH it's industry instead of AGAINST it. They take a long term view, support those companies that will better their economy and country as a whole, and abandon those that will not. That thinking wouldn't fly in the U.S.
An example is the aircraft carrier, USS Kitty Hawk, presently homeported in Yokouska, Japan. Japan asked for a carrier in the early '70s because of the Soviet threat. The U.S. responded with the USS Midway. Part of the agreement was Japan would pay for half the cost of the ship being there. Evidence of their long term thinking...all their support has been infrastructure. They don't pay for electricity, fuel, food stuffs; only housing, piers, drydocks, and the like - all of which can be used after the U.S. leaves. I just can't see the U.S. having that much forethought about the way we run things. The first time the U.S. government openly supported that philosophy, the electorate would have a fit. Remember the controversy when the government backed the loan for Chrysler. In Japan that sort of support is just the way the government works and the populous accepts it because they know it helps in the long run.
Reply
Brian 2:54PM (1/16/2006)
I do not remember for sure about patents. I would have to find the legal information, but if I remember correctly patents do not last forever. Once the patent expires they can apply for a new patent. If someone who is in the legal field and reading this knows otherwise, please speak up.
Reply
kit 2:56PM (1/16/2006)
solomon has annual revenues of less than $400,000 (that's not a typo).
it would cost more than $400k just to put toyota's documents on a CD. and those documents are in japanese and will need to be translated.
yeah, they found outside financing to pay their legal bills. but wait until toyota decides to play hardball.
my guess is that if solomon has a legitimate case --and as a real company in the business of building regenerative electro-mechanical drives for boat engines, they may well have figured something out that the automakers need for hybrid cars -- toyota will just agree to pay a small royalty and be done with it.
who knows -- it's a public company (but not exchange traded). maybe it'd be worth buying a few thousand shares just to see what happens if they start earning serious royalty income from the world's automakers.
Reply