Patent dispute - preliminary rulling
#1
02-26-2007, 08:15 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Patent dispute - preliminary rulling
http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/n...337_561_id.pdf
As I read this, the only straw Solomon Industries has is a finding that their patent is valid. There is a hybrid vehicle report by Miller that planetary gear based, variable ratio transmissions had been patented by TWR in 1972, pre-dating Solomon Industries by about 20 years.
This isn't over but I suspect, soon enough, Solomon Industries will return to their original business model and leave Toyota alone.
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/S...mments_ITC.htm
So it looks like their last leg is the patent itself.
Bob Wilson
Originally Posted by preliminary_finding
. . .
3. An industry does not exist in the United States, as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337, that exploits the '932 patent in issue because complainant has not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
4. Respondent's accused products do not infringe asserted claim 7 of the '932 patent.
5. The asserted claim 7 of the '932 patent is not valid because of a lack of an enabling disclosure.
6. If the '932 patent is found valid, it is enforceable.
7. There is no violation of section 337.
8. Assuming there is an unfair act, the record supports issuance of a limited exclusion order directed to infringing hybrid vehicles or infringing hybrid systems sought to be imported by respondents and imposition of a bond in the amount of $30.00 per imported infringing hybrid vehicle or infringing hybrid system during the Presidential review period.
3. An industry does not exist in the United States, as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337, that exploits the '932 patent in issue because complainant has not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
4. Respondent's accused products do not infringe asserted claim 7 of the '932 patent.
5. The asserted claim 7 of the '932 patent is not valid because of a lack of an enabling disclosure.
6. If the '932 patent is found valid, it is enforceable.
7. There is no violation of section 337.
8. Assuming there is an unfair act, the record supports issuance of a limited exclusion order directed to infringing hybrid vehicles or infringing hybrid systems sought to be imported by respondents and imposition of a bond in the amount of $30.00 per imported infringing hybrid vehicle or infringing hybrid system during the Presidential review period.
This isn't over but I suspect, soon enough, Solomon Industries will return to their original business model and leave Toyota alone.
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/S...mments_ITC.htm
Originally Posted by press_release
Solomon Comments On ITC Decision
TARPON SPRINGS, FL. Feb. 14, 2007 — Solomon Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:SOLM) announced today that its claim of patent infringement against Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of its affiliates, has been denied by an Administrative Law Judge at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).
``We are very disappointed in the Administrative Law Judge's decision and will appeal the case aggressively,'' said Gary G. Brandt, Chief Executive Officer of Solomon. ``Although this infringement case is important to Solomon in protecting the integrity of its intellectual property, the eventual outcome will not affect our plans to commercialize our proprietary technology and grow through acquisitions or change our expected financial results going forward. Solomon's business plan is based on exploiting technology growth opportunities and we will continue to implement that plan and expect to achieve our 2007 targets.''
As previously announced, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. represents Solomon in its action against Toyota. Solomon brought suit against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 12, 2005, claiming infringement of Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932, primarily relating to Toyota's use of the Hybrid Synergy Drive technology in its Prius and Highlander Hybrid vehicles. On January 11, 2006, Solomon filed an additional complaint against Toyota with the ITC seeking to exclude importation of the infringing technology. The action against Toyota and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC action.
TARPON SPRINGS, FL. Feb. 14, 2007 — Solomon Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:SOLM) announced today that its claim of patent infringement against Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of its affiliates, has been denied by an Administrative Law Judge at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).
``We are very disappointed in the Administrative Law Judge's decision and will appeal the case aggressively,'' said Gary G. Brandt, Chief Executive Officer of Solomon. ``Although this infringement case is important to Solomon in protecting the integrity of its intellectual property, the eventual outcome will not affect our plans to commercialize our proprietary technology and grow through acquisitions or change our expected financial results going forward. Solomon's business plan is based on exploiting technology growth opportunities and we will continue to implement that plan and expect to achieve our 2007 targets.''
As previously announced, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. represents Solomon in its action against Toyota. Solomon brought suit against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 12, 2005, claiming infringement of Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932, primarily relating to Toyota's use of the Hybrid Synergy Drive technology in its Prius and Highlander Hybrid vehicles. On January 11, 2006, Solomon filed an additional complaint against Toyota with the ITC seeking to exclude importation of the infringing technology. The action against Toyota and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC action.
Bob Wilson
#2
03-01-2007, 08:26 AM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 374
Re: Patent dispute - preliminary rulling
5 years ago I'd gamble the conflicting patent would hold up because no one at the Patent office seemed to care for logic, but the USPTO and the court system have turned around and are invalidating patents more and more often now. I think Solomon's losing that last leg.
#3
05-18-2007, 04:32 AM
Re: Patent dispute - preliminary rulling
If we ever get to colonize Mars, hopefully we will get the chance to do things better . . . then again, if WE ever do it, I don't think there will be much of a change.
It would be funny to see that the "human way of doing things" would make it's way to Mars before we even get there once history unfolds. The judge making this desition could definitely go down in history as the bad guy/the who was bought/who could not understand technology/who did the wrong thing. Coming to think of it, my unborn grandson may some day see a History Channel documentary on this, for that generation, just as it is for us now, the outcome will be irrelevant. However, this transpires a lot like the Music industry of today, where the big fish devours the little fish. Why do you think there's little to almost no creativity at all in modern/pop/folk music? Because it is not encouraged/supported/protected, period.
I still wonder what a man like Bach would have played with synthesizers . . . then again, you could say I believe in fairies, which incidentally is true (that is because I actually understand what the author meant while writing about them).
#4
05-18-2007, 05:36 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Re: Patent dispute - preliminary rulling
Hi,
Although Solomon has a nice patent, it may have been issued in error. There is prior art from TRW in 1971 that predates Solomon. I suspect Toyota has made reference to TRW in its patent:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6387004-claims.html
TRW has standing because of this:
Sad to say but the testimony for this dispute remains sealed. If there is evidence Toyota engineers used Solomon's work, my opinion would change. But even Solomon never publicly claimed "engineer so and so" had done it. In fact, it looked like Toyota presented a great deal of technical data about their analysis of the optimum configuration that Solomon did not have.
I suspect Toyota had patented a specific implementation and Solomon was trying to claim the whole based upon broader napkin sketches. Sad to say, Solomon lost in the trade commission because there was no evidence of Toyota going after Solomon's established customer base. There was no economic impact upon an established customer base.
BTW, the US International Trade Commission web site allows folks to register and gain access to the public documents in a dispute. Although the really interesting parts were kept secret to protect trade secrets, there was enough information in the peripheral motions and claims to give a hint about how it was argued. But gosh, some of those secret documents would make terribly interesting reading!
Bob Wilson
I read Solomon's patent, have yet to read Toyota's. My initial take is there's patent infrigement, Solomon's patent explains very much what the system actually is. Two electrical power sources converging on a single transmition/energy regeneration/infinite speed/sun gears unit. NASA is actually using/licensing Solomon's technology for Mars Rovers.
. . .
. . .
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6387004-claims.html
TRW has standing because of this:
"The classic electro-mechanical power split transmission developed by TRW and published in a 1971 SAE paper is the basis of today’s electric power split systems. G.H. Gelb, N. A. Richardson, T.C. ****, B. Berman, “An Electromechanical Transmission for Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains,” SAE paper no. 710235, Jan. 1971" (Comparative Assessment of Hybrid Vehicle Power Split Transmissions, John M. Miller, J-N-J Miller, January 12, 2005, slide 3)
It is not uncommon for parallel development to occur and similar patents get filed. That is why patent law is so profitable. However, my reading is TRW has the stronger claim.Sad to say but the testimony for this dispute remains sealed. If there is evidence Toyota engineers used Solomon's work, my opinion would change. But even Solomon never publicly claimed "engineer so and so" had done it. In fact, it looked like Toyota presented a great deal of technical data about their analysis of the optimum configuration that Solomon did not have.
I suspect Toyota had patented a specific implementation and Solomon was trying to claim the whole based upon broader napkin sketches. Sad to say, Solomon lost in the trade commission because there was no evidence of Toyota going after Solomon's established customer base. There was no economic impact upon an established customer base.
BTW, the US International Trade Commission web site allows folks to register and gain access to the public documents in a dispute. Although the really interesting parts were kept secret to protect trade secrets, there was enough information in the peripheral motions and claims to give a hint about how it was argued. But gosh, some of those secret documents would make terribly interesting reading!
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 05-18-2007 at 05:46 AM.
#5
06-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Re: Patent dispute - preliminary rulling (coming back)
My feeling instead is that understanding and enforcing patent law is a tricky and very thorny issue, it is also that it takes very smart people to understand it. Engineers within this very forum seem to grasp the workings, but I would assume it to be very difficult for most judges to decide if such a patent is enforceable. This technology was shown to Toyota before they risked marketing it, but they didn't buy it. It took literaly rocket scientists/engineers to value and license it, hence Mars Rovers ended up using it. Anyway, here is some fresh news. Despite the fact I am torned between David and Goliath, I would go with David this time. Toyota's costumer base changed a lot since the Hybrid introduction, I for one used to love the Subaru Outback and if the Hybrid had not been such a success, I would not drive a Prius Today.
"Solomon Announces Toyota Patent Infringement Appeal
TARPON SPRINGS, Fla., June 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Solomon
Technologies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SOLM) announced today that it will
appeal the final determination of the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) regarding Solomon's claim of patent infringement against
Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of its affiliates, to the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Washington, DC. The Commission
ruled, on April 30, 2007, that there was no violation of Section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
"We were clearly surprised by the initial determination by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and, after careful consideration, we have
concluded that there were serious errors made in interpreting the pertinent
patent law and precedents in this case leaving us no option but to appeal
the case to a court with particular expertise in this field." said Gary G.
Brandt, Chief Executive Officer of Solomon. "The CAFC is the primary court
in the United States which hears appeals of patent cases from the lower
district courts or from the ITC. We strongly believe that a proper
interpretation of the law, and precedents of the Appeals Court, will result
in a reversal of the most critical aspects of the ALJ's decision."
Mr. Brandt continued, "As those who have followed this case closely
know, we determined some time ago that the ITC venue would provide a more
streamlined path to resolving this matter. Because the ITC is not a
judicial court, however, its findings are not binding on any other courts
to which Solomon might bring the case in the future. We believe that the
CAFC is the appropriate forum by which to establish the proper
interpretation of our patent claims and to provide us with future options
to pursue full and fair remedies at either the ITC or the Federal Court in
Florida."
As previously announced Solomon brought suit against Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing
North America in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 12, 2005, claiming infringement of
Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932, primarily relating to Toyota's use
of the Hybrid Synergy Drive technology in its Prius and Highlander Hybrid
vehicles. On January 11, 2006, Solomon filed an additional complaint
against Toyota with the ITC seeking to exclude importation of the
infringing technology. The action against Toyota and its affiliates in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC action.
Information about Solomon Technologies, Inc.:
Solomon Technologies, Inc., through its Motive Power and Power
Electronics divisions, develops, licenses, manufactures and sells precision
electric power drive systems, including those utilizing its patented
Electric Wheel(TM), Electric Transaxle(TM) and hybrid and regenerative
technologies as well as direct current power supplies and power supply
systems requiring high levels of reliability and ruggedness for defense,
aerospace, marine, commercial, automotive, hybrid electric and all electric
vehicle applications.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS: This press release contains forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. The statements regarding Solomon Technologies, Inc. in this
release that are not historical in nature, particularly those that utilize
terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "likely," "expects,"
"anticipates," "estimates," "believes," or "plans," or comparable
terminology, are forward- looking statements based on current expectations
about future events, which management has derived from the information
currently available to it. It is possible that the assumptions made by
management for purposes of such statements may not materialize. Actual
results may differ materially from those projected or implied in any
forward-looking statements. Important factors known to management that
could cause forward-looking statements to turn out to be incorrect are
identified and discussed from time to time in the Company's filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward- looking statements
contained in this release speak only as of the date hereof, and the Company
undertakes no obligation to correct or update any forward- looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise."
"Solomon Announces Toyota Patent Infringement Appeal
TARPON SPRINGS, Fla., June 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Solomon
Technologies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SOLM) announced today that it will
appeal the final determination of the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) regarding Solomon's claim of patent infringement against
Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of its affiliates, to the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Washington, DC. The Commission
ruled, on April 30, 2007, that there was no violation of Section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
"We were clearly surprised by the initial determination by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and, after careful consideration, we have
concluded that there were serious errors made in interpreting the pertinent
patent law and precedents in this case leaving us no option but to appeal
the case to a court with particular expertise in this field." said Gary G.
Brandt, Chief Executive Officer of Solomon. "The CAFC is the primary court
in the United States which hears appeals of patent cases from the lower
district courts or from the ITC. We strongly believe that a proper
interpretation of the law, and precedents of the Appeals Court, will result
in a reversal of the most critical aspects of the ALJ's decision."
Mr. Brandt continued, "As those who have followed this case closely
know, we determined some time ago that the ITC venue would provide a more
streamlined path to resolving this matter. Because the ITC is not a
judicial court, however, its findings are not binding on any other courts
to which Solomon might bring the case in the future. We believe that the
CAFC is the appropriate forum by which to establish the proper
interpretation of our patent claims and to provide us with future options
to pursue full and fair remedies at either the ITC or the Federal Court in
Florida."
As previously announced Solomon brought suit against Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing
North America in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 12, 2005, claiming infringement of
Solomon's U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932, primarily relating to Toyota's use
of the Hybrid Synergy Drive technology in its Prius and Highlander Hybrid
vehicles. On January 11, 2006, Solomon filed an additional complaint
against Toyota with the ITC seeking to exclude importation of the
infringing technology. The action against Toyota and its affiliates in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC action.
Information about Solomon Technologies, Inc.:
Solomon Technologies, Inc., through its Motive Power and Power
Electronics divisions, develops, licenses, manufactures and sells precision
electric power drive systems, including those utilizing its patented
Electric Wheel(TM), Electric Transaxle(TM) and hybrid and regenerative
technologies as well as direct current power supplies and power supply
systems requiring high levels of reliability and ruggedness for defense,
aerospace, marine, commercial, automotive, hybrid electric and all electric
vehicle applications.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS: This press release contains forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. The statements regarding Solomon Technologies, Inc. in this
release that are not historical in nature, particularly those that utilize
terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "likely," "expects,"
"anticipates," "estimates," "believes," or "plans," or comparable
terminology, are forward- looking statements based on current expectations
about future events, which management has derived from the information
currently available to it. It is possible that the assumptions made by
management for purposes of such statements may not materialize. Actual
results may differ materially from those projected or implied in any
forward-looking statements. Important factors known to management that
could cause forward-looking statements to turn out to be incorrect are
identified and discussed from time to time in the Company's filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward- looking statements
contained in this release speak only as of the date hereof, and the Company
undertakes no obligation to correct or update any forward- looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise."
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
710235, complaint, corp, electromechanical, hybrid, itc, motor, patent, powertrain, prius, sae, toyota, transmission, trw, vehicle
