« 101 Clarification | Main | Silver Bullet »

July 3, 2008

Pacing

Paice successfully sued Toyota for infringing hybrid vehicle drive train patents. Toyota couldn't get the verdict overturned on appeal, and SCOTUS blew them off. Not having the sense to settle, Toyota now faces a new suit.

Paice's new vehicle is 7,392,871. Paice asserted '871 in the Eastern District of Texas the very day it issued. The accused products include those found previously infringing: the Highlander SUV, and Lexus RX400h.

Paice, which had been denied injunctive relief in light of the 2006 eBay v. MercExchange SCOTUS ruling, chomps on the injunction bit again. Last round, Paice got $4.3 million in damages and ongoing royalty amounting to compulsory licensing. The new suit also requests enhanced damages from willful infringement, seeking to jump over the high bar of "objective recklessness" set in the 2007 CAFC ruling In Re Seagate.

Paice is represented by McKool Smith, with Fish & Richardson of counsel.

Posted by Patent Hawk at July 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Litigation

Comments

more than four pages (double column) of prior art in the published patent

Posted by: patent prosecutor at July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

Meh, doesn't surprise me a bit. I have had a case with over 700 ref's all told in the IDS. That would make at least 3 pages I'd say. Probably more like 10 since 1/2 of it was NPL.

Posted by: e6k at July 5, 2008 1:47 PM

mr e6k

out of curiosity, did you find any prior art which was more relevant than the 700 ref's cited by the applicant?

Posted by: patent prosecutor at July 6, 2008 2:17 PM

The Paice patents all commit the recently widely decried "mortal sins" of extensive commentary (totalling 15 columns), including distinguishing the prior art in detail, a listing of "objects of the invention", and a detailed SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION that does not necessarily comport to the claims that arre presented in each of the Paice patents as well as characterizing certain preferred embodiment features as "preferable". Why were the defendants not able to get the claim limitations construed narrowly using all this commentary? This decision shows that well crafted patent applications that include such detail are not necessarily vulnerable to the narrowing attacks that have been in vogue in recent years.


Posted by: Joe Breimayer at July 29, 2008 6:27 AM