Ford victorious in hybrid car decision
Hybrid vehicle developer Paice has been delivered a further blow in its patent dispute with Ford, as the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has again largely affirmed that patent claims owned by Paice are obvious.
Circuit Judge O’Malley delivered judgment for the Federal Circuit Thursday, February 1.
In February 2014 Paice filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Ford, relating to its hybrid vehicle technology, in the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
In response Ford asked the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review a number of Paice’s patent claims based on prior art. Paice’s lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the 22 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
The PTAB issued final decisions on the IPRs in September 2015. Ford was estopped in relation to several claims in the patents, and in all other decisions the PTAB found the claims under investigation unpatentable due to obviousness, according to information on Paice’s website.
Paice appealed, and in March and April 2017 the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity ruling for six patents and vacated the PTAB’s decision in another. Oral arguments on the remaining IPRs concluded in December 2017.
The appeals court delivered its verdict on US patent numbers 7,237,634 and 8,214,097, owned by Paice, yesterday. Both relate to an algorithm for selecting operating modes in hybrid vehicle technology, and contain claims which are obvious based on prior art, according to Ford.
Ford claimed that US patent number 5,343,970, filed in 1992 by inventor Alex Severinsky, disclosed the algorithm referred to in Paice’s patent claims. Paice said that Severinsky discloses a speed-base algorithm, which is distinct to the torque-based one in Paice’s patent claims.
The appeals court upheld the finding of the PTAB, confirming that Severinsky specifies “road load torque” as well as speed when describing certain modes of operation. Severinsky therefore disclosed a torque-based system for selecting operating modes, rendering claims of Paice’s patents obvious based on prior art.
All obviousness determinations of the ‘097 patent, and some of the ‘634 patent, were upheld. With regard to other claims of the ‘634 patent the court vacated the board’s determination of obviousness and referred it back to the PTAB for consideration.
Paice also filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in February 2017, requesting that the ITC prevent Ford from importing infringing vehicles.
Ruffin Cordell, principal at Fish & Richardson, is representing Paice in the dispute.
He said: “We are pleased that the Federal Circuit has put Severinsky’s work into proper context. We look forward to defending his patents against all challenges."
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's Top Stories
EU court rules on wineries battle
Thelonious Monk trademark suit allowed to brew
NFL star enters copyright battle with photo agency
Fee diversion looms as Iancu appointment approaches
Ashurst IP partner heads to Brown Rudnick
Loeb & Loeb hires Greenberg Traurig lawyer
Authorities swoop on counterfeiters in build-up to Super Bowl
