USITC launches investigation into Ford’s hybrid electric cars

The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has launched an investigation into Ford’s hybrid electric vehicles, following a patent complaint from a US-based hybrid technology company.

On Monday, March 6, the ITC announced that it had voted to institute an investigation into certain hybrid electric vehicles, naming Ford as the respondent.

The complaint was filed by Paice on Thursday, February 2.

According to the ITC, the complaint alleged that Ford had violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing “certain hybrid electric vehicles and components” that infringed Paice’s patents.

The patents are US numbers 7,237,634, 7,455,134, 7,559,388, and 8,214,097. They are all called “Hybrid vehicles” and are owned by Paice.

Paice argued that Ford directly and contributorily infringed the patents, and requested that the ITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders.

In a separate dispute between the companies, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday, March 7, disagreed with Paice’s appeal against a patent being invalidated.

Paice had sued Ford in 2014 for infringing its patent, US number 7,104,347, also called “Hybrid vehicles”.

After Paice asserted its patent in the district court, Ford filed a number of inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Three of these were instituted for the ‘347 patent.

The PTAB found a number of the claims to be obvious, so Paice appealed against the decision.

Paice argued that the board “misconstrued” two claim terms and “lacked substantial evidence” to supports its obviousness findings.

However, the Federal Circuit disagreed with Paice and affirmed the PTAB’s ruling.

Yesterday, March 7, the Federal Circuit also affirmed and vacated in-part an earlier IPR decision that invalidated a number of claims of Paice’s ‘388 patent for being obvious.

The patent relates to hybrid vehicle control strategies.

Paice again argued that the PTAB’s findings were not supported by “substantial evidence”.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with Paice, with the exception of one claim, which was “incorrectly analysed as rising or falling with the independent claims”.

The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.