I've been frustrated that the Solomon patent dispute with Toyota has pretty well gone 'confidential.' When you go to the International Trade Commission web site, www.usitc.gov, and look up the documents for "337-TA-561", there are a couple of dozen documents but the interesting ones are blocked as 'confidential.' Sorting through the remaining documents and tossing out the 'house keeping' documents, one escaped censorship:
"Order No. 14: Requiring Submissions From Complainant, Respondents And The Staff And Also Requiring Submissions From The Private Parties Reporting On The October 2 Meeting" (PDF document 7c95f2)
This document asks for clarification of the technical arguments from the expert witnesses of Solomon and Toyota. Reading what they are asking to clarify is a bit like trying to reconstruct the elephant from the arguments of the seven blind men. However, it did give some insights:
Solomon's patent covers two motor inputs providing a single, continuously variable power output (aka., their 'electric wheel')
Toyota's hybrid drives have two additional power flows that are not covered in the Solomon patent
Engine start - requires power to flow from MG1 and out one of the input shafts of the Solomon 'electric wheel' to the ICE.
MG1 generation - requires power to flow out the ICE input shaft to turn MG1, another mode not described in the Solomon 'electric wheel'
I am not a patent lawyer and I am biased for Toyota. However, I think Toyota's arguments will win. The two power flows between what the Solomon patent calls 'inputs' is a mode they didn't think of in 1992. That both Solomon's electric wheel and Toyota's synergy drives share a CVT characteristic does not make the other two modes go away.
Bob Wilson
ps. I've long admired Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wipers, but I don't think Solomon's patent has enough merit to prevail.
But, if Toyota's design appears to be an evolution of the electric wheel, it could prevail. . . .
Had Toyota used a standard starter motor for the ICE and never run MG1 as a generator via the PSD, then 'evolution' would be using the ICE as a substitute for one of the two inputs. The two unique power flows between the two "inputs" makes Toyota's power split device (PSD) something apart from the 'electric wheel' patent and not an 'evolution'.
The clever and unique aspect of Toyota's PSD is using it to replace the starter and, not mentioned, the engine brake. You can actually see the ICE 'powered to a halt' when it is shutdown. The other function, generating electricity from MG1 is also, totally unique to Toyota's PSD and never described in the Solomon patent.
I suspect that Toyota's PSD or synergy drive patents are very solid and secure. Furthermore, the more I look at it, the more I am convenced it also scales well and subsequent improvements have made it a light weight, mechanically simple, highly efficient solution. One of the clever enhancements being the MG2 side gearing that extends the high-speed band (or improves the low-speed torque, the samething.)
Can you find anything in the Solomon patent to support these unique to Toyota power flows?
Of course, even if Toyota loses, they won't stop making hybrids. they will just have to bribe SOLOMON. It's the American way to wage suits instead of innovating or actually doing anything useful. Solomon will blow the law$uit money in a year or two and then pick on Ford or Honda.
Of course, even if Toyota loses, they won't stop making hybrids. they will just have to bribe SOLOMON. It's the American way to wage suits instead of innovating or actually doing anything useful. Solomon will blow the law$uit money in a year or two and then pick on Ford or Honda.
My understanding is one of the first things a judge does is ask both parties if they have tried to reach an agreement. No doubt, some discussions have already occurred. But given the risks of losing and what little I can tell about their respective arguments, I think Toyota has a stronger case.
As for Solomon, their 'electric wheel' has applications that are unique:
The Electric Wheel may be constructed with one electric motor power input device and the second power input device being any suitable power input device, such as an internal combustion engine (I.C.E.).
I think it is a great approach for hybridizing a serial-hybrid. Eventually, we may see them in someone else's hybrid electric. But even their own description says their design is based upon two 'power input' without describing the multi-path energy flows. A good invention but not the Toyota PSD.
BTW, I was looking at a Solomon web page and noticed:
Given the Honda Accord uses an IMA approach, this really says they don't know the difference. That is why we have a court, the devine the truth from the entrails of lawyer-speak.
I am also not a lawyer or patent agent, but consider this: Say party A patents a stool having three or more legs supporting a flat surface for sitting. Then party B tries to patent a chair having four or more legs supporting a flat surface and a nearly vertical back for sitting while supporting both the buttocks and the back. B's patent may be a valid patent for a chair, but it is "riding" on A's stool patent, as every component of the stool is found in the chair. The chair is an improvement over the stool, and the chair patent can be granted, while at the same time infringing on the stool patent. B cannot not make a chair without a license from A, nor can A make a chair without a license from B. Note, however, that if B could make a chair with two legs, then it would not infringe on the stool patent (and it would not even need a back to avoid infringement).
I am not familiar with the Solomon patent, and am biased towards Toyota (my TCH being my fourth Toyota/Lexus vehicle), but from what I read here, it looks like Toyota may have some real problems with the Solomon patent. There are other concerns such as novelty and usefulness, (for example, A could not get a patent for a three legged chair since it would be an obvious change from B's four legged chair patent, nor is it likely that B could secure a patent for a two legged chair, although anyone could sell one since it would neither infringe on A's or B's patents, nor be patentable) but I don't see either of these aspects being an issue here. However, if the Toyota HSD requires (as a subset) all of the required components of the electric wheel patent, with each component doing similar things, then there is a real patent conflict.
I am also not a lawyer or patent agent, but consider this: Say party A patents a stool having three or more legs supporting a flat surface for sitting. Then party B tries to patent a chair having four or more legs supporting a flat surface and a nearly vertical back for sitting while supporting both the buttocks and the back. B's patent may be a valid patent for a chair, but it is "riding" on A's stool patent, as every component of the stool is found in the chair. The chair is an improvement over the stool, and the chair patent can be granted, while at the same time infringing on the stool patent. B cannot not make a chair without a license from A, nor can A make a chair without a license from B. Note, however, that if B could make a chair with two legs, then it would not infringe on the stool patent (and it would not even need a back to avoid infringement).
I am not familiar with the Solomon patent, and am biased towards Toyota (my TCH being my fourth Toyota/Lexus vehicle), but from what I read here, it looks like Toyota may have some real problems with the Solomon patent. There are other concerns such as novelty and usefulness, (for example, A could not get a patent for a three legged chair since it would be an obvious change from B's four legged chair patent, nor is it likely that B could secure a patent for a two legged chair, although anyone could sell one since it would neither infringe on A's or B's patents, nor be patentable) but I don't see either of these aspects being an issue here. However, if the Toyota HSD requires (as a subset) all of the required components of the electric wheel patent, with each component doing similar things, then there is a real patent conflict.
Like you, I'm not an expert but I was trying to figure out what arguments both sides were asserting. Sad to say, most of the key testimony is 'confidential.' Other things could also impact the results including any prior correspondance between Solomon and Toyota engineers. Just it looks to me like Toyota may have a valid counter-claim based upon the additional power flows not covered in the Solomon patent.
Prior art is also interesting and I found patent 4,014,222 from March 29, 1977 that appears to be simular to both the PSD and Solomon planetary gear systems. The big difference is 4,014,222 has two sun gears and dual-gear planetary gears. There is no ring gear but a motor that controls the planetary carrier to achieve variable ratio. However, I saw no reference to this patent in the open documents:
Quote:
Originally Posted by abstract_4014222
A power transmission apperatus comprising planetary gear elements for controlling the direction and speed of power transmitted to a driver power unit, such as a vehicle, industrical machines, household equipment, or the like. In one embodiment of the invention, power from a constant speed, uni-directional prime mover is cnverted to multi-speed forward and reverse pwoer by controlling only the movement of the planetary carrier. . .
Regardless of the outcome, I look forward to reading the decision. Considering the stakes, I suspect it will be appealed.
Just it looks to me like Toyota may have a valid counter-claim based upon the additional power flows not covered in the Solomon patent.
Lot's of good info, Bob. However, this one statement counters one point I was making. If the additional power flows also incorporate all of the power flows in the Solomon patent, then it is still riding on that patent. Unless at least one of the critical components of the other patent is eliminated, then there is still likely to be infringement. That is why a chair with two legs does not infringe the three legged stool patent, but a four legged chair does. However, had the contrived stool patent claimed three legs instead of three or more legs, then a four legged chair would not be infringing!
Solomon vs. Toyota - synopsis
Re: Solomon vs. Toyota - synopsis
