May 25, 2012

Toyota Settles Hybrid Patent Case

As we reported a few weeks ago, Toyota has been embroiled in a patent dispute with Paice LLC concerning its hybrid vehicle technology that threatened to halt hybrid imports in the United States.  As it turns out, after six years of litigation, Toyota has finally reached a settlement in the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Paice founder Alex Severinsky, who had claimed that Toyota infringed on his 1994 patent, was pleased with the result.

“Finally people understand the merits of what I invented and give it the proper value,” Severinsky said. “Toyota is the leading technology company and finally appreciates the value of the invention.”

Toyota had insisted that, while its technology was similar to Paice patent, its hyrib vehicles were the result of its own independent research. Evidently, both parties were in agreement.

“The parties agree that, although certain Toyota vehicles have been found to be equivalent to a Paice patent, Toyota invented, designed and developed the Prius and Toyota’s hybrid technology independent of any inventions of Dr. Severinsky and Paice as part of Toyota’s long history of innovation,” both companies said in separate statements.

With this issue out of the way, Toyota can now concentrate on its latest round of subpeonas. This time, a federal grand jury in New York is investigating whether or not Toyota notified the NHTSA in a timely fashion about faulty steering rods.

For Toyota, a bad year just keeps getting worse.

The above article is reprinted from the Risk Management Monitor - the official blog of Risk Management magazine.

Reprinted with permission from the Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2010 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor in Chief

Morgan O’Rourke is the director of publications for the Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) and the editor in chief of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5922

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.