Stupid Patents Of The Month: Taxi Dispatch Tech

from the hailtroll dept

With all the attention ride-sharing has been getting lately, some might think Uber and Lyft were highly inventive apps. But according to at least one company, the apps are just highly infringing. Who’s right? Probably neither.

Hailo Technologies, LLC (“Hailo”) has recently sued both Uber and Lyft, alleging they infringed Hailo’s taxi dispatch patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,973,619 (“the ‘619 patent”). The patent claims a method for a “computer system” that: (1) displays a list of transportation options; (2) asks the customer for a number of passengers; (3) shows destinations graphically; (4) displays the approximate fare; (5) calls a selected taxi company up for a ride; and (6) gives an estimated arrival time.  A few months ago, Hailo also sued a few other companies for infringing a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,756,913 (“the ‘913 patent”), which claims a method for keeping track of available taxis on the road. More specifically, it claims a method where a computer (1) determines if a taxi is free (i.e. currently has no rider); and if free (2) sends the current location of the taxi to the taxi dispatch server.

Figure 3B from the '619 Patent

Both of Hailo’s patents date to the late 1990s. That is, the patents claim these inventions didn’t exist (or weren’t obvious) at that time. Except a brief Internet search shows that similar taxi dispatch technology not only existed, but was widely used. Two reports from the Department of Transportation from 1991 and 1992 describe the state of “computer dispatch” technology at that time, and show many of the claimed features of the ‘619 and ‘913 patents. Another report, from 1995, has even more detail about various taxi dispatch technologies. For example, on page 115 the report details a product called “MT GU,” an automated call box that allows customers to order “one or several taxis,” specify “the taxi desired” (including getting a larger van), and provides the waiting time. The MT GU system seems to describe many, if not all, of the features in the system claimed in the ‘619 patent, and predates it by several years.

So there’s good reason to think that the inventions claimed in the two patents were not actually novel or non-obvious when the patent applications were filed. But will any of that matter? Patents, once issued, are presumed valid. In order for a patent to be declared invalid in court, a challenger must show “clear and convincing evidence” of invalidity. When the argument for invalidity is based on prior art, this can be an expensive and time consuming process, often costing in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Thus even if these patents are in fact invalid and never should have issued, due to the cost of litigation courts often never decide the issue.

An alternative to court exists in the form of inter partes review at the Patent Office. This allows the Patent Office to take a second look at claims in a patent, and declare them unpatentable under a more lenient “preponderance of the evidence” standard. But this procedure, although cheaper than court, is still relatively expensive. One study estimated costs through appeal at $350,000.

Given the costs of litigation in court or at the Patent Office, a patent owner can sue on a “presumed valid” patent and use the threat of fees and costs to get an undeserved settlement. When a company does nothing else (meaning, it doesn’t have a real business other than litigation) we call those companies “patent trolls.”

Hailo strikes us as pretty trollish. As noted, the patents in questions seem weak at best, and Hailo doesn’t seem to be seriously using the “inventions” in any event.  In its complaint against Uber, Hailo states that it is an app maker. But its website, www.bring.bikes, was registered only 10 days before it sued Uber and Lyft. Confusingly enough, there is another company named “Hailo” that actually does make a taxi hailing app.  Even more confusing: “Hailo” the patent owner says it does business under the name “Bring,” but does not appear to be associated with another company called Bring that’s actually involved in transportation.

This “Hailo” by contrast, seems focused on litigation. A recently filed document attaches the agreement assigning the ‘913 patent from its original owner to Hailo. The contract is replete with references to patent enforcement and litigation. And in an earlier complaint, Hailo listed its business address as that of a law firm, and one of its members, 2S Ventures, has been associated with at least one entity that has filed over 20 lawsuits (login req.), a typical litigation pattern for a patent troll.  

Whether or not Hailo is a practicing company, these are weak patents that deserve serious challenge. Sadly, that’s unlikely to happen ? which is why stupid patents like these should never issue.

Republished from EFF’s Stupid Patents of the Month series.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: hailo

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Stupid Patents Of The Month: Taxi Dispatch Tech”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

The problems you point out are not patent related, they are directly related to the cost of litigation

Unless you address tge real issue, people will continue to exploit that problem for cash.

If a patwnt dispute could be handled with a single $500 filing then most trolls as yiu call them would go away. The US legal system is so complex and so ecpensive to litigate in that there is a huge space where paying for a license is much cheaper than fighting.

Work to fix the legal system and everything else will work itself out.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2017 @ 7:21pm

That’s not the only problem.
The cost is indeed a huge problem. The uncertainty also is a big issue though.

Even if you assume the trial itself is free, would you choose to defend your rights when you’re offered a $5,000 settlement over a 50/50 chance to lose millions?
What I’d the chances are closer to 80/20?

AEIO_ (profile) says:

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2017 @ 7:21pm

“would you choose to defend your rights when you’re offered a $5,000 settlement over a 50/50 chance to lose millions? … What I’d the chances are closer to 80/20?”

Hmmm … so the overall idea here is to “Charge what the market will bear” without killing the golden goose in the meantime.

That’s wonderful! That’s great! I think I’ll patent that exact idea and overall view! Thanks a million! (Or should that be 5 million?)

JoeCool (profile) says:

Desparately needed

The way the patent field is now, what is needed is for courts to drop that presumption of validity. Until patent law is majorly reformed, they should be presumed INVALID until the holder proves in court that they’re valid. It would hurt fewer people in the meantime.

Yes, it would hurt the small guy, but the small guy taking someone to court over a patent is RARE. It’s almost always a couple huge companies waving around thousands of patents, or a lawyer trying to cash in on one invalid patent. The small guy is simply concentrating on his business and actually DOING something. If he’s in court over a patent, it’s one being used AGAINST him, not for him. Flipping around the presumption of validity would help more small guys than hurt.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Desparately needed

That plan just doesn’t fly.

The problem is that is exactly what the patent office is for. They simply aren’t doing their job. You can’t put the burden of determining if a patent is valid on the courts. You certainly cannot wait until litigation before determining if a patent is valid as you would be putting the cost of litigation on an inventor every time they invented something.

It would need to be more subtle. Some way of making it less expensive to challenge the validity of a patent and possibly fee shifting that could put the cost of litigation on a loser in a patent dispute (not that there aren’t problems with that too).

Retsibsi (profile) says:

Why not allow the presumption of the validity of a patent once granted to continue BUT allow anyone to provide a challenge to that patent i.e. prior art by
a. first providing *full* details of the ground(s) for the challenge to the patent holder, then
b. giving them the opportunity of deciding whether or not to oppose that challenge?

The kicker would be that if the patent holder didn’t oppose the challenge the patent would be automatically invalidated. If they did oppose it then, once the issue of whether or not the patent was valid or not was determined on the basis of the challenge as originally put forward, (in other words, without allowing the challenger to add more material later once the formal challenge is made to the court / patent office) the loser would be liable to pay the other party’s costs.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...