Court Sides With Highway Toll Administration in Patent Infringement Suit

Highway Toll Administration LLC (HTA), a provider of electronic toll collection services to the car rental industry, received on Aug. 30, 2010, a favorable Markman ruling in a pending patent lawsuit brought against the company by PlatePass LLC. 

"A Markman ruling is a pretrial opinion issued by a U.S. District Court, in this case the Southern District of Texas, in Houston, determining the scope of patent claims," said Scott Bornstein, co-chair of Greenberg Traurig's patent litigation group and, along with Allan Kassenoff, HTA's outside counsel.

"Also known as a 'claim construction' opinion, it is a ruling on the meanings of relevant key words used in claims, when patent infringement is alleged," he continued. "A Markman hearing, at which evidence is heard by a judge, and the judge's subsequent ruling are two of the most critical events in such cases."

Summarizing the history of the case, Bornstein explained that in December 2008 PlatePass sued HTA, claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,127,938, for a toll-tag holder used in rental cars. In May 2009, HTA sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity, asserting counterclaims for various state law torts. This was quickly followed, he said, by both parties submitting Markman briefs. 

"In its brief," Bornstein said, "PlatePass attempted to broaden the scope of the patent-in-suit by arguing that the claim term 'drawer for slidable engagement' should be construed to include a box that 'open[s] by swinging out on a pivot.'" 

In the Markman ruling, the court construed the key terms in HTA's favor, stated Bornstein. "Specifically, the court expressly rejected PlatePass's argument about the scope of the claimed 'drawer,'" he said. "According to the court, 'The ordinary definition of a drawer is a box that slides in and out of a larger box as a frame. It does not pivot...'"

Given the court's decision, said David Centner, president and CEO of HTA, "We expect to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. We also intend to vigorously pursue our counterclaims, on which this court decision has no effect."

Comments

  1. Volmari [ February 2, 2014 @ 10:56PM ]

    Dear rent-Team,
    we want transfer the amount of 17,45 USD for the invoice E18363493. Sorry, but I had not a bankinformation fpr this payment. Can you send me the bankdetails? Routingnumber, accountnumer, accountholder, name of your bank and is it possible a swiftcode.
    Thanks a lot,
    best regards
    Martina

Comment On This Story

Name:  
Email:  
Comment: (Max. 10000 characters)  
Please leave blank:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.

Newsletter: Sign up to receive latest news, articles, and much more.

Read the latest

Auto Focus Blog: A blog covering fleets, auto rental and the business of cars

Why Do We Visit Capitol Hill?

Members of the American Car Rental Association met with U.S. senators, representatives, and their aides last week. Here’s why bringing the message to this forum matters.

The Customer Isn’t Always Right

Not caving to a customer with a blatant agenda may have consequences, especially for a small rental company that relies on stellar Yelp ratings to advertise. But business integrity must prevail.

The Truth Behind Compact Van Depreciation

Why are large van values holding up better than their compact counterparts, and will it last?

Job Finder: Access Top Talent. Fill Key Positions.