Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is INDECT being sued by Park Assist?
NO. INDECT is NOT being sued by Park Assist. INDECT is suing Park Assist for initiating sham litigation and engaging in unfair and unlawful anticompetitive behavior.
2. Did Park Assist invent camera-based parking guidance?
NO. Parking systems using cameras in various ways happened in 2008, and possibly earlier.
3. Does Park Assist’s patent cover all camera-based parking guidance technology?
NO. Park Assist owns US Patent No. 9,594,956 (the patent). This patent applies to a specific process of managing a plurality of parking spaces. It requires a number of specific steps in addition to use of cameras.
Click here to see the full Park Assist patent.
4. What is the exact process that has been patented by Park Assist?
The Park Assist patent applies to a specific process of managing a plurality of parking spaces. This method has 10 steps that need to be followed. All 10 steps of the process need to be performed in order for the patent to be infringed, if one or more steps are missing then the patent is NOT infringed.
“The United States Patent and Trademark Office only granted Park Assist the patent after Park Assist agreed to include two key limitations. These limitations are:
- The use of human override of mistaken determinations that a space is occupied when a space is actually vacant.
- Enforcement of parking permits when a space is occupied by an unauthorized vehicle.”
Both of these steps MUST be performed in order for the patent to be infringed.
Source: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of ACE Parking Management, Inc’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
Click here to view Park Assist’s patented process. Refer to pages 28-29 to view what the patent actually covers.
5. Does the INDECT camera-based parking guidance system infringe the Park Assist patent?
“NO. It is impossible for the INDECT camera-based parking guidance system (the UPSOLUT) to infringe the Park Assist patent because the system is fully automated and does not rely on human intervention to function properly.
There is no capability within the UPSOLUT system for anyone – a user, an INDECT employee, or any other person – to change the current status of a given parking space as determined by the UPSOLUT system’s algorithm either locally or at the network level. A parking space whose current status is “occupied” cannot have its status manually changed to “vacant” nor vice versa.
The UPSOLUT system is 99% accurate or better when deployed. On the rare occasion when the UPSOLUT system makes an incorrect determination and incorrectly sets the current status of a parking space to “occupied”, there is no capability to override or otherwise correct that current status.”
Source: Affidavit by Dale Fowler
6. I have an INDECT ultrasonic parking guidance system, does the patent affect me?
NO. The Park Assist patent only applies to a specific method of managing a plurality of parking spaces with a camera-based parking guidance system. Park Assist does not claim that the patent applies to the use of ultrasonic sensors.
7. If I install an INDECT camera-based parking guidance system will I be infringing the Park Assist patent?
NO. The INDECT camera-based parking guidance system (the UPSOLUT) does NOT infringe the Park Assist patent. It is impossible for the UPSOLUT to infringe the Park Assist patent because it is fully automated and does not rely on human intervention for proper functioning.
8. I have an UPSOLUT system installed already, am I infringing the Park Assist patent?
NO. The UPSOLUT system does not breach the Park Assist patent. The Park Assist patent applies to a specific method of managing a plurality of parking spaces. The method has 10 steps. All 10 steps need to be performed in order for the patent to be infringed. Refer to question 3 above.
9. What is the difference between the INDECT UPSOLUT system and the Park Assist camera-based parking guidance system claimed in the Park Assist patent?
INDECT’s parking guidance systems combine the most advanced parking space sensors with industry-leading data management technology to offer drivers a safer, more convenient parking experience while helping parking owners operate their parking assets more efficiently and profitably.
The UPSOLUT camera-based system employs optical sensors for under-cover car parks that capture, monitor and show the status of multiple parking spaces. The UPSOLUT system is completely automated and does not depend on human intervention to operate.
Using INDECT’s sophisticated detection processes and algorithms, the UPSOLUT sensor determines whether a parking space is occupied or vacant. The UPSOLUT sensor then uploads that information to the server. All detection processes are carried out on-board by the UPSOLUT sensor processor, allowing the UPSOLUT to operate correctly even if there is no network connection to the server.
The UPSOLUT system does not have any capability for any user to override, or otherwise correct, a current status as determined by the system’s algorithm.
For further information click here.
Assuming Park Assist’s camera-based parking guidance system follows the patented process, human override and correction of inaccurate system determinations are fundamental to the Park Assist system.
10. Why is Park Assist suing San Diego Airport and ACE Parking Management?
“Park Assist falsely alleges that:
- San Diego International Airport’s Terminal 2 Parking Plaza uses human review and override of automatic determinations by the system – IT DOES NOT
- The Airport Parking Plaza allocates areas for permit parking and punishes unauthorized parkers – IT DOES NOT
Park Assist’s complaint contains factually baseless allegations and asserts things that do not exist. This frivolous claim by Park Assist is simply an improper attempt to eliminate competition from INDECT in camera-based parking guidance systems.”
11. Why is INDECT suing Park Assist?
“INDECT is taking legal action against Park Assist for initiating a sham lawsuit and engaging in unfair and unlawful anticompetitive behavior with the intent to wrongfully gain business and market share by falsely, and in bad faith, claiming that the INDECT system infringes the Park Assist patent.
INDECT does NOT infringe any claim of the Park Assist patent. We strongly believe that Park Assist should NOT be permitted to use sham litigation as a cudgel to threaten innocent users and prospective users of INDECT products nor should they be allowed to tortiously interfere with a competitor’s business or prospective economic advantage.”
Source: Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages
12. What is a sham lawsuit?
A sham lawsuit is one that is objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. A sham lawsuit is a concealed attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of governmental process.
13. What is a Rule 11 motion?
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Rule 11) provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support. The Rule 11 procedure requires an attorney to perform an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances before filing a complaint.
In relation to the current legal proceedings regarding the Park Assist patent, a Rule 11 motion was filed by ACE Parking Management on the basis that Park Assist’s complaint against ACE Parking Management and San Diego Regional Airport Authority is frivolous. The complaint contains “factually baseless allegations fundamental to Park Assist’s claim” and that “Park Assist asserts things that simply do not exist. Moreover, that Park Assist’s counsel failed to conduct and could not have conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing the pleadings.”
Source: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of ACE Parking Management, Inc’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
“No reasonable litigant (let alone, Park Assist) could expect success on the merits because the Airport Parking system lacks at least ten (10) attributes required for infringement of the ‘956 patent, specifically:
- It lacks a graphical user interface for the UPSOLUT system;
- It does not display thumbnail images of any parking spot from the UPSOLUT system;
(Note of Clarification: A user can look at historical thumbnails, but not real-time thumbnails.) - It does not display thumbnail images based on an occupied status;
- It does not decide whether an occupied status is incorrect;
- It cannot correct an occupied status;
- It cannot correct an occupied status based on a visual review of a thumbnail image on a graphical user interface;
- It does not extract a permit identifier from any image;
- It does not store permit identifiers;
- It does not compare an extracted permit identifier to a stored parking permit identification; and
- It does not initiate an infringement process for a vehicle having a permit identifier that fails to coincide with at least one stored parking permit identification.”
“Park Assist proceeded with this lawsuit despite the fact that it knows (or would have known had it exercised reasonable diligence) that the Airport Parking Plaza has neither human override nor permit enforcement functionality.”
Source: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of ACE Parking Management, Inc’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
Park Assist was advised that its allegations were factually wrong on numerous occasions and still persisted to pursue this lawsuit.
- ACE Parking Management (ACE) does not have the ability to display thumbnails of any image taken by the INDECT system.
- ACE does not have any personnel trained or assigned to review the occupancy determinations made automatically by the INDECT system. ACE has never had such personnel. ACE has no plans to implement human review and override of occupancy determinations by the INDECT system.
- ACE has not received any instruction or request from the San Diego Airport Parking Authority for the INDECT system to have the capability to display thumbnails for human review and correction of parking space occupancy determinations made by the system.
- Since the INDECT system has been installed, ACE has not received any comments or complaints that the system is inaccurate. In operation the system appears to be highly accurate.
- No parking permit is currently implemented or planned for the San Diego parking facility.
- The determination that a car is improperly parked in a handicapped parking space is made by visual inspection having no connection to the INDECT system.
14. I received a letter from Park Assist’s legal team advising me that if I installed an INDECT camera system, I might be sued for breach of patent. What should I do?
At INDECT we believe in a marketplace that is fair and lawfully competitive. We take any attempt to threaten or intimidate our clients or prospective clients very seriously. Please contact Klaus Guhsl, Chief Technology Officer of INDECT.
15. I want to read the court documents for myself. Where can I find them?
A complete listing of the court documents can be found here.
16. “I saw a news article stating that the Court recently ruled in favor of Park Assist in the Park Assist v San Diego Airport and ACE Parking Management case. Does this mean they have won?”
No. This decision simply states that the Park Assist ‘956 is not invalid on one basis (patentable subject matter) but the question of whether this patent is valid on other bases (e.g. prior art) or has been infringed by San Diego Airport and ACE Management Parking has not been addressed or resolved.
What was the ruling about? On August 23, 2019 the motion filed by San Diego Airport and ACE Parking Management to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Park Assist’s ‘956 Patent is invalid has been denied.
What does that mean? San Diego Airport and ACE Parking Management (the defendants) claimed that the Park Assist ‘956 patent was unpatentable because the patent merely covered the abstract concept of: Gathering information, analyzing information, and displaying or transmitting the results.
The court agreed that from a bird’s eye view, the defendants were correct. However, the fact that a patent involves an abstract idea does not meant that it is directed to that abstract idea.
The court has determined that the Park Assist ‘956 patent is directed to a specific means/method of improving parking guidance system technology and is therefore within patentable subject matter.
For this reason, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the proceeding was denied and the matter will continue. Read the full decision here.
What happens now? All parties will continue to file supporting documents until a trial date is set. We will keep you updated with any further developments.
17. When will the court make a decision?
We don’t know but expect rulings on pending motions this summer. Unfortunately, patent litigation can take up to three years for a matter to be fully resolved on the merits. In the meantime, INDECT is committed to providing both our current and prospective clients with access to all the facts as well as up-to-date information regarding any progress on the dispute.
Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletter to receive updates on the patent dispute as well as breaking news regarding the latest INDECT installations.