EFF’s Stupid Patent of the month: Dispatch a taxi (on a computer)

Paying for a ride to get around town isn't new. The first gas-powered taxicabs date to the beginning of the 20th century, and the horse-drawn "hackney coaches" of London date to the 17th century. In the vehicle-for-hire business, it's all about efficiency and execution, not "invention."

That long history notwithstanding, the US Patent and Trademark Office has granted patents that claim monopoly rights to, essentially, calling up a taxi—on a computer.

US Patent No. 5,973,619 is owned by Hailo Technologies LLC, a shell company formed on April 6, which sued (PDF) Uber and Lyft two weeks later.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation singled out Hailo's '619 patent in its monthly series "Stupid Patent of the Month." EFF lawyer Vera Ranier explains that the patents claim 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.

In January, Hailo filed three lawsuits against three smaller companies, Arro, Mobisoft Infotech, and MtData, over a different patent, No. 6,756,913.

Both were issued in the late 1990s, a time at which computer-powered taxi dispatching not only existed, but was being used. It took only a brief Internet search for Ranieri to find reports from the Department of Transportation dated 1991 and 1992 that detailed the state of the art in "computer dispatch" technology, including features of the '619 and '913 patents.

"Will any of that matter?" asks Ranieri. "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."

Even new and effective proceedings like inter partes review can cost up to $350,000 through appeal. Frequently, non-practicing patent owners, holding patents that are presumed valid until proven otherwise, will push for settlements that cost far less than that.

On Hailo Technologies' complaint against Uber, the company's Pasadena, Calif., address is the same as the law firm that represents it, Cotman IP Law Group. Firm founder and CEO Daniel Cotman didn't respond to Ars' inquiries about the patents and the EFF post.

Even Hailo Technologies' name is confusing. There was a real taxi-hailing app called "Hailo," which was created in 2010 but ultimately exited the US market, merging with Daimler's ride-hailing company MyTaxi in 2016.

Partners at Union Square Ventures, one of the VC firms that funded the original Hailo app, told Ars via e-mail that all of the IP belonging to the Hailo app was brought over to MyTaxi. The company they funded has no connection to the Hailo Technologies LLC involved in the recent patent litigations.

Hailo Technologies has described itself as an app builder, too, but the evidence for that is thin so far. Its website, www.bring.bike, was created several days before the lawsuits against Uber and Lyft were filed. The site promises a beta testing coming soon to the Los Angeles area for its cyclist-oriented ride-sharing app.