By Jay Landers 

A year-long legal battle between Municipal Parking Services Inc. (MPS) and Clancy Systems Inc. recently concluded, when both parties agreed to dismiss the case in which MPS alleged that Clancy had infringed three of its patents pertaining to automated parking monitoring and enforcement. 

On June 13, the two companies asked Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to dismiss the case. The move came just days after MPS filed a similar patent infringement lawsuit in Austin, Texas, against much larger industry players, the parking compliance company Parking Revenue Recovery Services Inc. (PRRS) and parking operator LAZ Parking (see the June 20 Parking Today story “MPS Sues PRRS, LAZ Parking for Patent Infringement Claims”). 

MPS’s allegations 

On June 6, 2024, MPS — the maker of the SafetyStick and other automated parking detection and violation enforcement equipment — filed suit against Clancy, which provides “automated parking enforcement and frictionless revenue control 24 hours a day without the cost of labor or additional equipment,” according to the company’s website. Among its products and services, Clancy offers the Clancy Vision automated vehicle detection and enforcement system. 

In its original suit, MPS alleged that Clancy infringed various claims of its following three patents: 

• U.S. Patent No. 10,121,172, “Parking Lot Monitoring System” (November 6, 2018) 

• U.S. Patent No. 11,257,302, “Parking Meter System” (February 22, 2022) 

• U.S. Patent No. 11,688,205, “Parking Meter System” (June 27, 2023) 

MPS’s Patent ‘172 “relates to lot and ramp payment management systems and payment methods, more particularly, to parking structures monitored by vehicle identification devices interacting with a payment monitoring and acceptance system,” according to the patent. Patents ‘302 and ‘205 relate “to parking meters, and more particularly, to automated parking meter systems,” according to the patents.  

In its ongoing suit against PRRS and LAZ, MPS alleged infringement of the same three patents, as well as two more of its patents: No. 12,142,085, “Parking Meter System” (November 12, 2024) and No. 12,249,187, “Parking Meter System” (March 11, 2025), both of which also relate “to parking meters, and more particularly, to automated parking meter systems,” according to the patents. 

Clancy’s alleged infringement resulted from its “manufacturing and using their automated parking lot maintenance system, including the use of a camera to capture vehicle identification entering and exiting parking lots, and concomitantly using that information for automated fee calculation and issuing charges/violations/penalties even with the consideration of ‘grace periods,’” according to MPS’s claim. 

MPS sought from the court a judgement that Clancy infringed one or more of its patents and an order restraining Clancy from “engaging in the manufacture, use, offer for sale or sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of automated parking lot maintenance system technology until after the expiration date of the Patents-in-Suit,” according to MPS’s claim.  

MPS also sought damages, costs and attorney fees, and additional relief deemed proper by the court. The company did not respond to requests for comment from Parking Today. 

Clancy’s countersuit and patent challenge 

Clancy responded to the lawsuit last September, denying that it had infringed MPS’s three patents and countersuing MPS. Clancy also asserted that the patents are “invalid for failure to comply with one or more requirements” of sections 101, 102, or 103 of U.S. Patent law (35 U.S.C.), according to Clancy’s response submitted to the court on September 9, 2024. 

Along with seeking attorney fees and a declaratory judgement that it had not infringed the patents, Clancy requested a declaratory judgement that all three of MPS’s patents in question are invalid, according to Clancy’s September 9 response. 

Clancy’s counterclaim against MPS followed its request to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in August 2024 to reevaluate the validity of MPS’s ‘172, ‘302, and ‘205 patents as part of the process known as ex parte reexamination.  

Initially, the PTO rejected as patentable all of the claims from MPS’s three patents that were subject to reexamination, citing prior art, according to ex parte reexamination communication transmittal forms from the PTO dated October 22, 2024. Prior art refers to the existence of publicly available information regarding a similar invention that was available before the filing date of a subsequent patent.  

However, after MPS appealed the decisions, the PTO earlier this year reexamined the three patents once again, this time confirming that they are in fact patentable, according to ex parte reexamination communication transmittal forms from the PTO dated February 18, 2025. 

Clancy invokes Supreme Court precedents 

On June 5, 2025, Clancy filed a motion with the court to dismiss the case, contending that certain claims within MPS’s patents do not satisfy the eligibility framework previously established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases commonly known as Alice and Mayo. 

In the 2014 patent eligibility case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court held that abstract ideas implemented on generic computer systems are not patentable. To be patentable, business methods must demonstrate a specific technological improvement or solve a technical problem, not just automate conventional business practices. 

In the 2012 case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, the Supreme Court found that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, even when combined with routine, conventional steps. 

Citing these precedents, Clancy argued in its June 5 motion that MPS’s three patents are ineligible for patent protection: “Nothing in the Asserted Claims, including the recitation of generic, off-the-shelf computers and cameras that utilize ‘plate reading’ technology…provides an inventive concept that can save them from invalidation,” the motion states. “The ‘172, ‘302, and ‘205 Patents do not purport to utilize novel hardware or software, or combine conventional technology in new ways (i.e., there is no unique character recognition algorithm in the Asserted Claims); nor do the MPS’ patents improve the functioning of any computer component.” 

Clancy’s motion continues: “It is also irrelevant that the Asserted Claims break down the abstract idea into several steps, or that the Asserted Claims automate well-known, routine steps in order to improve efficiency. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Alice and Mayo is clear that adding steps that must be taken in order to apply the abstract idea cannot make that idea patentable.” 

Case dismissed, but patent battle to continue 

On June 13, MPS contacted Clancy that it intended to dismiss the case, said Liz Wolfson, the secretary treasurer of Clancy, a family-owned business that has been in operation since 1985. “The joint stipulation was drafted by the MPS attorneys and presented to our attorney for signature,” Wolfson said. 

Although the court case may be over, the validity of MPS’s three patents will continue to be questioned, Wolfson said. “There will be another request for reexamination submitted [to the PTO] as there are numerous examples of prior art for [license plate recognition] technology used for monitoring fixed lot locations, transit, highway, and on and on,” Wolfson said. “There are many European patents as well.” 

Jay Landers is the editor-in-chief of Parking Today. He can be reached at [email protected].