Municipal Parking Services Sues PRRS and LAZ Parking in Austin on a Parking Patent Issued the Same Day.

The parties and the patent

The case is Municipal Parking Services, Inc. v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02838 (W.D. Tex., Austin Division). The defendants are Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (PRRS), which the complaint describes as a Colorado corporation, and LAZ Karp Associates, LLC and LAZ Parking Texas, LLC, which the complaint calls LAZ Parking. The plaintiff, Municipal Parking Services, Inc. (MPS), is a Minnesota corporation and says it competes with PRRS. The '580 patent, titled Parking Meter System, issued October 6, 2026, the same day the complaint was filed.

The asserted claim

The complaint asserts at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers a system for enforcing parking rules at multiple parking facilities. It has a remote computer system on a communication network, remote from a first parking facility; one or more databases storing parking rules for that facility, including a plurality of parking rates each tied to a time period, and a registration list that associates license plate characters with payment information; a first camera that captures image data when a vehicle enters and a second camera that captures image data when it exits; one or more processors that perform automated character recognition on that image data to produce the vehicle's license plate characters; and network interface devices that automatically send the image data and the entry and exit times to the remote computer system. The remote computer system automatically determines when a parking violation has occurred, based at least in part on the entry time and by referencing the parking rules and the registration list, and automatically generates a parking violation notice populated with at least the plate characters, the entry time, and an image of the vehicle.

The accused systems and theories

The complaint accuses PRRS's parking monitoring and management systems, which it says PRRS calls its ARC, or Automated Recognition and Compliance, system, and systems offered under the Paralign name, including Autostart. It alleges that PRRS installs cameras and signs at parking facilities in Austin, including lots operated by LAZ Parking, and generates violation notices. It also quotes a video it attributes to PRRS, which describes a license plate recognition camera capturing the plate image and entry time, a 10-minute grace period, capture of the exit time, and a letter to the driver within one to two business days. The complaint acknowledges that some of its evidence predates the patent's issuance and alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have not materially changed their practices. Against PRRS, the complaint pleads direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and, in the alternative, vicarious liability for customers' use and inducement and contributory infringement under section 271(b) and (c). Against LAZ Parking, it pleads inducement by contracting with PRRS for the systems; in the alternative or in addition, direct infringement by use; and, in the alternative, vicarious liability for PRRS's use. It pleads joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 and 35 U.S.C. 299 and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(b).

Knowledge, related suits, and relief

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants knew of the '580 patent at least as of filing, that they had been monitoring the application, and that they knew before filing that the Patent Office had allowed its claims. It pleads willfulness at least as of each defendant's knowledge. It says the '580 patent is in the same family as five patents asserted against the defendants in another suit in the district that the complaint describes as stayed, and as U.S. Patent 12,688,734, asserted in Municipal Parking Services, Inc. v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02015 (W.D. Tex.). The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement, an injunction, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, a willfulness finding and treble damages, and fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 if the case is found exceptional.

What to watch next

Watch for the defendants' responses, any motion to consolidate this case with the earlier MPS suits or to stay it, and any Patent Office challenge to the '580 patent. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.