#USA #Las Vegas #Patent Infringement #MPS #Parking Revenue Recovery

PRRS Clarifies Position on MPS Allegations During the 2026 National Parking Association Conference

Introduction
During the recent National Parking Association (NPA) Conference held in Las Vegas, the Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (PRRS) took the opportunity to respond to the statements made by Municipal Parking Services (MPS). These comments, aimed at PRRS and shared with their clients, raised concerns regarding patent infringements, necessitating PRRS’s clarification on the matter.

Background on the Legal Dispute
In June 2025, MPS initiated a lawsuit against PRRS, alleging five counts of patent infringement. However, the case has remained stagnant due to a court stay, pending the results of five reexamination proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This stay has allowed for a comprehensive review of the patents in question.

In a significant development, the USPTO has issued a Final Rejection regarding four of MPS's asserted patents, indicating that the claims made by MPS lack the requisite patentability. Specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,257,302, 11,688,205, 12,142,085, and 12,249,187 have faced scrutiny, with the USPTO determining that all claims are invalid based on new evidence that MPS failed to address initially. This important ruling supports PRRS's long-standing argument against MPS's claims of infringement.

Recent Developments
Contrary to expectations following the USPTO's decisions, MPS filed a new complaint against PRRS in July 2026, introducing a sixth patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,688,734. In response, PRRS has begun its own Reexamination Proceeding aimed at contesting the validity of this newly presented patent, citing the earlier invalidation of MPS’s prior patents as a basis for its action.

Additionally, PRRS firmly asserts that it does not infringe upon MPS’s patents, including the newly introduced '734 Patent. Following MPS’s statements to others in the parking industry, PRRS has initiated extensive counterclaims against MPS. These counterclaims seek various remedies, including:

• - Judgment of Non-Infringement
• - Judgment of Invalidity
• - Judgment of Unenforceability
• - Claims for Federal Unfair Competition and Intentional Interference with Contract
• - Civil Conspiracy allegations involving MPS and Premium Parking.

Conclusion
PRRS remains committed to defending its position vigorously, particularly in light of the invalid patents asserted by MPS. As the legal landscape evolves, PRRS is prepared not only to counter MPS's claims but also to seek remedies that address the damages incurred due to MPS's allegations and actions. Should the 2025 lawsuit resume, PRRS is poised to take the necessary steps to hold MPS accountable for its conduct in this ongoing dispute. The company will continue to advocate for its rights and ensure that it can operate free from the uncertainties stemming from MPS's claims.

PRRS appreciates the support of its clients and partners during this challenging period and emphasizes its commitment to transparency throughout the process.