Julie-

Thanks for posting that link….perfect example of why China (and many others) are a real threat. They simply have NO regard for others IP rights and probably won’t anytime soon. Yet they scream bloody murder when someone abroad copies something they invented. It’s also hard for our govt to enforce anything since China OWNS the U.S. via our treasury debt, another BAD choice our ‘leaders’ have made.
Don’t feed the dragon- Make it in the U.S.A. Buy it in the U.S.A.

I did a lot of searching for the best existing thread on which to post this – hope I have chosen wisely:

http://www.rvbusiness.com/2011/09/sylvansport-c...

I believe I saw this tactic in the book ‘Patent It Yourself’ by Pressman, but he gave a great idea for making a case for or against infringement without having to spend a fortune suing the infringing party in a court of law. He suggests that you file a patent application as soon as you believe your issued patent is infringed upon, and write the application with claims as if you’re trying to obtain a patent for what you feel is the material that infringes on your patent (which may be an exact re-write of your own patent’s claims!) If the claims are disallowed or objected to by the Examiner because your patent’s claims are cited as prior art, then it’s a clear sign that your patent is being infringed upon! If the claims are allowed and the patent would eventually issue, then you know for sure you don’t have a case for infringement and all you will have spent is the money for the initial examination!

LOTS of great discussion and ideas on this thread! Thanks to all who are thinking and voicing thier concerns, as it needs to be addressed. If not now, when? If not us, whom?

EXACTLY Kelce, Greg, and Jim…. IMO, during the recent “Patent Reform” legislation, leaders in
the industry should have been PREACHING this to Congress, as it’s MUCH more vital to patent owners
than the First to File/Invent smokescreen!!

Playing games with what ‘use’ implies is exactly what fuels this debacle. Perhaps the emphasis should be shifted to ‘consequences’ that are more objective rather than subjective to define. And the consequences to be considered should reflect how the general public is affected instead of how any individual player is affected because a patent is supposed to enhance innovation and boost commerce. If a patent is being used to adversely affect those public goals, then the consequences will be definitive and obvious.

Kelce’s proposed solution is elegant: By licensing or charging or in anyway profiting on a patent that would qualify as use. “Use” is the measure where something can infringe.So, in my Eggies example, once I charge a license fee then EN can turn around and sue me for infringing. It creates a context for playing nicely amongst honest participants, and adds a negative calculation to a questionable currently zero risk player.

Greg, according to Kelce, the only inhibitor is that attorneys seem to walk a fine line so they don’t get sanctioned for abusing the system. The biggest problem with all this mess is that any effective solution to hamper the destructive acts of trolls will ultimately affect the little guys who have legitimate cases of blatant infingement occurring aganst their hard-won patent! So anything that works against trolls will backfire and be used against the rights of independent inventors with very limited resources to defend their intellectual property. Anyway you look at it, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t!

That’s an ironic concept, Jim. Imagining that the cover every avenue troll also has an LLC that sells insurance. But their victims as outlined wouldn’t be someone who would buy the insurance. Because who as an end-consumer of the service imagines they have any exposure to infringement.

I imagine this happens more in technology because it would be harder for a court to summarily dismiss without hiring experts to analyze it.

Cutting closer to home, based on Kelce’s article elsewhere about non-practicing entities, imagine this:
I decide to patent a version of eggies with a pop-up timer. Succeeds. Now if I make and use one of these, I’m infringing the original Eggies patent. I can approach manufacturers and ask them to pay me upfront to use this in perpetuity. Great deal, they think; imagining they’d be free to make and sell this (they probably even imagine with or without the timer.) But they’d then be infringing on Eggies.

Here’s what a troll might be able do with this:
Get a hold of a list of Eggie’s owners and put them all on a giant lawsuit claiming they are infringing my patent which to the unaware reads exactly like I own the Eggies patent. Then offer a $5 licensing settlement to each of them. For $5 I disappear, or you can come defend it in a court 1500 miles from your home or wait for a summary judgement for $60 triple damages and $300 punitive which I mentioned in the settlement letter.

And now for the truly insane part:
But wouldn’t I be infringing Eggies and owe them money? No, not under the current system. I have 0 risk for selling licenses to my 1% enhancement, because I’m not making or using the device.

I’m just winging it and have no legal training; correct me if I’ve mis-characterized this.

Sounds like what is needed is a new type of ‘infringement jeopardy insurance’ that’s offered so companies can pay lower premiums over time to help defray legal costs if they are sued by a troll. Spreading the risk over many companies will align them against nuisance law suits launched by trolls while real and valid infringement suits will be prosecuted. With that type of insurance scenario, Kelce’s ‘D’ is taken totally out of the picture! On the other side, a means-tested public defender program should be provided by the US Treasury Department to help the little guy with desperate financial need to prosecute valid claims of infringement where the program is paid for in patent fees. Anybody want to get into the insurance business?

The financial analysis is sobering indeed, and in my opinion points directly where
REAL patent reform needs to be concentrated; as it exist, the trolls and their attorneys
are the ones in control, legally no less! Small, successful companies are at the whim
of the troll by virtue of their patent/s!!!

Makes the Invention Submission Companys seem tame… Geez, that’s scary!

I don’t think Sir Edward’s post about the other egg cookers was related to any of this. I haven’t seen any of his posts on patent trolls, but I would expect that he would not care much for them. He seems clever enough to know it’s an abuse of the system – even if he does throw incendiary bombs for entertainment.

What did you think about the financial analysis? Have you ever seen the math before, and how it works out to encourage nuisance suits?

Kelce wrote:
“This is what awaits any of you, who make money by actually selling products or services. It’s coming for the Eggies website. You’ll see.”

The Forbes article states:
“Whistleblowers (bounty hunters) are invited to send in evidence of what’s known as prior art—meaning earlier inventions that show the patent wasn’t original and hence is not valid”

So in light of this, was it a coincidence that a poster recently challenged the originality of the Eggies concept by citing a 1986 issued patent for a similar device?

This link is in response to the Forbes article…read the forbes piece first then watch this video.

Notice how she neglects to mention that she shorts the stocks of these companies before making the news be known. She likes to
name drop and sneaks in something about community .

She also fails to mention that she did go the corp route which was Funded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos but the site didn’t take off. I wonder who these wallstreet investors are that are backing her now. Yeah these wallstreet guys are in it to help people ..what nonsense. It’s all about the $.

I don’t know but she comes off too robotic and perfect with a fake forced smile..She has her lines down pat and you would think she’s reading for a part in a movie..she’s a pro !

This patent business is big big money for lawyers and their backers ….they know exactly what they are doing..people can’t fight
these big outfits and have to settle even if they are in the right or lose evrything while fighting these giant bugs.

http://www.thedeal.com/video/behind-the-money/b...

Greg,
Thanks for posting the Frommeyer link. It pretty much says the same thing I mentioned, doesn’t it?

This LL guy is playing people for fools with the ID article, trying to gin up suport, even while he is making things more expensive for the very peole who cheer him on.

Gotta love that quote: “Since our original report, the prospect for small businesses doing business online has grown increasingly grim.” So I’ll stand by my prediction for any semi-successful business with a website (including any of us) that catches the attention of a troll.

In just a minute I will explain the economics of the situation. I bet none of you have seen it, but after you understand it, go back and read the Frommeyer article again. You’ll be amazed how much extra you pick up. Just like one of those movies (like Fight Club) that, after you see it and learn the surprise ending, you want to watch it again to pick up all the clues you missed the first time.

Here is the real economic story:

Consider that every business that is sued by a patent owner has these 3 points in their financial situation:
B is the amount of money that, if lost in a single transaction, will bankrupt the company.
D is the amount of money that it will cost the company to successfully defend itself (assuming it is not infringing a valid patent).
S is the settlement offer amount from the patent owner.

These amounts are independent from each other, and can be in any order. There are 6 possibilities.

1. B > S > D. This is a financially strong company, because the Bankruptcy amount is fairly high. The company can lose money and stay afloat. But because the patent owner is demanding more than the cost of a successful defense, if the company is not infringing, and they’re certain that a jury will agree, they will fight it out.

2. B > D > S. The patent owner wants to make it attractive for the company to give up the cash, because it is cheaper for the company to pay the patent owner off, than to fight it out. Unfortunately, this maneuver often gets money for patent owners who know they have weak, laughable cases. And of course, they are laughing, all the way to the bank, with their nuisance settlement. I define a nuisance settlement as the amount of money a patent owner can get from an accused infringer that has a strong case, but pays anyway, because it’s cheaper.

3. S > B > D. The company has no choice but to defend itself, because otherwise it goes bankrupt. The patent owner wont get much, and so will be disincentivized to request this much. I bet you can’t wait to get back to that Frommeyer article. But wait! It gets better – waay better.

4. S > D > B. Similar to the above. The patent owner will find itself fighting for assets in a bankruptcy sale against real pros: the bankruptcy attorneys. The patent owner will be incentivized to avoid this, too.

5. D > S > B. More of the drive to bankruptcy – BUT. We’re really close to the gold, now.

6. D > B > S. BINGO! THIS IS IT! HERE IS WHERE THE MONEY IS!!!

In this final situation, the company will go bankrupt by attempting to defend itself, because D > B. That is, even if the company has an absolutely stellar non-infringement defense, and an airtight patent invalidity case , and the patent owner had to really try hard to come up with an initial lawcuit complaint filing that only just barely avoided his attorney being sanctioned for abusing the system, the company can’t defend itself. It will go bankrupt before a jury will vote to let it off the hook.

But … Because B > S, the company won’t go bankrupt by paying the settlement demand. So the patent owner won’t have to fight for money with the bankruptcy attorneys.

And, the patent owner gets his S dollars INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THE COMPANY INFRINGED.

Get it?

Even if not a single person on the planet – including the patent owner – believes the company infringes, the company still must pay. The only requirement is that the patent owner’s attorney can write up a complaint that the court won’t sanction them for.

How can the money get big, with relatively small amounts for each accused infringer? Well, look at the letter I posted above. FotoTime looked into finding out how much D was. What was their number? $5 to $10 Million.

Remember, this was a public letter for a Congressional hearing. They just didn’t make numbers up. THey knew their letter would be heavily scrutinized by their opponents.

How many companies have the financial situation in which $10 Million > Bankruptcy amount for a single loss? Lots of them. Including any that might have been spawned from EN.

So this is where the money is. Now, go back and read that Frommeyer article again. See how much you pick up that you hadn’t seen before?

This is what I was referring to, Jim. Does it make sense now?

Greg-

All good points and I think some are thinking along those lines already:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software...

As far as ‘prior art’ expeditions go, there are a few websites that allow you to become a ‘Bounty Hunter’ to find and disclose proven prior art to bust existing patents. One example:
Win yourself a $50,000 bounty by busting a patent
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/037a.html

It’s the huge cost of legal fees that kill the small guys, that’s where they need the help. Crowdsourced bounty hunters might be a good approach too. You can either submit anon or take full credit for bringing the bad guys down. Just remember you still have to sleep at night, so anon might be the sane choice. ; )

Thank you Greg…for explaining this to a non-techy person. Are these so-called trolls only in the tech-type sectors…wonder why they don’t have their own sets of rules/regulations/requirements, etc. that they have to abide by with the USPTO? Especially since this computer technology is such an always evolving/moving forward/fast-paced kinda thing?

Thank goodness we have the Courts to settle our differences and where lawyers can make an ‘indecent’ living.

Sherri,

I just found this article, maybe it illuminates what trolling is:

http://www.frommeyer.com/news-11.html

p.s. I read the patent which claim one clearly limits to a kiosk with a cathode ray tube and handles things in a very specific manner. If I patent a 13 legged mechanical dancing dragon monkey with bells on it, I have no grounds to sue everyone who dances and ask them to pay me a license fee.

Hmmm… you introduce crowdsourcing as a crowbar, is fighting the lawsuits in court with cash where best to apply the leverage that crowbar affords?

Say you have 10,000 or 100,000 David’s interested in helping… is there more that can be done such as pooling other prior art to dismantle the claims of the patent holding professional litigators? Are some of those patents actually invented by sincere little guys who caved in and sold the rights because fifty big companies ran with their idea?

Take this kind of thing into a slashdot sort of environment, and I would bet over 90% of software or business process patent attempts could be dismantled by folks identifying rock solid prior use within businesses they work at. That would be a grassroots movement to research and challenge every patent held by one of those holding companies and their associated members.

It seems like non-human legal entities can commit moral, ethical, and even legal crimes and function as crime & cash proof shelters for the members. I’d bet as soon as someone fires back, the LLC (Limited Liability Company) can dissolve and one of the immune members can bring forward another piece of paper and go after another cluster of businesses. How can filing unfounded infringement cases not be counter-balanced with the risk of human beings being found criminally accountable for fraud and extortion….?

Hmmm…. suddenly RICO comes to mind…

I just don’t understand why Larry Lockwood is considered a troll. Isn’t he an inventor just like anyone else here…his name is listed on those patents as the inventor and he states that he has been working on this technology since the late 70’s?

Isn’t he trying to run a legitimate business based on those patents by working out licensing agreements with the websites who wish to use his technology? Why is this so wrong? What if you were the proud inventor of that technology and awarded those patents…what would you do with them?

Sorry, I really don’t understand this troll business and thought that when someone received a patent they didn’t have to automatically go into business for themselves but were entitled to license it, sell it, or whatever?

It seems to me that Larry Lockwood has some pretty valuable patents and unfortunately instead of kicking back and reaping the rewards that should come with them…he’s having to struggle, worry, fight and pay for lots of legal assistance as well.

Wow, it looks like the fire is for real!

Fotomedia is very busy and raking in the big bucks..

Take a look at this list…just about everybody who is anybody on the net.

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/fo...

I would love to know if any politicians get donations from this lawfirm.

Jim-

You just gave me a wild idea! You know how crowdsourcing works to raise money for a project right? (think Kickstarter,etc…)
How about a CROWDSOURCED litigation fund so the ‘little guys’ can make thier cases public and ask if the public thinks they are guilty as charged or not? People read your case and donate a dollar or 2 to your cause. You raise money to fight the ‘bad guys’ and have a website that shows the proverbial David vs Goliath. When David prevails the WHOLE INTERNET knows that Goliath is indeed the bad guy and boycotts, call-outs and bad PR do thier work. Justice prevails and the little guy is supported by the masses. Just an idea that popped in my head. ; )

Kelce, so are you saying there’s no hope for inventors who are selling their products on the internet? Isn’t that like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire? The real culprits seem to be the attorneys who are making an easy buck on someone else’s misfortune.

I was just wondering whether people would be cheering on someone who sued Betsy over her website that sells Eggies. (I just bought some, and am waiting for delivery.)

Below is the text of a letter, that is now in the public record, from someone who had sacrificed to start a business, and was then sued under a patent just like the one mentioned above. This is what awaits any of you, who make money by actually selling products or services. It’s coming for the Eggies website. You’ll see.

And I was just asking what you’ll do then.

Here’s the letter:

Foto Time
March 9. 2009
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 224
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

Please accept the following written testimony to be submitted in conjunction with the hearing on “Patent Reform in the 111th Congress: Legislation and Recent Court Decisions” for Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

My name is Karl Swierenga and I am Vice President of FotoTime, Inc. of Dallas, Texas. FotoTime is a small photo sharing company that was founded in 1999. My two business partners and I started FotoTime as a way for consumers to organize and share their digital photos. We financed our company entirely out of our own pockets and worked on the company nights and weekends for five years, while we each held full time jobs. In 2004, we finally reached a financial point where we could work for FotoTime on a full time basis, although we were still a small and struggling company.

All of our hard work and dreams were almost ruined in the summer of 2008, when we were sued for alleged patent violations by a company called FotoMedia. We felt strongly that we were not in violation of any of the patents owned by FotoMedia; however, a small company like FotoTime has very limited resources and time for litigating patent disputes. In our estimation, patent litigation would have cost between $5 and $10 million. In addition, litigating these allegations would have probably taken 1 to 2 years. As a small business, we could afford neither the dollar cost of the litigation nor the cost in manpower to fight it.

In the fall of 2008, with little hope for a resolution and facing overwhelming legal costs, we decided to cut our losses and settle with FotoMedia. Even though we have reached settlement with FotoMedia, the costs of the settlement have created a financial burden that potentially could cause us to go out of business — costing jobs and negatively impacting the local economy.

As a small technology company, FotoTime understands the need for and supports a patent system designed to protect innovation. However, our experience with the patent litigation process has made us believers in reforming the patent system to reinstitute fairness and reason.

We feel that patents are being issued that are too broad and too generic. In our case, the patents in question covered very broad and basic functionality of our business that were neither unique nor innovative. In addition, FotoMedia claimed their patents covered all aspects of our complex business when in reality their patents did not.

FotoTime also feels that the process of filing and litigating patents encourages frivolous lawsuits. At several points during our negotiations and discussions with FotoMedia, we requested from them specific information detailing the nature of the infringement they alleged. At no point did they produce that information.

Because FotoMedia is a non-practicing entity —they do not produce products or services and have no meaningful assets — it is not surprising they would not provide this information. They are not interested in using these patents to build a business and protect their innovations. They are only in business to make money off of litigation. Their business model is to generate revenue from litigation, not innovation.

Like other non-practicing entities, FotoMedia can file their lawsuits in one jurisdiction regardless of where the defendants reside. This creates added burden and expense for the defendants while allowing the plaintiffs low cost litigation. The system encourages FotoMedia and companies like them to file more and more lawsuits. In our estimation, litigating all patent lawsuits in one jurisdiction has the potential to lead to courtroom biases and corruption.

FotoTime’s decision to settle this lawsuit was a purely economic decision. We weighed the costs of the litigation and the lost time to fight it and assessed the risk and threat of the potential damages award. Taken together, and factoring in the unpredictability of the damages awards, we determined those costs to be financially fatal to our small business. We believe the damages that a court can award the plaintiff should only be based on the part of the business that the patents covered and not the business as a whole. Because these damages decisions could encompass the total value of our business, the risks outweighed the costs of settlement.

When considering the Patent Reform Act of 2009, we hope you realize that the patent process affects all companies large and small. The Patent Reform Act attempts to address the inequities in the process to make it fairer for all parties. The system is currently being abused. Reforms are needed to protect innovators and small businesses like us.

Submitted by:
FotoTime, Inc Karl Swierenga Vice President Dallas, TX

I’m curious as to what Kelce is talking about. Patent trolls and the Eggies website?

This is great!! information from all inventors with experience. All inventors should get their day in court if there is possible infringement why is the judicial system just for the criminals??

The more I’ve been reading about this Larry Lockwood case, the more I hope that he gets his day in The Court.

http://www.landmarkpatents.com/about.html

Just of curiosity, what are you all going to be saying when patent trolls, like the one just mentioned here, go after the Eggies website?

Interesting exchanges. But after reading all this (tell me you did) please keep in mind it’s critical, particularly for small enterprise patent holders (AKA, the little guys) to understand they must never begin by launching a cease/desist threat charging someone is infringing her/his patent claims. My litigator friends are quick to explain how the accused party will immediately race up the courthouse steps with a petition for injunction. This will put you in front of a judge’s bench as the “defendant”…often in the opposition’s home-state. Better, they say, to calmly verify the infringement facts and build a positive strategy that sometimes ends with engagement of a very good licensee. Lawsuits can win…and, by definition, simultaneously lose…big bucks.

^^ “Disturbing too, was that article in the new issue of ID with Larry Lockwood explaining how some infringers are now using (abusing) the re-examination process as a weapon against patent holders! Creepy stuff!”

I imagine you are referring to this story (or something similar) -

articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/14/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110614

Just some notes on that story, as it is misleading and not fully accurate in respects…

First, the untold backstory. This guy had a patent issued in 2001, which he claimed barred everyone from conducting e-commerce transactions over the internet. i.e. if you had ever bought something online, you had purportedly infringed his patent, or had provoked someone else’s infringement, or what not.

He targeted a number of small and medium sized business with infringement lawsuits, aiming for “relatively” small settlements (these parties were likely less financed than him or his backers). From what I can gather he did not sue any larger companies, presumably because he assumed they would be more informed of their rights and would be less put-off by the prospect of having to defend their rights in court.

theregister.co.uk/2002/10/29/all_your_ecommerce_sites_belong/

As shown in this article, when he went against at least one bigger company (American Airlines) he lost.

signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/18/La-Jolla-inventor-wants-day-in-court/

There may be two sides to the story, but this guy currently has an agenda, he is trying to collect millions in damages for what he says was a sham re-examination request, and somebody gave him press.

On to the facts discussed in the article…

“As is customary, Lockwood’s pending infringement lawsuit was put on hold and potential licensees refused to make deals until the reexaminations were completed.”

It is inferred here that Lockwood’s “potential licensees” were infringers, but was that really the case? Anyways, this link provides more information regarding the re-examination request:

pagebox.net/exam3.html

“But accused infringers know that time is on their side because a patent is a wasting asset. Although reexamination can chew up a big chunk of a patent’s 20-year term, there’s no provision in the law for recovering the lost time, even when the process results in a reaffirmation, as it did in Lockwood’s case.”

This statement ignores the fact that if an accused infringer keeps infringing, they can still be held liable for damages for that time during which they continue to infringe. Also, his patent(s) may have stood, but that is a small detail. What matters is whether each of his claims withstood the re-examination, which is not clarified.

“The chief imbalance is that the costs of reexamination all weigh on the patent holder’s side. Requesting a reexamination is dirt cheap; fighting it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including the value of the time lost before expiration.”

You can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a re-examination request, and you can also spend a few million dollars buying a home on Mars. Still, there is no requirement to spend a penny fighting a re-examination request. You may need to respond to the equivalent of new office actions, but there is no requirement to fight anything. If you Google the phrases “fighting a re-examination” or even “fight a re-examination,” you will find no relevant results.

“as Irell & Manella partner Greg Gardella wrote in a recent California law newsletter, fighting an infringement lawsuit in court can cost $2.5 million to $5.5 million. Filing a reexamination request can cost as little as $10,000.”

Fighting an infringement lawsuit can cost that much, but can also cost less. The author had mentioned that filing a re-examination request is dirt cheap, and then mentions it costs “as little as $10,000.” To many, I wouldn’t say that is dirt cheap. But to the small inventor or smaller business, who is typically approached with infringement lawsuits related to patents that are not necessarily being infringed, obviously it is only fair to note that re-examination is a needed tool for the small inventor (who, in this case, was not Lockwood). An aside, if the proposed patent reform act ever passes, I am under the impression that post-grant opposition will represent a more efficient, more affordable alternative to re-examination.

“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the volume of reexamination requests has exploded. The patent office fielded 297 requests in 2001; last year the figure was 1,061.”

I’m not sure where 1,061 comes from, but other statistics also indicate that a percentage of patents being re-examined are not involved in litigation, and a small percentage of the re-examined patents end up with all claims confirmed. That points towards a conclusion that most re-examination requests are not unduly. Also, the # of infringement lawsuits filed every year is quite a bit higher than 1,061, too.

271patent.blogspot.com/2009/07/uspto-publishes-latest-reexamination.html

“Lockwood estimates that he lost profits of $32 million from forgone deals while in reexamination limbo. "

Which is what he is after, and which is why he may be able to find some “legal friends” to try and help his cause. I won’t say for certain that he is full of it, he might or might not have a legit case somehow, amd I am not an attorney and have not studied this case in-depth.

Kevin (and anyone who has not seen this)…Here’s that link to that Home and Housewares Show! The woman in the maroon sweater told those infringers just how the cow ate the cabbage! I’m still so dumbfounded that they had the nerve and audacity to attempt to present their knock-offs at this show!?

http://blog.edisonnation.com/2010/03/17/recap-o...

Disturbing too, was that article in the new issue of ID with Larry Lockwood explaining how some infringers are now using (abusing) the re-examination process as a weapon against patent holders! Creepy stuff!

Thank you Rich, for that valuable information.

Rich, Roger- Everyone-

Thanks for your valuable input on this topic. I felt it needed to be discussed or at least clarified for seasoned EN folks but esp. ‘newbies’ like myself. EN’s stance on IP protection gives me alot more confidence now in submitting multi-million dollar ideas and inventions here. As any seasoned inventor knows, your patents are only as good as your ability to defend them. I’m very glad to hear EN is ‘In it to win it’ and look forward to success for all!

~TCOMC

Remarkable! Thank you Rich.

That’s IT Rich? What are you guys sittin’ around eatin’ bonbons there?

hahahaha j/k!

That is a VERY IMPRESSIVE success rate, and the shear volume of “busts” that you made in-house also saves (us) considerable cash. I’ll never forget when you guys were at that housewares show and the nervy knock-off companies were at the very show with the knock-offs! This would be a good time to remind some of the new folks with a link to that if it’s still around. Man that was sweet…and quite an eye-opener to the speed these scamming knock-offs move.

I, for one, am very comfortable with your guys’ abilities to catch those guys, especially with the abundance of extra eyes within the fine EN user-community!

Cheers!

Thanks Edison Nation for all your help in keeping our products safe from infringes. I feel very safe here and tell everyone I know about EN.

I appreciate this thread getting started and I think it is a great opportunity to briefly share with everyone what we have been doing in the area of what I refer to as “IP Enforcement” here at Edison Nation. I want everyone to know this: we are going to go after anyone (and I mean anyone) who infringes upon the patents or trademarks of an Edison Nation product. Whether you are an overseas manufacturer of a counterfeit product or an individual in the U.S. trying to sell a knock-off on eBay, you are going to hear from us and we are going to do everything we can to shut you down. We are going to dedicate time to our IP Enforcement efforts every single day and night and even on the weekends. And if you ignore us or think we’re joking, the next communication you will receive from Edison Nation will be through one of our international patent and trademark attorneys who have assisted us in obtaining IP protection for several of the Edison Nation brands.

The great thing I like to tell everyone about our IP Enforcement efforts is the the overwhelming majority of work we have done has been in house, without formally retaining an attorney to go after the infringers. Individual inventors should really feel empowered by all of the tools that are at their disposal to fight infringers who attempt to flood the marketplace with knock-off pieces of junk that hijack that brand and products all of you have worked so hard to build and develop. We will have a much longer blog post about this topic in the near future, but highlights from the past month include:

—Registering Edison Nation with eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program that allows us to send electronic Notices of Claimed Infringement to eBay to report listings that offer for sale counterfeit products that infringe upon Edison Nation’s IP. Year-to-date totals: 147 of 149 reported listings REMOVED by eBay for a success rate of 98.6%. You can read Edison Nation’s “About Me” page on the eBay VeRO site here.

—Registering Edison Nation with alibaba.com’s Intellectual Property Rights Protection Program. Alibaba.com is the largest online marketplace for business-to-business transactions between manufacturers, retailers, and exporters. Many of the manufacturers listing counterfeit items for sale on alibaba.com have minimum orders of 5,000 or 10,000 units. Year-to-date totals: 26 of 33 reported listings REMOVED by alibaba.com for a success rate of 78.8%. We’re just getting warm, as there are dozens of other listings we have reported and are going to report that have not yet been processed.

—Reporting Facebook pages that advertise counterfeit products by completing Facebook’s electronic Notice of Intellectual Property Infringement electronics form. We reported 3 different Facebook pages dedicated to the knock-off “Universal Gyro Bowl.” All 3 pages were removed in less than 24 hours.

—Contacting the sales departments of numerous other websites who are offering for sale counterfeit products. In many instances, the website operators have removed the listings after we provide them proof of Edison Nation’s IP in the form of our registered patents or trademarks.

—Sending internal cease and desist letters to website operators who have attempted to register a domain name that is dedicated to marketing and advertising knock-offs that infringe upon Edison Nation’s intellectual property. The website operators have immediately taken down the website after receiving the cease and desist letters.

These are just some of the highlights of Edison Nation’s IP Enforcement efforts. As noted above, the great thing about all of these measures is that they can be employed by an individual inventor who is just sitting at his or her computer and has some time to run some simple Google searches for their inventions. I encourage anyone who has any questions about what we are doing here at Edison Nation in the area of IP Enforcement to contact me directly at rich.holmes@edisonnation.com.

Also, and most importantly, please contact me directly if you come across a website listing for what appears to be a counterfeit knock-off, see something in a store that looks fake, or even come across a Facebook or Twitter page that attempts to market something by unlawfully using an Edison Nation brand. The more sets of eyes we can have “in the field” so to speak, the better. Edison Nation is breaking new ground in the area of IP Enforcement with the goal of eliminating every single knock-off product on the market. Despite our recent successes, there is still a great deal of work to be done and together we can take these infringers down.

Spread the word: if you try to knock-off one of the Edison Nation brands we’re going to find you. And what we have to say to you will not be nice.

Litigation makes my head hurt, but was well worth going to the site to watch a Kinect get blended. That is cool.

p.s. by cool I mean geek cool which isn’t really cool but well… or is it now?… I don’t keep up on pop culture…

Greatest Blender ever !

Actually it was $11 million and judge ruled $25 million…almost tripled .

Vitamix’s container was indentical to the blend tec’s container in everyway…I know because my neighbor has one and I compared
it to my container when I heard of the lawsuit a couple of years ago.

It’s not so much that the container was the same but more so what that design
of the container was able to do that was important. Also the blades are much bigger but the case was all about the container
which created a perfect vortex to liquify solids leaving no pulp behind . A lot of vitamins in the pulp.

I have both BlendTec containers and had my warranty doubled (promotion) when I bought it at Costco at the time.

The owner of blendtec is an inventor himself who invented the BlendTec…he loves inventing things..that’s his true calling.

Scott-
You are correct & I did omit that (but have posted on it here before). The amount suggested for ‘willful’ (and you have to prove it) is 3x (or triple damages). I eluded to this with the Blend-Tec case but did not specify the path. Once your attorney sends certified letters to the effect that they are infringing and they continue to do so, that is considered ‘Willful’.

There is even more you can do and that’s get the U.S. Customs Department involved. If you have direct and compelling evidence that an imported product is infringing your patented invention, Customs can bar entry to an imported item. This does not take lawsuits either. A judge has to agree that infringement is taking place and issues the order. Infringers usually curl up and die when thier sea shipping crates don’t make it in and they have to ship them back to thier country of origin. ; ) Thanks for pointing out my omission, I should have specified that better.

I need to correct you on one point. If you are patent pending, there is something you can do and SHOULD do: Inform them of the infringement on you patent application. If they “Knowingly” continue to infringe, your potential damages that you are entitled to (if you are granted a patent)will increase. What is it, 1.5x or 2x if the didn’t know? something like that. Either way, get your attorney involved. I’m sure if they did stop manufacturing based on a possible lawsuit, if the patent infringement does not materialize then it could come back on you.

Thankfully, I’m now patented and the patent pending on the other product is months away from going to “patented” (I hope). But patent pending, the potential damages to knowingly infringe, that has got some serious stopping power.

Rainer- Nice blender huh? : )

You are correct- it was finalized at 24 million! The judge had the *option to push for triple damages* (33 million) as that is considered to be in line with ‘willful infringers’

Here’s some more info on that case:
“In April, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell issued a summary judgment agreeing with K-Tec and leaving it to the jury to set damages. She could rule later on whether damages should be tripled, to $33 million, and attorney’s fees awarded.”

“We respect but disagree with the court’s ruling as well as the earlier summary judgment that Vitamix’s container was an infringement of the other company’s jar,” said Anthony Ciepiel, Vitamix’s vice president of sales and marketing.

I own a Blend Tec :)

I thought it was $25 Million in damages.

Roger-

Good points as always! In regards to the timeline of patents, that’s why you should always (if possible) file Design patents as well. Simple design patents are issuing 12-18 months now as opposed to 3-5 years for software or medical patents. A design patent will help stop ‘direct copies’ or the blatant infringers who simply take a mold of your existing product (molding lines, flaws and all- hello, China). Design patents issue quicker cost less and help you to stop the infringers before they can really start to make a lot of money. This strategy has in fact worked for many, including one company who makes the world’s best blender (Blend-Tec) Check out www.willitblend.com They received over 33 million dollars in damages from a willful infringer. The design patents issued first followed by utility.

Ralph one thing you overlooked is if your investor has the deep pockets and pays all the legal fees, goes after the infringer and takes on all the burden they are going to expect to get the lion’s share of the reward. As you stated you can’t do much in the patent pending stage and have to wait until you have the issued patent. A number of them are also beating it will takes years for the patent to go through the process and then what happens if two years into the process they reject your patent and it does not issue? You can still continue to market and sell your product you just don’t have the opportunity to go after infringers. Your best shield against infringers is branding and grabbing the largest name recognition. You will also find infringers don’t keep great records so you can truly redeem what is owed.