31 Aug 2004 17:21:31
Phelps
SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

Patently Obvious is reporting that WDP was granted a summary judgment
(meaning the judge threw the case out of court) in the SP patent case:

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/08/paintball_paten.html

The judge ruled that the SP didn't have properly name the inventors,
because they left out a one Dr. Hensel, who the court has determined is
the inventor of the electronics, a vital element of all the claims in
question. (Claims as in the patent claims, not the lawsuit.) They
never paid Hensel for this work, and he never signed any sort of
agreement that they had the rights to his intelectual property. The
judge is ordering the USPTO to add him to the patent, which means he
(Hensel) will have to agree to EVERYTHING in regards to the patent as
half-owner.

The PATENT is still alive, but all the current suits that assert that SP
is the sole owner of the patent are now dead in the water. I think that
SP can add Hensel as a party, if he agrees, and refile the suits. Of
course, if Hensel is smart, he'll just go around SP, make his own
(substantially smaller) settlement and screw them over in a large way.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


31 Aug 2004 16:08:10
Jose
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

Looks like SP got the worst of all worlds. Now they won't have money from a
patent OR royalties or maybe even permission to use a royalty free firing
system. Wonder if they will have to re-imburse the smaller companies they
tried to screw? Also, now that the Gardner's have opened the Pandora's box,
we will have to wait and see what WDP does with this ruling and possible
patent rights. VERY interesting developments.

Jose



"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Patently Obvious is reporting that WDP was granted a summary judgment
> (meaning the judge threw the case out of court) in the SP patent case:
>
> http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/08/paintball_paten.html
>
> The judge ruled that the SP didn't have properly name the inventors,
> because they left out a one Dr. Hensel, who the court has determined is
> the inventor of the electronics, a vital element of all the claims in
> question. (Claims as in the patent claims, not the lawsuit.) They
> never paid Hensel for this work, and he never signed any sort of
> agreement that they had the rights to his intelectual property. The
> judge is ordering the USPTO to add him to the patent, which means he
> (Hensel) will have to agree to EVERYTHING in regards to the patent as
> half-owner.
>
> The PATENT is still alive, but all the current suits that assert that SP
> is the sole owner of the patent are now dead in the water. I think that
> SP can add Hensel as a party, if he agrees, and refile the suits. Of
> course, if Hensel is smart, he'll just go around SP, make his own
> (substantially smaller) settlement and screw them over in a large way.
>
> --
> Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"




31 Aug 2004 20:40:34
Aaron Reimer
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

My question is whether the settlements that they have in place now (like
with PMI and ICD) are still legally binding . . . I assume that contracts
were signed . . .

"Jose" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Looks like SP got the worst of all worlds. Now they won't have money from
a
> patent OR royalties or maybe even permission to use a royalty free firing
> system. Wonder if they will have to re-imburse the smaller companies they
> tried to screw? Also, now that the Gardner's have opened the Pandora's
box,
> we will have to wait and see what WDP does with this ruling and possible
> patent rights. VERY interesting developments.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> "Phelps" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Patently Obvious is reporting that WDP was granted a summary judgment
> > (meaning the judge threw the case out of court) in the SP patent case:
> >
> > http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/08/paintball_paten.html
> >
> > The judge ruled that the SP didn't have properly name the inventors,
> > because they left out a one Dr. Hensel, who the court has determined is
> > the inventor of the electronics, a vital element of all the claims in
> > question. (Claims as in the patent claims, not the lawsuit.) They
> > never paid Hensel for this work, and he never signed any sort of
> > agreement that they had the rights to his intelectual property. The
> > judge is ordering the USPTO to add him to the patent, which means he
> > (Hensel) will have to agree to EVERYTHING in regards to the patent as
> > half-owner.
> >
> > The PATENT is still alive, but all the current suits that assert that SP
> > is the sole owner of the patent are now dead in the water. I think that
> > SP can add Hensel as a party, if he agrees, and refile the suits. Of
> > course, if Hensel is smart, he'll just go around SP, make his own
> > (substantially smaller) settlement and screw them over in a large way.
> >
> > --
> > Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> > "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> > -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"
>
>




31 Aug 2004 20:44:04
Tempest
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

"Aaron Reimer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:jS8Zc.22651$%[email protected]
> My question is whether the settlements that they have in place now (like
> with PMI and ICD) are still legally binding . . . I assume that contracts
> were signed . . .

Exactly. Nobody really knows what those contracts said. They were
settlements, not court orders, so it was between the two companies to decide
on the terms. Therefore, the thrown-out suit will likely not be retroactive
for the "already screwed" companies.




01 Sep 2004 01:26:26
Phelps
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

In article <[email protected] >,
"Tempest" <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Aaron Reimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:jS8Zc.22651$%[email protected]
> > My question is whether the settlements that they have in place now (like
> > with PMI and ICD) are still legally binding . . . I assume that contracts
> > were signed . . .
>
> Exactly. Nobody really knows what those contracts said. They were
> settlements, not court orders, so it was between the two companies to decide
> on the terms. Therefore, the thrown-out suit will likely not be retroactive
> for the "already screwed" companies.

Not necessarily. If the contract was made with the understanding
that SP had a good patent, then it is a material breach for SP to turn
out to NOT have the patent.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


01 Sep 2004 00:18:52
Tempest
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
> Not necessarily. If the contract was made with the understanding
> that SP had a good patent, then it is a material breach for SP to turn
> out to NOT have the patent.

Yeah I know. My argument is that we *don't know* what the contracts said.
But my gut tells me that SP tailored the contracts so that a loss of patent
wouldn't be retroactive.




31 Aug 2004 22:48:51
Jose
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

I'm thinking that if SP is in breach they could be liable for damages
because of bad faith contracts where they knew they were not the legal
patent owners.

Jose


"Tempest" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Phelps" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Not necessarily. If the contract was made with the understanding
> > that SP had a good patent, then it is a material breach for SP to turn
> > out to NOT have the patent.
>
> Yeah I know. My argument is that we *don't know* what the contracts said.
> But my gut tells me that SP tailored the contracts so that a loss of
patent
> wouldn't be retroactive.
>
>




01 Sep 2004 06:44:28
DGDevin
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

"Jose" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> I'm thinking that if SP is in breach they could be liable for damages
> because of bad faith contracts where they knew they were not the legal
> patent owners.
>
> Jose

Lots of people seem to be missing the point that nobody wanted to engage in
an endless legal pissing match with this company, and that's unlikely to
change, the guy with the deepest pockets has a big edge in this kind of
contest.




01 Sep 2004 08:11:14
Tony Sr.
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

look at what dye paid to sp....holy shit !!
"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Jose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> > I'm thinking that if SP is in breach they could be liable for damages
> > because of bad faith contracts where they knew they were not the legal
> > patent owners.
> >
> > Jose
>
> Lots of people seem to be missing the point that nobody wanted to engage
in
> an endless legal pissing match with this company, and that's unlikely to
> change, the guy with the deepest pockets has a big edge in this kind of
> contest.
>
>




02 Sep 2004 03:07:11
Phelps
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

In article <[email protected] >,
"Jose" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I'm thinking that if SP is in breach they could be liable for damages
> because of bad faith contracts where they knew they were not the legal
> patent owners.

There is a presumption in the law that an issued patent is valid. I
don't see any room for a bad faith claim short of proving inequitable
conduct to the patent office, and that isn't what the judge found here.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


02 Sep 2004 03:09:51
Phelps
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

In article <[email protected] >,
"Tempest" <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Phelps" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Not necessarily. If the contract was made with the understanding
> > that SP had a good patent, then it is a material breach for SP to turn
> > out to NOT have the patent.
>
> Yeah I know. My argument is that we *don't know* what the contracts said.
> But my gut tells me that SP tailored the contracts so that a loss of patent
> wouldn't be retroactive.

Doesn't matter. Unless there is a specific and deliberate waiver of
it (and I can't imagine any lawyer across from SP agreeing to it) then
the royalty agreement is going to be in material breach. I could even
see someone arguing that the inclusion of that sort of clause would be
evidence of inequitable conduct (basicly means a deliberate fraud on the
patent office -- the hugest no-no in patent law) and that would nullify
the contract.

In short, I would be hugely, hugely surprised to find out that SP is
getting another dime on these patents.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


01 Sep 2004 23:27:47
Tempest
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

I can only hope that you're right.

"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tempest" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Phelps" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Not necessarily. If the contract was made with the understanding
>> > that SP had a good patent, then it is a material breach for SP to turn
>> > out to NOT have the patent.
>>
>> Yeah I know. My argument is that we *don't know* what the contracts said.
>> But my gut tells me that SP tailored the contracts so that a loss of
>> patent
>> wouldn't be retroactive.
>
> Doesn't matter. Unless there is a specific and deliberate waiver of
> it (and I can't imagine any lawyer across from SP agreeing to it) then
> the royalty agreement is going to be in material breach. I could even
> see someone arguing that the inclusion of that sort of clause would be
> evidence of inequitable conduct (basicly means a deliberate fraud on the
> patent office -- the hugest no-no in patent law) and that would nullify
> the contract.
>
> In short, I would be hugely, hugely surprised to find out that SP is
> getting another dime on these patents.
>
> --
> Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"




01 Sep 2004 23:22:38
Jose
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

The Gardner's bought Pneu Ventures and claimed they "discussed" electrifying
the firing system of a marker and thus were part of the design team of the
Shocker. It was eventually proven in court that someone else was the
exclusive designer of the firing system. Could Dye claim that the Gardner's
patent was filed in bad faith somehow, since they were trying to imply that
they helped design something they in fact did not?

Jose


"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jose" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking that if SP is in breach they could be liable for damages
> > because of bad faith contracts where they knew they were not the legal
> > patent owners.
>
> There is a presumption in the law that an issued patent is valid. I
> don't see any room for a bad faith claim short of proving inequitable
> conduct to the patent office, and that isn't what the judge found here.
>
> --
> Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"




02 Sep 2004 06:34:02
DGDevin
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

"Jose" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> The Gardner's bought Pneu Ventures and claimed they "discussed"
electrifying
> the firing system of a marker and thus were part of the design team of the
> Shocker. It was eventually proven in court that someone else was the
> exclusive designer of the firing system. Could Dye claim that the
Gardner's
> patent was filed in bad faith somehow, since they were trying to imply
that
> they helped design something they in fact did not?
>
> Jose

Phantom had a working electro before that, a design they chose not to put on
the market.

It's the old race to the courthouse, whoever files first gets to sit on top
of the hill and pee on everyone else.




02 Sep 2004 23:38:25
Phelps
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

In article <[email protected] >,
"Jose" <[email protected] > wrote:

> The Gardner's bought Pneu Ventures and claimed they "discussed" electrifying
> the firing system of a marker and thus were part of the design team of the
> Shocker. It was eventually proven in court that someone else was the
> exclusive designer of the firing system. Could Dye claim that the Gardner's
> patent was filed in bad faith somehow, since they were trying to imply that
> they helped design something they in fact did not?

Unless you could make a strong showing of actual bad faith (the standard
is "clear and convincing evidence", which is just less than "beyond a
reasonable doubt" and much higher than "a preponderence of the
evidence") then no. Just those facts don't sound like they rise to the
level. As a matter of fact, if it was -proven- then the patent would
already be invalid and that would have been part of the judgment.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


03 Sep 2004 13:46:27
Jose
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit

Ok. Thanks for the insight Phelps.

Jose


"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jose" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The Gardner's bought Pneu Ventures and claimed they "discussed"
electrifying
> > the firing system of a marker and thus were part of the design team of
the
> > Shocker. It was eventually proven in court that someone else was the
> > exclusive designer of the firing system. Could Dye claim that the
Gardner's
> > patent was filed in bad faith somehow, since they were trying to imply
that
> > they helped design something they in fact did not?
>
> Unless you could make a strong showing of actual bad faith (the standard
> is "clear and convincing evidence", which is just less than "beyond a
> reasonable doubt" and much higher than "a preponderence of the
> evidence") then no. Just those facts don't sound like they rise to the
> level. As a matter of fact, if it was -proven- then the patent would
> already be invalid and that would have been part of the judgment.
>
> --
> Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"




04 Sep 2004 05:18:20
Kristan Roberge
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit



Phelps wrote:

> Patently Obvious is reporting that WDP was granted a summary judgment
> (meaning the judge threw the case out of court) in the SP patent case:
>
> http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/08/paintball_paten.html
>
> The judge ruled that the SP didn't have properly name the inventors,
> because they left out a one Dr. Hensel, who the court has determined is
> the inventor of the electronics, a vital element of all the claims in
> question. (Claims as in the patent claims, not the lawsuit.) They
> never paid Hensel for this work, and he never signed any sort of
> agreement that they had the rights to his intelectual property. The
> judge is ordering the USPTO to add him to the patent, which means he
> (Hensel) will have to agree to EVERYTHING in regards to the patent as
> half-owner.

Actually no he won't. See the judge ruled against SP also because WDP
tracked down
Hensel, and bought his patent/design rights from him. Thus the judge ruled
that SP can't
go and very well sue the other half owner of the patent rights.




04 Sep 2004 05:19:55
Kristan Roberge
Re: SP poured out in WDP Patent Lawsuit



Jose wrote:

> Looks like SP got the worst of all worlds. Now they won't have money from a
> patent OR royalties or maybe even permission to use a royalty free firing
> system. Wonder if they will have to re-imburse the smaller companies they
> tried to screw? Also, now that the Gardner's have opened the Pandora's box,
> we will have to wait and see what WDP does with this ruling and possible
> patent rights. VERY interesting developments.

the best part was the judge saying he didn't think Billy or Adam could have
invented anything.