[cavatina]

Hi guys, I need some advise. I run an online ipod accessories retail store at ipodstyles.com. Some of my products are screen protectors for the iPod and I've just received an e-mail asking me to remove them because they violate the patent 318. My first reaction was that of disbelief. Screen protectors?!

Anyway, I need advise on what I should be doing next.

Does such a patent exist? I suppose it only has jurisdiction in the states. If this is the case, will there be issues if I continue to sell it online? My store is based in Singapore but I have customers from the States.

Do you think it'll be all right if I explicitly state on the site that I will not ship screen protectors to USA customers and continue selling to the rest of the world?

More reading material:
http://www.vsps.com/abstract33.JPG
http://pdaphonehome.com/forums/showthread/t-7429.html <- read this
http://www.vsps.com/alicensestrike.htm

Are these people nuts? Are stuff like the toothbrush patented as well?

(i've posted this at ipodlounge but I thought I'll post one here too to see if I can get more suggestions while I try to seek legal help. Thanks)

You are possibly violating the United States Patent Laws.

RE:U.S. Patent #Re.35,318 is Viewing Screen Protective Shield.

Under the federal Patent Act (the �Act�),
a patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented invention throughout the term of the patent. 35 U.S.C. � 271(a) (1994). U.S. courts have long held that, as a matter of law, �[i]t is not an actionable wrong for a patent owner to indicate to infringers that it is his purpose to insist upon what he believes to be his legal rights� under the patent.

******************************************
35 U.S.C. 282 A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under , the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of . The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.

***********************************************

�Accordingly, the scope of the �318 patent is limited to completely applying and releaseably adhering a thin, flexible, transparent, plastic film to the outermost surface of a face plate of an electronic instrument to protect the face plate during use of the instrument, and equivalents therefore, i.e., as presently advised, performing the claimed steps by applying the film to the flat front surface of LCD�S and LCR�S. (Id.).�

Applying the film to the molded envelope of a conventional television tube is excluded. Such a device is a cathode ray tube (�CRT�), not an LCD or LCR, and the like, and it does not have a face plate, i.e. its front surface is not flat.

�Also excluded from the scope of the �318 patent are steps of applying (1) temporary notice labels and advertising decals bearing written or printed indicia because such films are not transparent, or, (2) temporary shipping and handling overlays whether or not transparent, because such films are designed to be removed in use.

Accordingly, as construed, the �318 patent is not invalid, is infringed by many parties, and is enforceable against all infringers in view of all the prior art of record of which we are aware.�

Stop your adds now. A license can be viewed at http://www.vsps.com/alicense.htm We will waive the $5000.00 Admin. Fee.

VSPS.com Inc.

[Sherwin]

If I recall correctly, you're not the one in violation of any patents laws if you're only selling the product rather than actually manufacturing it. I might be wrong.

However, as you're not the manufacturer and you're not based in the US, tell them to go jump. It's probably some kind of scam anyways. I mean, according to that I can't cover my monitor face in cling-film.

[cavatina]

The patent laws do cover the sale of the item as well. It probably wouldn't affect me if I sell to everyone else but the states, but I think this whole patent issue is ridiculous. Under the patent law, and based on this patent, anyone who covers their electronic devices with plastic sheets, even if it is cut out from a sheet of plastic at home, will have violated the patent.

[Eriamjh]

Hmmmm. Interesting.

Wonder why everyone makes them?

[effgee]

Disclaimer: IANAL, neither in real life nor on the internet!!

Now that this has been said ...



I knew that story sounded vaguely familiar ...



Buahahaahaaaa ... Warman ist at it again!! This guy has been around, threatening folks ever since I bought my first Visor! And that was a long time ago ... god am I old



- Start reading here (IIRC, a regular here in the forum is an editor/witer for a Treo site - see if you can dig him up for further info)
- Then, on Treocentral, do a search for the name "Warman"
- Lastly, do a Google search for this: "screen protector" patent

I don't think you have much to fear from this nutter - get some real legal advice anyway - just to be safe.




(edit: here's a nice sample of Mr. Warman's ramblings)

[cavatina]

Ya, he has had quite a following.

I'm seeking advice from some lawyer friends as well just to be safe. I believe he only has jurisdiction in the states, where I do not operate.

[JHromadka]

Is the guy's name Bill or William? We had a few dealings with him when we were VisorCentral. He hassles people all the time with that patent, but I'm not aware of anything actually coming of it. Are you a mfr or a reseller? IANAL, but I would expect that he could do less to a reseller than to someone actually making the protectors IF the patent is valid.

[f1000]

"A patent gives its holder the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention "claimed" in the patent deed for 17 (20) years, provided certain fees are paid. This right to exclude others is exercised by filing a patent infringement lawsuit in federal court." (Pressman: 1994)

The claims will control, so read them carefully. If you believe that his claims don't cover your product, then you can tell him to take you to court. If you believe that the claims do cover your product, then you can check to see whether the patent was properly issued in the first place. You can challenge the validity of a patent that violates prior art, the "unobviousness" clause, or some other technicality.

A U.S. patent only has jurisdiction in the United States. There's a chance, however, that this guy may hold one or more foreign patents as well, so you should do a search.

PS: His patent appears very narrow in scope. It should be easy to design around his claims.

[cavatina]

I've just spoken to my lawyer friends and will be taking an appropriate course of action. One of which will be not to post further comments on this subject online.

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

[Muffin]

One more thing guys... I am a reseller of Macally PowerBook/iBook Sceen Protectors, and can not find any reference to this patent on their packaging or website. How did they work around this guy?

http://www.shaggymac.com//index.php?...products_id=23

[saddino]

First, IANAL (but my wife is). The patent number is much too low to be something recent.

Second, "selling" does not constitute infringement. The manufacturer (and their revenues) are liable for patent infringement.

Third, you can search any patent at uspto.gov and verify it existence. Which I did. This is completely bogus. Patent 35,318 is a "Improved Mortising-Machine" patented in 1862.

This is just a con, trying to extort licensing fees from people who don't undestand the patent system. Ignore the sender.

[dreilly1]

Information on US patents that actually exist are available online. www.uspto.gov.

Patents are often referred to by their last few numbers for brevity, although that is usually the last three numbers. You can do searches online on other criteria, such as the inventor or whoever currently holds the patent and has rights to enforce it. (the assignee).

[wdlove]

I wish you luck with your business. May your success rise with Apple.

[f1000]

Originally posted by saddino:
Third, you can search any patent at uspto.gov and verify it existence. Which I did. This is completely bogus. Patent 35,318 is a "Improved Mortising-Machine" patented in 1862.

You mean that this patent isn't on the USPTO website?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...RS=PN/re35,318

[f1000]

Originally posted by saddino:
Second, "selling" does not constitute infringement.

You might want to read up on Title 35 of the U.S. Code, Section 271:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

[chabig]

Originally posted by saddino:
First, IANAL (but my wife is). The patent number is much too low to be something recent.

Second, "selling" does not constitute infringement. The manufacturer (and their revenues) are liable for patent infringement.

Third, you can search any patent at uspto.gov and verify it existence. Which I did. This is completely bogus. Patent 35,318 is a "Improved Mortising-Machine" patented in 1862.

This is just a con, trying to extort licensing fees from people who don't undestand the patent system. Ignore the sender.

1. The patent is real. The patent number is low because it's a Reissue patent. Someone linked to it 2 posts up.

2. Selling does constitute infringement.

3. The patent is available at the USPTO website.

4. You're right. It's a con.

[turtle777]

I'm using a screen protector on my Palm.
I have not paid. Is the world gonna come ot an end now ?

-t

[effgee]

Originally posted by turtle777:
I'm using a screen protector on my Palm.
I have not paid. Is the world gonna come ot an end now ? -t

Not the world but Hessen eventually ...

[turtle777]

Originally posted by effgee:
Not the world but Hessen eventually ...

Mwhahahaha !

-t