|
|
Author |
Topic: Contest a Patent (Read 8198 times) |
|
Whitemouse
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
 |
Re: Contest a Patent
« Reply #15 on: May 11th, 2007, 3:34pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
You were right!
Please do not use Inventionhomedotcom
I contacted Jacob Enterprise A.K.A. inventionhomedot com
I paid for a patent search a virtual prototype and I paid to have my idea patented. I sent them a drawing and a non disclosure that I downloaded from their site. What did I get = after about 3 months of not patenting my invention, I found that a client of theirs known as Proctor and Gamble know has a new faucet mounted filtered water purifier just like my idea a as a new future product to their site.
Jacob Enterprise has stolen my multi million dollar idea and made a deal with proctor and Gamble. As you can see the website: purflavoroptionsdotcom/?src=pgdotcom is new this matter.
I am currently seeking legal action against this invention company.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Wiscagent
Full Member
Posts: 843
|
|
Re: Contest a Patent
« Reply #16 on: May 12th, 2007, 8:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Procter & Gamble has an extensive patent portfolio related to water filtration and purification. P&G owns the "PUR" line of water purification products. It may be worth your while to review their patents. It is possible that P&G independently developed the same invention as you. If that is the situation, you may wish to reconsider legal action on this matter.
Note: I have no connection with either P&G or Jacob Enterprise.
|
|
IP Logged |
Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent
|
|
|
JSonnabend
Moderator
Senior Member
Posts: 2251
|
|
Re: Contest a Patent
« Reply #17 on: May 14th, 2007, 8:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 11th, 2007, 3:34pm, Whitemouse wrote:You were right!
. . .
Jacob Enterprise has stolen my multi million dollar idea and made a deal with proctor and Gamble. As you can see the website: purflavoroptionsdotcom/?src=pgdotcom is new this matter.
I am currently seeking legal action against this invention company. |
|
Reviewing your earlier comments:
Quote:| It seems you sir are not informed enough / educated or slightly qualified to be giving advice on this forum. |
|
Quote:| For someone who has been doing this for 15 years it appears you don't read and comprehend to well. |
|
Quote:| You have offered nothing but negative attitude, this forum is a joke and you have such a poor attitude that I am surprised anyone would hire you at all. |
|
you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for you.
- Jeff
|
| « Last Edit: May 14th, 2007, 8:20am by JSonnabend » |
IP Logged |
SonnabendLaw
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Brooklyn, USA
718-832-8810
JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
|
|
|
Rajeev_Madnawat
Newbie
Posts: 9
|
|
Re: Contest a Patent
« Reply #18 on: May 28th, 2007, 7:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Invention Submission Corporation versus Jon Dudas, USPTO Director
In January 2002, the PTO initiated an advertising campaign to warn the public of invention promotion scams. In a press release describing the campaign, the PTO noted that the agency's advertisements would feature "an actual inventor, Edward Lewis, who lost several thousand dollars." In the advertisements, Lewis described how he had spent $13,000 dollars on the services of an invention promotion company but "ha[d]n't seen a penny." The advertisements did not accuse any particular promotion company of engaging in scams, nor did they identify the company to which Lewis referred.
A news organization then published a story on the Invention Submission Corporation, noting that Lewis had filed a complaint against ISC and how the FTC had investigated the ISC for "misrepresentation in patent marking schemes."
The Invention Submission Corporation then sued the PTO under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) alleging that the PTO's advertisements exceeded its statutory authority and were done in order to penalize ISC.
Both the district court and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed ISC's claims, noting that the PTO's ad campaign was not a "final decision" as required for jurisdiction under the APA.
Now, ISC has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a hearing on the case. ISC argues that the the PTO's actions constitute a sanction against the company, and is therefore reviewable under the APA.
The government brief in opposition to the petition is available here. The briefs have been distributed for conference scheduled for October 29.
|
|
IP Logged |
Rajeev Madnawat, Patent Attorney , San Jose, CA
WARNING: This public message board posting is designed for a general discussion on the subject matter. This is not a legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print