Dear Mr. Ralston:

 

While I can appreciate your arguments, I disagree with your conclusions regarding Protech Invisible Protection’s (“PIP”) infringement of the clams of my patent Re. 35,318 (“the “’318 patent”).  The products sold by PIP do infringe my claims.

<>With regard to claims 2-4 and 6-8 of the ‘318 patent, the only argument you make is that PIP’s products do not provide for “releasably adhering”.  Instead you argue that they use a permanent adhesive.  According to my research and tests of PIP’s screen overlay products, they do not permanently adhere to the surface of a face plate.  Even your clients own website’s makes the following statement
“If your product ever scratches, peels, or discolor, we will exchange it with NO questions asked. "

You can peel their products off of a face plate after they have been installed without affecting the electronic instrument or faceplate in any way.  If they were permanently adhered, you would at a minimum destroy the face plate trying to remove them.  PIP’s products have been and continue to be releasable and infringe upon at least these claims.  

As for your arguments concerning invalidity and unenforceability, they are just that- your arguments and conclusions.  You have provided nothing other than a single patent reference to support your contentions.  My patent was examined and reissued by the patent office, and as such is presumed valid and enforceable.  The burden and high standard of proof would be on your client to overcome this presumption.

My product is the #1 accessory for PDA’s and the like and is highly recommended by major PDA manufacturers as the best protection against screen damage and wear.  My patent has also been recognized by many companies, including B.F. Goodrich Aerospace.  Moreover, many companies have taken a license under my patent, including Palm, Apple, and the like.  I cannot sit by and let PIP and others sell infringing products and cause me loss of sales and other damages.

Therefore and especially since PIP would prefer to avoid the expenses of litigation, I extend to PIP our non-exclusive licensing offer. SEE http://www.vsps.com/alicense.htm

 If PIP should wish to continue manufacturing, using, offering for sale, and selling its products, it needs to enter into the enclosed licensing agreement.  I request confirmation of your client’s intentions concerning licensing within ten (10) days from the date of this letter. 

I stand by my claims and allegations.  If your client chooses not to license, then it will need to immediately cease and desist in the manufacture, use, sale, import, and/or offer for sale of its infringing products.  If it does not, I will continue to enforce my patent rights and remove all infringing products through EBay and other channels.

 

Sincerely,

William J. Warman