Category Archives: Corporate Law

Virgin hires private investigators to spy and find out where VIRGINIC employees live in the US. VIRGINIC wins with Virgin twice in the UK

Austin, Texas, 2020-Jun-09 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Hypocrisy continues. Richard Branson claims to support small entrepreneurs and yet Virgin lawyers attack and destroy small start-ups.

Jolly Santa figure or a Business Bully?

Common sense says that the word ‘virgin’ cannot be owned by one individual or organization. After suing VIRGINIC, will Virgin now go after British Virgin Islands, the country? Or after Madonna for a song “Like a Virgin?”. Welcome to the Jungle where you can hire the most ruthless and manipulative lawyers, shall your deep pockets allow the cost.

Richard Branson, he of the goatee beard, shaggy hair and permanently fixed grin is not a man who needs to worry about money. His personal net worth is as of 2020 approximately 4.2 billion USD according to Google. The Virgin Group had an annual turnover in 2016 of around 25 billion USD. The Group’s business interests extend, to use the legal phrase, ad coelum et ad inferos. For those of us without a Classical education, that means up to heaven and down to hell, from trains on the ground to telecommunications in the atmosphere around us up to commercial space flight, Virgin has many fingers in many pies.

Of the many classes of goods and services marketed under the Virgin name cosmetics is not one of them. In June 2009, Virgin explicitly announced its intent to not use any mark containing the term “Virgin” in connection with the sale of cosmetics, skincare, and beauty products by announcing that it was “moving away from glamorous adventures in this particular retail sector.” A crystal clear statement of intent that stands to this day as Virgin still doesn’t sell cosmetics under the Virgin name and has long abandoned its mark with respect to cosmetics and skincare goods.

Enter stage right VIRGINIC LLC. Virginic was created two and a half years ago and is a startup specializing in mission-based, allergy-free, chemical-free beauty products with “virginic” level of purity, sold strictly through ecommerce channels. Small company with big ethos of superior standards of ingredients purity and ethics, vegan and unprocessed. Despite the fact that Virgin has no current or future interest in goods of this type, and that VIRGINIC is a different brand name than Virgin, Virgin has been aggressively pursuing a frankly absurd and bullying course of action against VIRGINIC for the past 2 years.

The logos of the two companies look nothing alike, the name of VIRGINIC is not similar and no person is going to think their VIRGINIC face cream has anything at all to do with Virgin Atlantic airline. There is no reason for Virgin to maliciously keep trying to destroy a company like VIRGINIC. It poses no threat whatsoever to Virgin’s business interests or to consumers but it is under attack by an army of lawyers in multiple countries, where employees are spied by lawyers, their linkedin profiles invigilated and people straight abused.

This sad state of affairs began when VIRGINIC LLC applied to register their trademark in the UK. In January 2018 the mark was accepted and published in the Trade Marks Journal in respect of Class 03, which covers cosmetics and skincare goods. The UK IPO governmental trademark officer accepted the trademark as it concluded no marketplace confusion nor even similarity. Virgin opposed it despite the fact that it does not sell cosmetics. As any reasonable person would expect, Virgin’s opposition failed, another senior UK IPO specialist decided VIRGINIC wins for a second time on the basis that the average consumer would not make a connection between VIRGINIC chemical-free cosmetics and Virgin Mobile.

However Virgin has massive resources and aggressive lawyers who appealed to the UK Court claiming that the original hearing officer was incorrect and his decision should be overturned. Additionally, aiming to destroy at all cost and against all merits, the lawyers attacked further demanding $50,000 from VIRGINIC.

Thomas M Monagan from Norvell IP, USA, together with Geo Hussey from A.A. Thornton in UK continued by opening more lawsuits in the USs and UK, serving litigation papers to unrelated companies that managers of VIRGINIC used to work for, all to harass the small company to the extreme point so they give up and destroy themselves on Virgin’s request. Virgin also hired a private investigators, as they disclosed to Court in Wyoming, to find out where employees and managers physically live.

In May 2020 same lawyers served VIRGINIC employees lawsuits via their private Linkedin profiles and to random email addresses found on the internet. Such actions could have been a Monty Python sketch, but sadly these days lawyers are apparently allowed to invade people’s privacy.

VIRGINIC stood strong and refused to be destroyed. A fight with multi billion dollar bully can cause significant hardship to any startup in its early stages. While Virgin has the resources to indulge in frivolous and harassing court cases, VIRGINIC does not.

This could bring any other company to its knees, halting operations and causing the lay offs of valuable and experienced staff, impacting the company and making its people jobless. Malicious lawyers applying a technique of continued harassment to burden financial resources of a smaller company and take an emotional toll on its staff is a technique called bullying. Where VIRGINIC should be concentrating on growing and developing its allergy-free and ethically-sourced products, which could change the face of the beauty industry, it is instead being forced to fight for its very survival even though it has done nothing against Virgin whatsoever.

Virgin’s lack of good faith and attempts of its lawyers to harass and destroy is even more clear looking at Virgin’s long history of trademark abuse. Even a cursory search of online sources will reveal multiple examples of trademark abuse and bullying small start ups.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

VIRGINIC defends its case and stands up to Virgin after attack on Linkedin profiles of shocked VIRGINIC employees

SEATTLE, Washington, 2020-Jun-02 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Last week Virgin launched a new attack on shocked VIRGINIC employees and threatened in court to serve them lawsuits directly to their Linkedin profiles. Virgin then followed its threats and served its lawsuits to unrelated email addresses of those individuals it found on the internet. Virgin revealed it has been spying on VIRGINIC employees social media and private Linkedin profiles and provided the Court daily screenshots of such profiles as evidence.

“Put it simply, it is bullying and VIRGINIC will stand up to it” – says a former employee of VIRGINIC, Mark Russell.

Thomas M Monagan from Norvell IP is the lawyer hired by Virgin in USA, together with Geoff Hussey from A.A. Thornton in UK to tear apart the business fabric of VIRGINIC and to destroy the start up company and force it to stop selling allergy-free organic creams.

According to Mark Russell, “the harassment Virgin lawyers have been maliciously applying for the past 2 years have adversely and financially affected many workers employed who lost their jobs because of the hardship caused by Virgin. Virgin has been trying to starve a small start up company financially to death for past 2 years and it’s a miracle VIRGINIC is still standing up straight by pure force of resilience, integrity and business pride”.

The former worker adds: “Virgin opened multiple lawsuits in multiple countries and demanded we close and commit a business suicide. VIRGINIC heroically stood up to it. All employees gave their 200% knowing it costs a fortune to hire lawyers in all those countries and a lot of us declared to work for reduced wage to support our mission-based company and stand up to bullying. Everyone with common sense knew Virgin’s claims were not only lacking factual merits but were in bulk part a legal manipulation aiming to attack for no reason, just like Virgin successfully destroyed through litigation many other start ups in the past including small Virgin Olive Oil producers”.

Question remains, should Virgin and its lawyers be held liable for damages they have caused including loss of jobs of VIRGINIC employees and financial hardships caused to many families? VIRGINIC is defending its case vigorously with the limited means it has but the irony is, what wrong did they do at the first place.

VIRGINIC is an honest, cruelty-free and natural-ingredients-only beauty company. The name is different from Virgin. They sell entirely different products. Their logo and branding is different. Customers buying VIRGINIC oraganic face cream jars online are certainly not confused thinking they are buying from Virgin Airlines/Mobile or Virgin Galactic.

Nevertheless VIRGINIC workers who lost their jobs due to high costs of multiple international lawsuits and whose private social media profiles are daily watched and taken screenshots of, are the ones to shoulder the burden. At the event of US Court eventually ruling for VIRGINIC, will the multi-billion dollar giant Virgin be ordered to compensate those employees for loss of income and privacy invasion?

Mark Russell comments: “US judges have a good reputation regarding protecting the rights of their citizens and US companies so despite Virgin’s army of lawyers and their tactics of spying and harassment on privacy, I hope the judge will make things right to VIRGINIC. I hope the saying that the party with more money for lawyers always wins, despite the merits and common sense, will not turn out to be a sad truth here. Maybe Richard Branson will be notified about what’s happening and will make things right”.

He adds: “There comes a point when you have to stand up to behavior of ruthless lawyers, because they destroy people and they destroy lives, just because there is a company with deep pockets willing to pay for it. Bullying like this scares and silences people but we all know this is not an acceptable practice. There needs to be accountability for false and malicious storytelling in courts and daily spying on private profiles and hiring private investigators to find out where those employees live, which is also what Virgin said in Court they did and presented those private investigators findings to Court as evidence. Virgin’s infamous and low litigation and personal harassment tactics are now a part of a public record so everything is out there to be seen and accounted for.”

A former employee who fell victim to this case, finishes by saying: “There is a human cost to this malicious bullying. VIRGINIC has continued to put on a brave face and has been boldly fighting back for the past two years, but I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been to many VIRGINIC employees. They lost their jobs, their privacy was violated. The multi-billion dollar giant attacked a small mission-based start up with no merits, because they could and because lawyers had to justify their fees. All this at the direct expense of many honest and hard working young people, their family income and the better mission-based future they have been building”.

The case progresses and it is unclear how quickly the Court might rule.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Matvil Corp. Continues Its Fight Against Illegal Actions of the Legal System of Moldova

A case of intellectual rights dispute sheds light on the corrupt legal system of Moldova

TORONTO, Canada, 2020-May-15 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — As one of the leading online ethnic TV providers, operating in North America, Matvil Corp. discovered, there is no reliable system in place that protects legal broadcasters from dishonest competition. In their attempts to enter the US and Canadian markets, Internet pirates commit fraud and manipulate data in order to influence the corrupt legal system of Eastern European countries and try to destabilize operations of successful companies, cause financial damage and hurt their reputation.

The case Radio Star Ltd. against Matvil Corp. is a vivid proof of such practices.

On June 8, 2018, Radio Star Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Matvil Corp. in the court of Chisinau, Moldova, stating that the latter illegally broadcasted a number of Russian and Ukrainian channels on the territory of Moldova.

It should be noted right away that in support of its demands, Radio Star (Moldova), knowingly and deliberately used various methods to circumvent technical protection measures undertaken by Matvil Corp., and subsequently presented them as evidence. Using ExpressVPN program, accomplices or employees of Radio Star (Moldova), (which in this case is a media “pirate”), physically located in the Republic of Moldova, created user accounts and, using American IP addresses, with location in New Jersey, USA, registered on the Matvil Corp website, thereby creating the illusion of receiving services offered by the company.

It should be clarified that ExpressVPN program is a virtual tunnel that virtually changes the physical location of a computer or other electronic device, assigning this device a virtual IP address, indicating a virtual location anywhere in the world (at the choice of the user of this program), while physically, the electronic device is located in its territorial space.

Matvil Corp is a respectable media provider that provides online TV broadcasting services in Canada and the United States. Subscription access to the service for users from the countries of former USSR and Russia is strictly prohibited and unavailable.

However, malicious desire for illegal enrichment pushes such adversaries as Radio Star (Moldova) to resort to illegal actions, falsification, fraud and the commission of crimes using IT technologies.

Moreover, as it became known already in the framework of the trial, Radio Star (Moldova) does not have exclusive rights at all to broadcast Russian and Ukrainian television channels in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Radio Star (Moldova) is just an agent for the distribution and conclusion of contracts with the end consumer and with a limited duration of contractual agreements.

In addition, Matvil Corp did not receive any claims from the copyright holders, and Radio Star (Moldova) did not provide any evidence that authority was granted by the copyright holders to protect their interests.

Despite all of the above, on January 18, 2019, Chisinau Court of First Instance, Judge Oksana Parfeni, ruled in favor of Radio Star, accepting all their fabricated evidence as reliable, but denied Matvil Corp representatives the right to hear IT experts / specialists and also denied the right to hear those persons who allegedly gained access to the service.

If the court were objective and impartial, then these adversaries would be asked only one question: “For what reason and why did they use ExpressVPN program, used American IP addresses, with location in New Jersey, USA, and did not try to log in on Matvil Corp website under valid Moldovan IP addresses? ”

On February 2, 2019 lawyer Matvil Corp appealed the decision of the first instance, however, even here Matvil Corp had to face partiality.

On April 5, 2019, that is, after 2 months, Chisinau Appeal Chamber issued a Decision, which decided to return the appeal because it was filed by an unauthorized person. The reason for this decision was a banal and completely illegal motive: the power of attorney issued to the company’s lawyer was allegedly not legalized in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Moldova.

It should be noted that this Decision was not sent to Matvil Corp lawyers until May 15, 2019 (apparently it was concealed in order to have the appeal dates expire). Only after applying with an official statement and demanding to indicate at what stage the filed appeal was, the court deigned to issue this Decision.

On the same day, May 15, 2019, the lawyer filed a protest against the Decision dated April 5, 2019, where it was decided to return the appeal, and on June 6, 2019, the Higher Trial Chamber of the Republic of Moldova ruled that the power of attorney was legal, and therefore obliged the Appeals Chamber to consider on its own merits the appeal about the decision of the first instance of the Court.

Thus, the first ray of hope for the objectivity and honesty of the Moldovan Judicial System appeared.

November 14, 2019 – The Appeal Court acknowledged the fact that Radio Star (Moldova) does not have any exclusive rights to broadcast TV programs and does not have the authority to protect the interest of copyright holders and, as a result, reversed the decision of the first instance and dismissed adversaries’ lawsuit.

It seemed as though that justice has triumphed!!!

However, the miracles of the legal / judicial system of Moldova continued.

Just by accident and thanks to the vigilance of the lawyers, it became known that Radio Star submitted cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice on January 14, 2020.

This information appeared on the court’s website, but until today, neither Matvil Corp nor the company’s lawyer have received a copy of this complaint and have not been officially informed of its existence.

Moreover, on March 18, 2020 this complaint has already passed the admissibility procedure, and the review itself is scheduled for May 20, 2020 and, what is noteworthy, without the participation of the parties!

This series of non-compliance with the requirements of the Law by the system itself, which was created to protect it, shows that it serves the interests of a certain group of people.

Using the Moldovan judicial system, unscrupulous competitors try to destabilize the business and cause serious financial and reputational damage to American and Canadian companies that do not conduct and did not intend on conducting business in Moldova.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Virgin adds to VIRGINIC case new groundless litigation against 3 more small startups

MIAMI, Florida, 2020-Apr-29 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Sir Richard Branson and his Virgin Group do not trade in… Virgins! Furthermore the word ‘virgin’ is itself a common word and an arbitrary one when used in connection to Virgin’s various business pursuits. For context purposes, here’s some more fun with trademarking Apple.

The word itself, Apple, is a common word and contrary to popular belief it is possible to trademark a common word. This is allowed because the word is arbitrary when used in connection to the manufacturer of iPhones and computers etc. Apple doesn’t sell apples, and neither does the Apple Rubber Co and many others who also own the trademark to the word ‘Apple.’ Multiple companies can own the trademark to the same common word, as long as the products they sell aren’t so similar that they cause confusion for consumers.

In spite of being a globally recognized brand, Virgin is currently pursuing a court case against a small online beauty company named VIRGINIC LLC, attempting to force them to close their store and demanding a hand over of their website domains and social media accounts to Virgin Group.

VIRGINIC LLC is a startup with a visionary desire to keep creating chemical-free, allergy-free, raw face cream formulas, for the direct benefit of an organic-minded female consumer. VIRGINIC brand name is to recall beyond-organic level of purity with no chemical additives and a holistic approach to ethical and all natural sourcing. Their production practices are mindful of protecting the planet through sustainable packaging materials and supporting local farming for ingredients sourcing. Yes, they are lovely people with an ethos that we can all support as it’s hard not to.

As for Virgin, they don’t sell cosmetics currently and neither do they have any intention to do so in future. From our common sense lesson in trademark law this should be an open and shut case, should it not? It seems crystal clear that two companies selling completely different products with names using a common word in an arbitrary manner, no virgins being sold, should both have the right to trademark that word.

Or in this case an invented word similar to that word, it would be like Apple vs Appleic. What’s more in the UK where this case started 2 years ago, a quick search reveals many companies trading under the word ‘Virgin’ offering various services. They’re able to do so for the reasons already stated above.

So why would Virgin target a small startup that doesn’t even use the name “virgin” and doesn’t trade in phones, planes and spaceships but natural face creams? It appears to be nothing more than pure speculative spitefulness by certain lawyers needing to justify their retainer and earn exorbitant fees from their client.

One can almost imagine those lawyers idly examining new trademark applications looking for marks that look somewhat similar to their client’s, no matter how tenuous the connection and salivating over the thought of the juicy fees to follow.

This sort of behavior is no better than the ‘ambulance chaser’ stereotype that looms large in the public’s imagination. In fact, under common law there was historically an offence referred to as ‘barratry’ referring to people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment. Sadly for VIRGINIC, this is no longer an offense in England and Wales. Now the turn is for the US court system to judge on the merits vs manipulative discourse of Virgin’s lawyers justifying their retainers.

Some of the investigative journalists following VIRGINIC case point out that the actual litigation is indeed pointless and harassing in nature. Furthermore it is destructive and punitive. VIRGINIC was already denied the appeal in UK, Virgin got paid £35,000 but since that wasn’t enough, Virgin’s lawyers proceeded to open more lawsuits against VIRGINIC in more countries, including countries where VIRGINIC doesn’t trade.

VIRGINIC refused to commit business suicide and close the shop, just because Virgin said so. Virgin’s lawyers responded by opening personal lawsuits against key employees and managers of VIRGINIC in both US and UK, using an alter ego theory as a legal crutch. In David vs Goliath cases, a big corporation can starve a small company financially to death, break their spirit by forcing them to give up simply because a small company is no longer able to afford piling up legal fees (in this case internationally) – a common tactic of a common bully.

Virgin opened personal lawsuits against shocked and distressed key employees and managers of VIRGINIC calling them in Wyoming court an “alter ego” of VIRGINIC company itself. When VIRGINIC and its management heroically kept refusing to be destroyed, more personal lawsuits were opened in the court of England.

VIRGINIC stated on their website that they felt it was morally wrong to close the business and stop making natural cosmetics for people with allergies that asks for them every day, just because a multi-billion dollar attacker has such a wish. In response to that, Virgin’s lawyers just recently added to the ongoing lawsuit 3 unrelated to VIRGINIC start up companies (in both court of both Wyoming, US and London, England) – companies where VIRGINIC employees used to work based on same “alter ego” legal crutch theory, causing even greater surprise to all spectators and a real financial damage to other small entities that stated no connection to VIRGINIC.

VIRGINIC announced on their social media that directly due to high legal fees causing hardship to its business half of their employees had to be laid off. At the expense of a great personal toll to those individuals and at a great loss of human capital in general, Virgin is further magnifying the damage caused.

If any business case is the personification of vicious, pointless litigation that only serves to enrich overpaid lawyers then this is it. Let us hope that a fairytale ending lies in store for the good folks at VIRGINIC and their spirit of not giving up on their dream, with a deserved comeuppance for the villain of the piece.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Virgin Demands Small Cosmetic Company VIRGINIC Closes and Opens Lawsuits Against its Main Employees

New York, NY, 2020-Apr-23 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — One of the greatest challenges currently facing the business world is the relentless pursuit of ownership of brand names, logos, typefaces, slogans and even colors! The judiciary are constantly inundated with cases regarding the alleged illegal or improper use of any, or any combination, of these.

But how much of this is a waste of the court’s time? How often is a case being brought simply because an in-house legal beagle needs to justify their salary? How many cases are brought that should simply, in any real world of common sense, never make it out of the split second of foolishness of that very thought’s creator?

Now, the idea that somebody really believed it necessary to protect their idea/investment/invention by receiving confirmation that it was indeed theirs, does, of course, make some sense. Invent the perfect diet in the form of a single daily dose tablet and you should be able to protect that invention and make as much money as the marketplace deems it to be worth until somebody comes up with a way of simply breathing in the perfect diet, and your invention becomes worthless.

And there is, in and of itself, the answer to many of our questions, whether or not we really knew that we had them. Money. Without this fiendish instrument of perceived wealth, where would we be? Would anybody, anywhere ever need to know who invented something of great use to the general populous? Would anybody give you the pats on the back and the “attaboys” that your genius deserved? Well, maybe, and, more likely the case, maybe not.

But would you care? I mean, let’s be honest, if you honestly did all this just for the kudos, you wouldn’t have needed the patent application form in the first place, right? You did it for the money, as is your absolute right to do, and you are simply protecting your investment and the value that your invention has.

Trademarks are, however, a whole different ball game. Take the example of Odysseas Papadimitriou’s company trademark application for his WalletHub brand, a brand that offered a website able to compare various offers such as insurance, loans, mortgages etc. The trademark application for his logo, a white “W” set in a green square, was disputed by, of all things, Major League Baseball! The claim was that the MLB had not one but TWO similar logos that would be infringed upon were the application allowed. One of these is a logo that has not been used in baseball since 1960, the year that the Washington Nationals became the Minnesota Twins whilst the other is a flag that the Chicago Cubs fly in their stadium if they win!

How are either of these “uses” threatened in any way, financial or otherwise, by a website that offers financial documentation organization services? Are WalletHub suddenly getting calls from angry customers, unable to get seats for the game? Are the MLB getting calls asking for financial advice?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key to this whole mess…IS THE CONSUMER CONFUSED ABOUT WHO OR WHAT THEY ARE ENGAGING WITH FOR GOODS OR SERVICES? That is the acid test. That is the reason the law uses to justify its very existence. That is the fly in the inhouse legal beagle’s ointment…Can they PROVE that this brand confusion would exist?

A perfect example of this is the case of Virgin Group PLC v VIRGINIC LLC (you already see where this is going, right?!). VIRGINIC is a young start-up specializing in all-natural, organic beauty products. Not trains. Not planes. Not telephones.

In fact, not any product that is even similar to anything that the Virgin group does or even has ever produced. Clearly there can be no confusion here. But what’s that, I hear you cry? The name is similar? Surely name similarity is not enough. For example, Ford once manufactured a car called the Capri. Now we have the Capri Sun brand all over the world. Is there an issue? Are people buying juice boxes worried that they are made in a car factory? Of course they are not. That would be silly, wouldn’t it?!

VIRGINIC was dismissed by a judge in the UK at the THIRD time of asking, having already beaten Virgin’s trademark infringement case on two previous occasions.The virtue of the freedom of speech that we protect so rigorously, is not an objective virtue any more in the common legal sense, apparently.

For as long as there exists a particular judge able to be swayed by vague and ridiculous arguments, such as those employed by the Virgin lawyers, on a particular day, in a particular place, we will carry on down this absurd legal rabbithole, wasting both the time and money of the taxpayer and of both businesses in question, meanwhile doing nothing for the consumer other than limit their access to the products that they may actually wish to purchase.

And are those not the people that these very laws were enacted to protect in the first place?

Trademark case numbers (UK00003283156)

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

DIGI Communications N.V. will challenge NMHH’s decision, by all means, according to the Hungarian and European law

BUCHAREST, Romania, 13-Sep-2019 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — The Company (DIGI Communications N.V.) would like to inform its investors and the market on the decision of rejection issued on September 13 by the Hungarian National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), in respect to the participation of the Company in the tender related to wireless broadband services supporting the introduction of 5G in Hungary. The Company took part in this procedure in order to develop the mobile communications activity on the Hungarian market.

The Company considers NMHH’s decision unfair and without legal grounds. In our view, NMHH decision exceeds the provisions of the tender documentation and is based on assumptions and future projections instead of facts and documented analyses. This decision continues a list of other unfavorable and controversial resolutions taken by NMHH in the past, related to Digi Group companies during previous radiofrequencies tenders.

The Company will challenge this decision, by all means, according to the Hungarian and European law. The Group is determined to continue the execution of its projects on Hungarian market in the best interest of its customers.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Digi Communications N.V. announces the publishing of Report of legal acts concluded by DIGI Communications N.V. in accordance with Romanian Law no. 24/2017 and FSA Regulation no. 5/2018

BUCHAREST, Romania, 26-Jul-2018 — /EPR Law News/ — Digi Communications N.V. (“Digi” or the “Company”) announces that on July 26, 2018 the Company submitted the Independent Limited Assurance Report on the information included in the current reports issued by the Company in accordance with requirements of Law 24/2017 (Article 82) and FSA Regulation no. 5/2018 for H1 2018to the Romanian Stock Exchange (“BVB”). The Report is also available on the Company’s website.

For details regarding the reports, please access the official websites designated of Digi: www.digi-communications.ro (Investor Relations Section).

SOURCE: EuropaWire

RCS & RDS S.A. entered into a settlement agreement with Antena TV Group S.A. and Antena 3 S.A.

BUCHAREST, Romania, 18-Jun-2018 — /EPR Law News/ — The Company would like to inform its shareholders and the market that RCS & RDS S.A., the Romanian subsidiary of the Company (“RCS&RDS”), entered on 15 June 2018 into a settlement agreement with Antena TV Group S.A.and Antena 3 S.A. (“Antena Group”).

This settlement ends all lawsuits between RCS&RDS and Antena Group and related entities, which we have previously disclosed in detail to the market and to our investors in the initial public offering prospectus dated 26 April 2017, in the bond public offering memoranda from 2016 and 2017, as well as in the subsequent periodic public reports.

Also, RCS&RDS and Antena Group entities have also concluded a carriage agreement based on which RCS&RDS will continue to retransmit the Antena Group channels as pay-tv stations as soon as the Antena Group channels will exit the must-carry regime.

For details regarding the reports, please access the official websites designated of Digi: www.digi-communications.ro (Investor Relations Section).

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Judge in Ramsey County, Minnesota dismisses suits alleging 3M warming device caused infections

Minneapolis, MN, 2018-Jan-11 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — 3M won a major victory this week in the ongoing legal battle that has seen numerous lawsuits already dismissed based on lack of evidence that the company’s forced air warming system, the Bair Hugger, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bair_Hugger) causes post surgical infections.

On Monday, Ramsey County District Judge William H. Leary III issued a ruling that dismissed dozens of lawsuits filed by Minnesota residents against 3M. Judge Leary based his ruling on the fact that he believed the plaintiffs had presented no evidence showing that the Bair Hugger causes surgical site infections post surgery.

Judge Ramsey wrote of the ruling, “There is no generally accepted scientific evidence — and plaintiffs offer none — that the risk of infection associated with FAWs [forced-air warming systems] is greater than that associated with patients who are not warmed during surgery.”

The object of the lawsuits, the Bair Hugger, is a forced air warming system that has been used in hospitals all over the nation. The lawsuits claim that there is a design flaw in the Bair Hugger (http://www.truthaboutbairhugger.com/) that allows the system to harbor harmful bacteria and spread it to the surgical site thus causing an infection but no evidence has been presented to prove that link.

The FDA supports the use of the Bair Hugger and says that using the system before and after surgery can result in less bleeding, faster recovery time and lower the risk of infection. According to 3M, the Bair Hugger has been used successfully in over 200 million surgeries since its inception.

A spokesperson for 3M said that the ruling, “affirms our position that there is no generally accepted science that the 3M Bair Hugger system causes infections.”

Contact-Details: Sarah Jones, service@emeraldcityjournal.com, www.emeraldcityjournal.com

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

FOURTEEN ADDITIONAL COMPANIES ENTER INTO PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH CHRIMAR

Longview, Texas, 2017-Oct-05 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Chrimar Holding Company, LLC today announced that fourteen (14) more technology companies and/or certain divisions within these companies have entered into non-exclusive licenses for certain equipment under certain Chrimar patents including certain Power over Ethernet (PoE) equipment designed for deployment within a BaseT Ethernet network.

”We are very pleased to see that the trend of taking licenses for this critical technology is  again continuing to increase, with the number of licensees totaling forty (40)” said John F. Austermann III, President & CEO of Chrimar.

ABOUT CHRIMAR
Chrimar was the first company to employ DC current within a BaseT network in the early 1990s and has received a number of US patents for this very important technology. Chrimar continues to market its EtherLock™ family of products for asset control, management and security. The Chrimar portfolio includes US patents numbers 7,457,250, 8,155,012, 8,902,760, 8,942,107, 9,019,838 and 9,049,019.

Chrimar Contacts:

Amanda N. Henley, 903-500-2021
John F. Austermann III, 248-478-4400
Steve W. Dawson, Sales and Marketing 248-478-4400

911 NW Loop 281, Suite 211-30, Longview, Texas 75604
Phone: 903-500-2021
Email: Amanda@chrimarholding.com

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

SIXTEEN NEW COMPANIES ENTER INTO PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH CHRIMAR

Longview Texas, 2016-Jun-07 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Chrimar Holding Company, LLC today announced that sixteen (16) technology companies and/or certain divisions within these companies have entered into non-exclusive licenses for certain equipment under certain Chrimar patents including certain Power over Ethernet (PoE) equipment designed for deployment within a BaseT Ethernet network, ten (10) of the new licensees include:

– Allied Telesis, Inc.
– Black Box Corporation
– Buffalo Inc.
– Edimax Technology Co. Limited
– Keyscan Inc.
– Korenix USA Corporation
– Moxa Inc. & Moxa Americas Inc.
– Phihong USA Corporation
– Transition Networks Inc.
– Tycon Systems Inc.

”We are very pleased to see that the trend of taking licenses for this critical technology is continuing to increase, with the number of licensees totaling twenty-five (25)” said John F. Austermann III, President & CEO of Chrimar.

ABOUT CHRIMAR
Chrimar was the first company to employ DC current within a BaseT network in the early 1990s and has received a number of US patents for this very important technology. Chrimar continues to market its EtherLock™ family of products for asset control, management and security. The Chrimar portfolio includes US patents numbers 7,457,250, 8,155,012, 8,902,760, 8,942,107, 9,019,838 and 9,049,019.

Chrimar Contacts:

Amanda N. Barnes, 903-500-2021
John F. Austermann III, 248-478-4400

Steve Dawson, CHC, 911 NW Loop 281, Suite 211-30, Longview, TX 75604, 248-770-5780

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Dietary Supplement Firm Kaeng Raeng Inc Sues Former Contract Manufacturer For Alleged Idea Theft And Unfair Business Practices

Kaeng Raeng Inc., which develops and sells dietary supplements, filed suit against the firm that manufactured its private-label products for allegedly stealing its confidential and proprietary information to create and distribute a competing product that’s “substantially similar.”

The suit accuses San Jose-based contract manufacturer Multivitamin Direct, Inc. and its employees — President Paul Huang, Vice President/Business Development Viola Lee and Vice President/Product Development Alisia Cheuk — of breaches of contract, confidentiality and loyalty, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud and deceit, and unfair competition.

The suit also says defendants actively misled Kaeng Raeng about their relationship with the brand Raw Green Organics, which allegedly was created by Multivitamin Direct to sell competing products based on Kaeng Raeng’s confidential and proprietary information.

“There’s a presumed level of trust between brands and contract manufacturers,” said Kaeng Raeng’s Founder, President and CEO Lindsay Reinsmith. “Without this trust, conflicts of interest arise and business relationships are undermined.”

The suit, filed late Friday in Santa Clara County Superior Court, seeks “disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation and benefits” received by Multivitamin Direct, Huang, Lee and Cheuk because of their “wrongful business practices.”

It also asks the court to grant an injunction against Multivitamin Direct, Huang, Lee and Cheuk, prohibiting them from disclosing and using Kaeng Raeng’s confidential information, saying that otherwise Kaeng Raeng “will suffer further immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage.”

The suit says Multivitamin Direct was established in 1987 and is a leading USDA-certified organic contract manufacturer in Northern California. Kaeng Raeng was founded by Reinsmith in 2009 as a small business in Palo Alto. Later that year, Multivitamin Direct signed a non-disclosure agreement and was engaged to produce Kaeng Raeng’s private-label dietary supplements.

In May 2011, the suit says, Kaeng Raeng shared details with Multivitamin Direct, Huang and Lee about a new greens-based detox cleanse product, and Huang and Lee shared the information with Cheuk. Details included ingredients, formulas, packaging, branding, marketing, advertising, pricing, sales, distribution, retailers, customers, vendors, product suppliers and industry trends.

Soon thereafter, the suit says, Multivitamin Direct’s production of Kaeng Raeng’s products “started to run consistently behind schedule” and Kaeng Raeng “became strained financially” waiting for inventory. Its final delivery, scheduled for September 2012, wasn’t delivered until February 2013, it says.

The suit says Raw Green Organics began gearing up to offer a “substantially similar” product in June 2011 — only one month after Kaeng Raeng revealed details of its new detox cleanse to Multivitamin Direct, adding that Raw Green Organics also adopted similar packaging, advertising, marketing and other matters.

When Reinsmith asked the defendants about the Raw Green Organics, they repeatedly told her it was simply a “client” they were “helping get started” and that none of Kaeng Raeng’s confidential information had been disclosed, the suit says.

At the same time, it says, Multivitamin Direct told Kaeng Raeng to find another manufacturer, forcing Kaeng Raeng to incur “lengthy and costly search efforts” and resulting “in the unnecessary disposal of valuable raw materials.”

Not until March 2014, did Kaeng Raeng discover evidence that Raw Green Organics is owned by Multivitamin Direct and managed by Huang, Lee and Cheuk, the suit says.

About Kaeng Raeng
Kaeng Raeng Inc, based in Sunnyvale, CA, develops and sells natural dietary supplements. Kaeng Raeng was founded in July 2009 by President and CEO Lindsay Reinsmith and still is a privately-owned, small corporation.

Contact Details: Roger Gillott
Gillott Communications
323-497-7868
roger@gillottcommunications.com

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Babson New York Rocket Pitch 2012 Supporter Helps First-time Entrepreneurs

No other law firm in history has voluntarily waived $500,000 in legal fees and absorbed $100,000 in expenses simply to help 500 first-time entrepreneurs incorporate; but that’s exactly how Jeff Unger, Los Angeles-based attorney and founder of eMinutes, a corporate law firm, spent most of the last 12 months. As of April 2, 2013, Mr. Unger announced he is ready to do it again, this time waiving nearly three-quarters of a million dollars – $725,000 – to help 725 first-time entrepreneurs in California, New York, Texas and the District of Columbia form their businesses for free.

“Today’s do-it-yourself-incorporation mentality and misinformation about business formation being provided by ‘experts’ who have no knowledge of the law is misleading inexperienced entrepreneurs,” said Jeff Unger, attorney and founder of eMinutes. “As a result, they end up with a business entity that may leave them exposed. At eMinutes, we are determined to provide as many first-time entrepreneurs as possible with the right counsel and guidance so their businesses have an honest opportunity to succeed.”

Jean Tsai is obsessed with food quality and she is also one of the 500 first-time entrepreneurs eMinutes helped in Phase I of the entrepreneur program. As an incorrigible lifelong snacker, she searched for a delicious and healthy snack that was made from sustainably grown real food ingredients. Never finding one, she decided to start Pop Karma after working in the corporate world and earning her Master’s Degree in Business Administration at Dartmouth College.

“The expertise eMinutes offers is superior. Like many entrepreneurs, I agonized over whether to be an S-Corp or an LLC, and even thought about incorporating by myself,” said Jean Tsai, founder of Pop Karma. “eMinutes provided exceptional guidance and asked the right questions that helped me decide what entity was right for my business. They made the entire process simple and incredibly fast – it would have taken a much greater investment of personal time on my part if I had done it on my own, and I wouldn’t been as successful.”

In Phase II of its entrepreneur program, eMinutes will waive 100% of its legal fees for eligible first-time entrepreneurs who demonstrate a sincere commitment to building their business, for example, a clearly-defined business plan or an active website. All eligible entrepreneurs must have retained the services of a CPA and agree to pay filing fees.

Christina Eisenstein, founder of Macaroon and one of eMinutes’ first 500 first-time entrepreneurs, fell in love with the French macaroon years ago, and decided to leave the advertising world for sweeter pastures. Although born in the Midwest, she comes from a long lineage of bakers in Paris and is committed to combining her French roots with the American palate. What she didn’t have was knowledge of how to form a business.

“eMinutes saved me money on legal fees that I was able put back into my business. They completed all the paperwork and submitted it quickly, with virtually no effort on my end,” said Eisenstein. “Their attorneys are professional, readily available and eager to help; they are truly champions for entrepreneurs.”

For more information on Phase II of the entrepreneur’s program and eMinutes corporate legal services, visit http://eminutes.com/entrepreneurs or call (310) 820-1000 in Los Angeles, (212) 772-7770 in New York, or (512) 942-1100 in Austin, Texas.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Jury Finds that Escort, Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc. Infringe Two GPS Radar Detector Patents

On July 3, 2012, a jury found that Escort, Inc. (www.escortradar.com) and Beltronics USA, Inc. (www.beltronics.com) infringed numerous claims in U.S. Patent Nos. RE39,038 and RE40,653. In particular, the jury held that Escort’s Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, directly infringe claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,038 (“the ‘038 patent”) and claims 22, 31, 32, 33, 38, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,653 (“the ‘653 patent”). The jury also found that Escort and Beltronics contributed to the infringement of claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 28 in the ‘038 patent and claims 22, 24, 31, 32, and 33 in the ‘653 patent. The jury further found that Escort’s Passport 9500ix and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, infringe claim 24 of the ‘653 patent.

The ‘038 and the ‘653 patents are owned by Hoyt Fleming, an Idaho inventor of 37 U.S. Patents. On March 10, 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a complaint (Case Number 1:09-cv-00105-BLW, United States District Court District of Idaho) alleging that Escort and Beltronics USA infringed the ‘038 and the ‘653 patents. Escort alleged that certain claims of the Fleming patents were invalid because Steven Orr, while working for Cincinnati Microwave, Inc. in 1996, made Fleming’s invention earlier in time than Fleming. On July 3, 2012, after a trial spanning more than two-weeks that included live testimony from Steven Orr, John Kuhn (Escort’s Vice President of Engineering), and John Larson (Escort’s President), the jury refused to invalidate the above claims of the Fleming patents based upon Steven Orr’s alleged prior work.

“I am very happy with the jury’s verdict because the jury held that Escort and Beltronics are infringing two of my patents. I am looking forward to a future trial in which another jury will also find that Escort and Beltronics and many of their retailers, including Best Buy and Amazon.com, are willfully infringing a third of my radar detector patents, U.S. Patent No. RE41,905,” said Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming is represented by Mr. Michael S. Dowler ofPark, Vaughan, Fleming, and Dowler LLP in Houston, Texas. Escort and Beltronics USA are represented by Gregory F. Ahrens and Brett A. Schatz and of Wood Herron & Evans in Cincinnati, OH together with Steven B. Andersen of Holland and Hart in Boise, ID.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Atlanta Newspaper Names Kitchens New Cleghorn “2012 Best Law Firm”

Kitchens New Cleghorn, LLC, a firm with a proud history representing diverse family law in Georgia, has been named 2012 Best Law Firm by the GA Voice, an Atlanta-based publication serving thousands of gays and lesbians statewide.

The honor follows two months of reader voting, which deemed KNC the best Atlanta gay lawyers at providing sensitive, effective and inclusive legal representation to the LGBT community.

It is the first year the firm has won the title, beating out two other city firms for the top spot.

“We are honored to be recognized by the Georgia Voice for our law firm’s advocacy on behalf of all families,” said KNC partner Jeff Cleghorn.

Best Atlanta Gay Lawyers Title Part of Annual Series

The honor was part of the publication’s “Best of Atlanta” series. That series lets readers vote for their favorite Atlanta businesses serving the LGBT community with respect and pride.

“With a team of law professionals that is almost unsurpassed, Kitchens New Cleghorn is your top choice. Joyce Kitchens, Randy New and Jeff Cleghorn fight for their clients and causes, including LGBT equality,” the newspaper wrote in its July 5 edition, which announced winners in categories like entertainment and services.

Honor Highlights Atlanta Gay Lawyers’ Commitment to Inclusion

The local recognition underscores the firm’s commitment to promoting tolerance and educating gays and lesbians on their rights in accordance with family law in Georgia. Besides helping many gay and lesbian couples expand their families through adoption, the firm hosted a gay marriage forum in June and an event last fall outlining powers of attorney, second parent adoption and many other legal protections existing for Georgia same-sex couples.

In addition, on Aug. 16, these tireless Atlanta gay lawyers will host an event aimed at cutting suicide rates among gay and lesbian youths.

“Protecting the legal rights of LGBT people and families is a priority of our law firm,” Cleghorn said. “Georgia’s laws are not always hospitable to its LGBT citizens, so it is a privilege to advocate for them.”

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Former Judge Joins Kitchens New Cleghorn As Of Counsel

Former Merit Systems Protection Board judge and nationally recognized legal professional Stuart A. Miller has joined the Atlanta law firm of Kitchens New Cleghorn, LLC as Of Counsel, bringing 33 years of extensive experience with federal employment law.

Miller comes to the firm having recently retired as Administrative Judge with the MSPB Atlanta Regional Office, where he served for 21 years. His career also includes positions as Associate Counsel for Personnel and Ethics with the Defense Contract Management Agency and as Labor Counselor with the Department of the Army.

Miller started May 1.

“I chose KNC because of its impeccable reputation for excellence, integrity and fairness in dealing with clients and opposing counsel,” Miller said. “ I was honored to join a firm of consummate professionals.”

Addition Brings Far-Reaching Expertise to Atlanta Law Firm

Miller brings an impressive resume which partners Joyce Kitchens, Randy New and Jeff Cleghorn consider an invaluable addition to the firm.

A former adjunct faculty member of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps School, in Charlottesville, Va., Miller has specialized in MSPB practice and procedure and made countless presentations on labor law topics. Miller also spent years as a teacher for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. In addition, for more than a decade, Miller has been the featured speaker at the federal Bar Association’s yearly Labor Law Symposium, in Huntsville, Ala.

“As a former federal judge, Stu Miller brings decades of legal experience to Kitchens New Cleghorn,” said KNC partner Jeff Cleghorn. “Judge Miller is nationally respected for his subject-matter expertise.”

Miller received his law degree in 1978 from the Emory University School of Law and has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland.

Miller Expands Employment Law Capabilities at Atlanta Law Firm

Miller’s extensive federal employment law background is particularly valuable to KNC, which maintains an MSPB and federal employment law branch. In his position as Of Counsel, Miller will work closely with KNC partners and lend his years of experience to resolving cases involving this sophisticated area of law.

With offices in Atlanta, Alpharetta, Athens, Marietta and Lawrenceville, KNC is a comprehensive law resource for central Georgia. For more information about KNC, visithttp://www.gadivorcelitigators.com or http://www.gadivorcelitigators.com/alpharetta.htm.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Jury Finds that Escort, Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc. Infringe Two GPS Radar Detector Patents

On July 3, 2012, a jury found that Escort, Inc. (www.escortradar.com) and Beltronics USA, Inc. (www.beltronics.com) infringed numerous claims in U.S. Patent Nos. RE39,038 and RE40,653. In particular, the jury held that Escort’s Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, directly infringe claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,038 (“the ‘038 patent”) and claims 22, 31, 32, 33, 38, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,653 (“the ‘653 patent”). The jury also found that Escort and Beltronics contributed to the infringement of claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 28 in the ‘038 patent and claims 22, 24, 31, 32, and 33 in the ‘653 patent. The jury further found that Escort’s Passport 9500ix and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, infringe claim 24 of the ‘653 patent.

The ‘038 and the ‘653 patents are owned by Hoyt Fleming, an Idaho inventor of 37 U.S. Patents. On March 10, 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a complaint (Case Number 1:09-cv-00105-BLW, United States District Court District of Idaho) alleging that Escort and Beltronics USA infringed the ‘038 and the ‘653 patents. Escort alleged that certain claims of the Fleming patents were invalid because Steven Orr, while working for Cincinnati Microwave, Inc. in 1996, made Fleming’s invention earlier in time than Fleming. On July 3, 2012, after a trial spanning more than two-weeks that included live testimony from Steven Orr, John Kuhn (Escort’s Vice President of Engineering), and John Larson (Escort’s President), the jury refused to invalidate the above claims of the Fleming patents based upon Steven Orr’s alleged prior work.

“I am very happy with the jury’s verdict because the jury held that Escort and Beltronics are infringing two of my patents. I am looking forward to a future trial in which another jury will also find that Escort and Beltronics and many of their retailers, including Best Buy and Amazon.com, are willfully infringing a third of my radar detector patents, U.S. Patent No. RE41,905,” said Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming is represented by Mr. Michael S. Dowler ofPark, Vaughan, Fleming, and Dowler LLP in Houston, Texas. Escort and Beltronics USA are represented by Gregory F. Ahrens and Brett A. Schatz and of Wood Herron & Evans in Cincinnati, OH together with Steven B. Andersen of Holland and Hart in Boise, ID.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Time Is Running Out to Use The Lifetime Gifting Rules That Can Really Help Family Businesses

The president signed a new tax law back in December of 2010 giving the owners of family businesses probably the biggest tax break to come in several years.

However, that tax break, the lifetime gift exemption, $5 Million ($10 Million for a married couple), is in effect for only two years (2011 & 2012).

While the estate tax exemption amount had been increasing year to year, the lifetime gift exemption had stayed at $1 Million over the past 10 years.

But, the current law “sunsets” on December 31, 2012, and on January 1, 2013, the lifetime gift exclusion amount and the estate tax exemption will both decrease to $1 Million.

Even if you had previously used up your $1 Million lifetime gift tax exemption in prior years, you still have time to shift an additional $4 Million out of your estate to your family.

This two year window allows the owners of family businesses to transfer the stock of their closely held companies to the children or other family members and reduce the size of their estates, all tax free up to the exemption amount.

This strategy raises difficult questions for those now in charge as to how to maintain control and/or stream of income from the company they currently work in and manage. How do they protect their interests and maintain their retirement while passing wealth down to the family?

Experienced estate planning lawyers can develop “salary continuation plans”, “consulting agreements”, and other legal mechanisms to protect the owner’s financial stake in the family company.

Other difficult questions include how to treat other beneficiaries fairly when only one of the beneficiaries is going to eventually lead the business.

This may mean an amendment to the estate plan. The timing, nature and size of the gifts have to be considered in the context of the overall estate plan.

Time is of the essence in view of the fact that the $5 Million lifetime gift exclusion will disappear at the end of 2012, and go back to $1 Million.

“It is wise to consult with your estate planning attorney before making any kind of gift transfer” said Orange County Estate Planning Attorney Dwight E. Tompkins.

For additional information on the latest estate planning law contact Attorney Dwight E. Tompkins or visit www.Tompkins-law.com.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Federal Judge Rules that Escort, Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc. Infringe GPS Radar Detector Patent

On December 14, 2011, the Chief U.S. District Judge, District of Idaho, ruled that Escort, Inc. (www.escortradar.com) infringed U.S. Patent No. RE39,038. Specifically, the Court ruled that Escort’s Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s (www.beltronics.com) GX65 radar detectors, infringe claims 18, 45, 47, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,038 (“the ‘038 patent”). The Court also granted partial summary judgment of infringement with respect to each of those products regarding ‘038 patent claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and U.S. Patent No. RE40,653 (“the ‘653 patent”) claims 22 and 26. A redacted version of the Court’s 58 page order was unsealed earlier today. A copy of the 58 page order can be obtained at: https://www.yousendit.com/download/T2...

The ‘038 and the ‘653 patents are owned by Hoyt Fleming, an Idaho inventor of 36 U.S. patents. In early 2008, Escort declined to purchase the ‘038 patent. Approximately one year later, on March 10, 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a complaint (Case Number 1:09-cv-00105-BLW, United States District Court District of Idaho) alleging that Escort and Beltronics USA infringed the ‘038 and the ‘653 patents.

Escort alleged that certain claims of the patents were invalid because Steven Orr, working for Escort, invented the same device earlier in time than Fleming. However, on December 14, 2011, the Court denied Escort’s motion to invalidate claims of the Fleming patents based upon Steven Orr’s alleged work for Escort. The Court also denied Escort’s motions to strike Fleming’s expert reports and strike Fleming’s contention that Escort willfully infringes Fleming’s patents.

In contrast to denying Escort’s motions, the Court granted the overwhelming majority of Mr. Fleming’s motions for judgment on Escort’s defenses, including: (1) laches; (2) equitable estoppel; (3) prosecution history estoppel for certain claims; (4) ownership of Mr. Fleming’s patents; (5) inequitable conduct; (6) intervening rights on certain claims; and (7) anticipation of claim 1 in view of a Japanese patent.

In the order the Court stated that Escort’s interpretation of the Court’s rules was“absurd”, that Escort’s arguments were “in fact contrary to law”, and many of Escort’s expert “opinions are irrelevant”.

“I am very happy with the order. The Court ruled that Escort is infringing one of my patents. I am looking forward to a short trial in June so that I can prove that Escort’s infringement is willful and obtain an injunction to stop Escort’s infringement,” said Mr. Fleming.

Mr. Fleming is represented by Mr. Michael S. Dowler of Park, Vaughan, Fleming, and Dowler LLP in Houston, Texas. Escort and Beltronics USA are represented by Brett A. Schatz and Gregory F. Ahrens of Wood Herron & Evans in Cincinnati, OH. The Court has set trial for June 18, 2012 in Boise, ID.

Escort is a portfolio company of Falconhead Capital LLC (http://falconheadcapital.com), an investment firm in New York, New York. David Morros, the Founder and CEO of Falconhead, Zuher Ladak, a partner of Falconhead, and David Yarnell, an Operating Partner of Falconhead, sit on the board of Escort.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Anthony Citrolo Elected Executive Vice President & Director of The Long Island Chapter Of The Accountant/Attorney Networking Group Inc. (AANG)

It has been announced today that, Anthony Citrolo, CPA, CVA, CMAA, CBI has been elected as the 2012 Executive Vice President and Director of the Long Island Chapter of the Accountant/Attorneys Networking Group Inc. (AANG)

The Accountant/Attorney Networking Group is comprised solely of practicing accountants and practicing attorneys who service multiple clients. The purpose of the group is to facilitate networking between and among attorneys and accountants – two professions that have enormous synergy and potential for cross referrals. AANG offers 12 monthly networking breakfast meetings exclusively for accountants and attorneys. AANG also hosts two major networking cocktail receptions open to all professionals. The organizations’ web site is www.aangny.org

According to Mr. Citrolo a Managing Partner of M&A firm NYBB/Reliance Strategies, “the AANG creates a great platform for Accountants and Attorneys to meet and share information and ideas that can be used to bring cutting edge financial and legal solution to business owners or entrepreneurs engaged in a business sale or acquisition. Further Mr. Citrolo adds, “since Accountants and Attorneys are key players of the deal team that representbusiness buyers and sellers, the coordination of their efforts can result in lowering the fees incurred in the transaction and giving the deal the best chance of being consummated.”

About NYBB/Reliance

NYBB/Reliance Strategies is a full-service Merger & Acquisition firm in Melville, New York assisting companies with up to $50M in revenue to develop an exit strategy or make a targeted acquisition. In addition to M&A and consulting services, NYBB/Reliance offers valuation services in determining both Business and Transaction Values. Anthony can be reached at 631.390.9650 or anthony@nybbinc.com.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases