Invention Promoter's Name: Davison Design & Development, Inc.

Complainant's Name: Harold J. Hafer

Response:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Inventor's Assistance Program
P.O. Box 2327
Arlington, VA. 22202

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for forwarding Mr. Hafer’s complaint.  We received such on May 23, 2006.  As Mr. Hafer is aware, Davison is a consumer orientated based company that only offers its services on a complete disclosure and written contractual basis.  We would expect a reasonable explanation of facts from him before considering his request of a complete refund.

Mr. Hafer’s claim that Davison did not construct a prototype is false.  Mr. Hafer was provided an Executive Briefing, engineer schematics and photographs of his constructed prototype with full color packaging.  In order to ensure complete customer satisfaction our staff forwarded a questionnaire to Mr. Hafer that he completed and returned with positive remarks.  We even went as far to ask him if the Executive Briefing was beyond his expectations and he positively agreed that such had occurred.  In addition, Mr. Hafer instructed Davison to forward the prototype to the possible licensee; thus, clearly illustrating he was satisfied with the work.

Mr. Hafer also alleges we told him a company was very interested in his idea.  Our records indicate that Mr. Hafer was informed of a company that would consider reviewing his project for possible licensing.  Prior to informing him of the manufacturer’s name he was given very specific notices that we had not spoken to the manufacturer about his project and that we would not divulge the nature of his project until he had filed a US Provisional Patent Application.  Obviously, he filed his Provisional Patent Application after the development work and therefore understood that our staff was not discussing his project with any third party prior to such.  Therefore, his statement… “I was told that Davison had a company that was very interested in my invention…” simply does not coincide with our disclosure notices and contractual statements that clearly outline our procedures.

Furthermore, the time of Mr. Hafer’s statement about not being pleased with his prototype comes into question.  His complaint only occurred after the manufacturer would not consider licensing his invention.  Being reasonable, our staff listened to his input and reconstructed his prototype at no charge.  Obviously, we wish the manufacturer would have licensed Mr. Hafer’s invention; however, they chose not to and it was only after that occurred that he filed a complaint with your office. 

Davison conducts its business affairs with standard precautionary procedures, record keeping, computer logs, written contracts, client questionnaires, and abides by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999.  It is apparent that Davison has complied to all contractual arrangements.  Therefore, a factual compliant is needed in justifying his request for a refund.  We offer inventors the most economic inventing development program available.  Mr. Hafer fails to recognize is that he could have paid 5 to 10 times the amount he paid us for prototyping, engineering and packaging on the open market.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance please send your inquiry to our offices.

Very truly yours,

/s/George M. Davison    
President, Davison Design & Development, Inc.

KEY: =online business system =fees =forms=help =laws/regulations =definition (glossary)

The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website.