| Inventors > Response |
|
|
|
|
Invention Promoter's Name: Invention Technologies Incorporated Complainant's Name: La Tretha E. Stroughter & Jerome W. Smith Response: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Dear Sir or Madam: This letter serves to respond directly to a recent complaint filed with your office by our former client, La Tretha E. Stroughter & Jerome W. Smith. To say that this complaint is woefully inaccurate would be to greatly understate matters. It is important to understand that Invent-Tech has worked diligently to address the irrational, rambling and often outright bizarre communications Ms. Stroughter has sent to us, most with a decidedly paranoid tone. Her complaint that we have not responded to her complaints is wholly untrue, as our Inventor Relations Team has carefully followed up with them directly in response to their letters. She has, in this complaint, only scratched the surface of the preposterous conspiracies and plots that she clearly believes that Invent-Tech is engaged in, including the organized suppression of information for the furtherance of a syndicated invention theft ring involving all invention companies who are presently making millions of dollars from their concepts unfairly. Before we address her stated concerns individually, we must address her statements with regard to the predictability of our responses to her claims. Simply put, the predictability of our response is directly proportional to the predictability of the same list of bogus, baseless claims made about our company time and again. Invent-Tech is deeply committed to our clients’ satisfaction and finds the recommended course of action, so often propagated on the Internet, to “file a complaint first, ask questions later”, to be reprehensible. Please be advised that Ms. Stroughter and Mr. Smith’s recollection of our contracts is completely incorrect. They first contracted with Invent-Tech on September 19, 2003 to prepare an Invention Research Portfolio (IRP) about their TNT Data Master & Beyond concept for $845. Satisfied with their IRP, on November 24, 2003 they then executed a two-year Advanced Development Agreement for further assistance at a total cost of $8,450, initially only paying us $2,000 to begin the work. On November 26, 2003 they were sent their Inventor’s Companion Handbook. On December 17, 2003 their Disclosure Document was filed with the USPTO. On January 21, 2004 they were sent their Press Release (approved January 28, 2004). On January 20, 2004 they were sent their Digital Rendition (approved January 30, 2004). On February 2, 2004 their Invention Website & Hosting went live and they were notified. Clearly satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the work they received, accepted, approved and made use of, they then paid their remaining balance due in February of 2004; $4,260 on February 17, 2004 and $2,190 on February 18, 2004. Subsequently, their Interactive Virtual Reality Presentation CDROM was completed and sent to them on May 26, 2004 and their New Product Video was sent on June 1, 2004. Additionally, they have received, on an ongoing and steady basis since execution, prepared Media Packs and Manufacturer Introduction Packages which were forwarded to them to mail so that they know precisely when and to whom their information has been sent. Also, a variety of information about the TNT Data Master & Beyond has been readily available in our Invention Data Vault at all of the trade sow events Invent-Tech has attended since execution (approximately 8-10 per year). Ms. Stroughter’s claim that we did “nothing…but lie to them” is utterly ridiculous. Invent-Tech has delivered all of the services set forth in our ADA in a prompt, professional manner and they have accepted and made use of them all. To now demand a refund based on such baseless and outrageous allegations as she makes below is disingenuous at best. Ms. Stroughter’s version of events and attempts to cast herself in the role of victim is irrefutably disproved by the documentary facts as provided herein. Attached, please find copies of all of the documentation and contracts signed and executed by Ms. Stroughter and Mr. Smith. In the interest of brevity, we will not respond below to every error of fact or misgiving stated by Ms. Stroughter. Instead, we will address the most egregious and objectionable below. In her complaint, Ms. Stroughter states “We were encouraged…to get in our payment of $8450.00 in March of 2004 and he called several times, because per his words, ‘There is an interested company ready to make a deal with us in the next two months’”. First, their payment record, as we’ve accurately stated above, clearly shows that Ms. Stroughter’s version of events is inconsistent with the facts. Additionally, we categorically deny that any such promise was ever made to them. In fact, they have acknowledged in writing that no such promises were made by initialing and signing their Advanced Development Authorization Form (attached), which states: “Did your New Project Director, or anyone else, make any guarantees of financial gain to you?” and “Did your New Project Director, or anyone else, make any promises or representations to you that are not contained in our Advanced Development Agreement?”. Please note, Ms. Stroughter and Mr. Smith initialed “No” to both questions and signed the document acknowledging their agreement with and total understanding of the statements. Such a fabrication as hers does make the story juicier in the telling, though. In her complaint, Ms. Stroughter states that Invent-Tech told her not to patent her invention, which is untrue. Our staff has only related to them that seeking patent protection was not necessary within the scope of our agreement together and that patent related costs would be our contractual obligation if and when a licensing agreement were secured. Invent-Tech cannot and does not offer patent related advice. Ironically, she acknowledges her understanding that Invent-Tech offers no such advice then goes on to complain that we did not advise her about patent related matters with respect to a provisional patent! Her stated claim that Invent-Tech was trying to “get her to lose her rights” and that we’ve “set them up” purposely to fail is absurd, outrageous and serves only to further her odd conspiracy theories of surreptitious activities being responsible for lack of licensing success for their invention. Ms. Stroughter also complained that we provided her with a final Manufacturer Introduction Package, couching it as a “slap in the face”, as opposed to the reality of it representing merely the fulfillment of a previously scheduled and remaining service due to her. While we are sorry to know that their families are experiencing loss and hardship due to disaster and illness, her suggestion that we have used that to or advantage unfairly is unforgivably offensive. Ms. Stroughter has, perhaps, one of the most devious imaginations we have encountered. To recap, Invent-Tech wholly rejects this complaint as frivolous and has provided the substantiating documentation that irrefutably proves Ms. Stroughter’s complaint is completely without merit. Invent-Tech has never made any of the promises she alleges, nor is Invent-Tech involved in any “code of silence” or any other plot to improperly profit from their intellectual property. We have lived up to the letter of our agreements and provided many good and valuable services to Ms. Stroughter and Mr. Smith. Consequently, and in light of the seriousness and untruthfulness of their allegations, we see no reason to offer any type of refund and instead elect to strictly enforce the terms of our binding contract. Invent-Tech is very proud of our many years of service to many thousands of satisfied inventors from across the country. We thank you for the opportunity to respond to such baseless and meritless complaints as this, as they often go unchallenged elsewhere. Very truly yours, |
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. |
|
|
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)