No, I have no idea how anyone would contest a patent, don’t know much about them. Just common sense and what I google ;-).
You don’t but if you have interest as a holder of another patent or related material then that will (should) come up in the search done before application. That’s another thing that should be done by an experienced attorney (or an IP firm at least) and can take months to do thoroughly. If something somehow slips through and you notice it later then you go through USPTO and work it that way. Someone who has no real standing…not sure how that might (or not) work but that’s all through USPTO, not the courts.
Bottom line will probably end up being that defendant was in violation, and if (as it appears) they did so knowingly and continued to do so knowingly, then they’ll get the hammer as those in previous cases did. The law may not be right or may not seem right, but as long as it’s the law then you need to follow it and work other ways for change. Basically the way our whole civil society is set up and supposed to work. The bad thing here is that it’s one of those cases where punitive costs are exponential if it’s proven that the act(s) were willful. Ignoring a demand letter or worse…that’s enough to make you end up paying 3-5 times more than what you might have initially. Ultimate responsibility is to research first, adapt to issues that come up (such as being made aware of a law/restriction)…….etc. As a business owner, manufacturer, producer….you fail at those things and you end up paying dearly unless someone chooses to be extra kind to you.
I do hope that if there’s something of merit that the examiner’s opinion and award can be challenged later in USPTO. One of the things that makes this a little extra difficult is the type of science/physics involved. Mistakes or misunderstandings can be made by the office, by the applicants, and even in past awards/literature/data that may erroneously form a base. Even complex mechanisms or parts of larger mechanical works are much easier to address, and for the most part so are all of the electronics involved these days. I’ll have to go back and sift through his stuff again but I’ve been under the impression that his award was based on something other than the mechanics everyone is focused on.
It sure would be nice for the free and creative flashlight market to be that way again totally. Just one more example of some bad apple squelching people for its own benefit and not really contributing anything to the tree…pretty much the same exact thing as I’ve seen before elsewhere and I was a little sad when I first learned of it and started reading the backstory and then docs in his other suits. Sometimes these kinds of guys get too much of a sense of pride to do the right thing, even if they don’t deserve what they think they have.
It appears to me that “Wavelength-Transformation” is a patent-obscuration term for what everyone else calls “Fluorescence”, in which a photon is emitted after an excited electron drops back down to the ground state energy level.
The wavelength of the emitted photon is always longer than that of the photon which caused the excitation (energy is always lost in the round-trip process). So why make up new terms like WT…
see the fluorescence wiki here: Fluorescence - Wikipedia
Typically fluorescence produces visible colored light but in this case he claims to be able to operate within the UV bands to produce non-visible UV fluorescence from UVC to UVB or UVA.
How could anyone distinguish between an optical filter that simply blocks or transmits certain frequencies versus his WT material?
How would a person test or prove that WT is the mechanism that has actually occurred?
Donate it to the fundraiser instead!
+1, buying reddit gold is just throwing money down the drain.
I have unlimited reddit gold. Don’t ask me how 
Plus, it supports a company I like
The wavelength of the emitted photon is always longer than that of the photon which caused the excitation (energy is always lost in the round-trip process). So why make up new terms like WT…
Yep - stokes law. In this case he’s using the property to “transform” UVC to UVB/UVA via phosphors. It is simple fluorescence, but wave transformation sounds so much cooler to him.
He doesn’t distinguish between a bandpass optical filter and a WT filter. Says they are the same because a bandpass filter gets hot and emits IR. While true, so does an ordinary glass lens. So ALL flashlights are violating his patent according to his analysis. Silly……
Test? all kinds of tests can be selectively made to detect IR, none valid IMHO
That’s just blackbody radiation.
Update? I see that your MTD was granted w/o prejudice. Is he going to refile with a more proper petition/complaint? Seems like such a waste of time and money for both sides thus far…as law often goes.
He refiled the same day. His lawyers were ready so they obviously knew the lawsuit would be dismissed. This third lawsuit also has a good chance of being dismissed as all he did was flesh it out with more BS, kinda like we did in high school to make our term papers the proper length (at least I did…). The defendants haven’t been served yet for the new lawsuit.
Updates are given on the funding page: https://gogetfunding.com/uvunited/
If this helps anything, the filter getting hot is not fluorescing, fluorescence has emission peaks defined by the molecular properties, IR being emitted is just blackbody radiation that is not the result of fluorescence but merely atoms/ molecules vibrating and its spectrum will be way broader, defined only by the (filter’s) temperature, not its material properties.
That said, maybe that’s why they call it wavelength transformation and not fluorescence.
Screw the patent system, it’s broken, toss it. Open source everything and compete in actual improvements to products and concepts. Today’s patents just seek to create stagnant monopolies and hinder progress.
This is why there is so much progress in consumer goods in China. Very few companies rely on patents and there is a very open source collaborative spirit in the electronics markets in places like Shenzhen. Of course, there is a patent system but small companies will rarely try to game the system in this way. They compete by coming first to market with innovative goods. Outside of China, people are missing out on high quality consumer products that they aren’t even aware of.
Large firms in the United States can still navigate the patent system effectively, but as it stands, the U.S. patent system stifles innovation at the small and medium firm level. I’ll give an example. A very broad CPU liquid design patent is owned by Asetek and so there is no way to bring a cooler to market without licensing the Asetek patent. However, the technology is well over a decade old and there is no good way to make a liquid cooler without this rather “common sense” design.
The world needs to come together eventually. So far it looks it might come later rather than sooner. But we’ll see.
Indeed. The west governments think that trying to force their patents on others is good for them….and considering that they have far more patents than the east, this is actually likely a winning short term strategy, even though others reasonably drag their feet when it comes to enforcement.
But long term it’s a disaster.
Doesn’t his patent troll only have 5 years left on it? I want to see him defeated in court but frankly… its not a profitable venture for anyone except the frivolous troll Bill Gardner
Really feel sorry for the people paying $40-60 too much for his UV convoys 
Speaking of stagnation, the graphene battery patents that Samsung holds are going to hurt us something awful for 20 years.
Patents on advanced electrochemistry are a lot more likely to be legitimate non-obvious inventions than patents on putting colored glass over a light source. Samsung is likely to license its battery technology.
I don’t think anyone would dispute THAT, but it also can’t be disputed it prevents humanity from making space-age advancements in a time where resources is dwindling and overpopulation is raging… for a whopping 20 years.
So, let’s look at some objective and provable facts folks, and we won’t insult your intelligence with infantile cartoons nor bare allegations without any proof. (You can follow the links to official sites.)
1998 - Way Too Cool started in business - 26 years ago. And looking at Buzzfile, (a commercial business information site) it shows that Way Too Cool was involved in making lamps and mining.
https://www.buzzfile.com/business/Way-Too-Cool-602-547-2234
1999 - The Domain for Way Too Cool (WWW.Flourescents.com) was registered.
https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/fluorescents.com?hl=en&searchTerm=fluorescents.com&\_ga=2.229042014.398001632.1655669150-1917493014.1655669150
This was back in the day when fluorescent lights were the main light to cause minerals to fluoresce.
2003 - Bill Gardner files his first US Patent Application that would lead to a family of patents concerning ultraviolet lights.
2006 – Bill Gardner filed the first UV LED Flashlight patent application that became the Patent in this patent infringement case.
2007 – Way Too Cool was formally incorporated.
https://ecorp.azcc.gov/PublicBusinessSearch/PublicBusinessInfo?entityNumber=L13554424
2010 – The USPTO granted the US Patent covering the LED flashlights designed to cause minerals to fluoresce.
2013 – The Way Too Cool Tradename was registered in Arizona stating the first use was in 1998
This can be looked at here by searching the name Way Too Cool
https://apps.azsos.gov/apps/tntp/se.html
So, Way Too Cool is in business, they have patents, they have a Tradename, and an LLC company, and they have been developing and selling products since 1998. Now a short lesson in US Patents. A US Patent is actually very unique. Patents are explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution:
Put simply, a US Patent protects the broadest possible expression of the inventor’s idea. As an example, let’s use the invention of a car. Likely the patent application would have involved an engine, 3 or more wheels, and some way to hold people. The application would not have specifically said how big the whole thing would be, whether it would be metal or wood, or plastic. Consider that back then plastics weren’t available. So, the manufacturer makes cars with 3 wheels an engine and the body is made of wood. Then 10 years later, plastics become available and cheap. At this point a competitor makes and tries to market a car with 4 wheels and a plastic body. This car is infringing the original patent because it has at least 3 wheels (four includes 3) and the body of the car was never specified as what material could be used. The type of material wasn’t important to the invention. These ideas are why patents are so difficult to read and understand. US Patent Law is one of the very few areas that an expert witness can actually testify and advise the judge as to what the applicable law actually is. Patents are extremely difficult and expensive to earn. In the last 10 years, over a half million applications are filed every year in the US, but only about half of these result in a granted US Patent. Now, back to the car. Over time the inventor can change out the type of engine, add wheels, make the body out of any material they choose, etc. and the granted patent still covers the invention. This example is important because this is exactly what is happening here with Way Too Cool’s Patent.
Way Too Cool was granted a US Patent in 2010, and is free to change out the lights, the body material etc. and product is still covered and protected by the patent details from the granted 2010 patent. The products that Way Too Cool has designed and built in the years since then, such as the Convoy C8+ are covered and protected by Way Too Cool’s LED Flashlight Patent. And just because Engenious Designs has ordered a flashlight body with LEDs in it from China, doesn’t mean their product is legal or that they actually designed it. The design of the items is covered by Way Too Cool’s 2010 LED Flashlight Patent.
2016
So now, moving forward to 2016, Engenious Designs was started up as a design services company, not as a manufacturer or supplier of UV lights
https://www.buzzfile.com/business/Engenious-Designs-LLC-417-209-2809
You can also look up their Kansas LLC registration here:
https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e3s2
As you can see, Engenious Designs wasn’t even in business till 18 years after Way Too Cool started up, and 6 years after the patent was issued.
Looking at the documents from official sites, an objective smart person can see that some things aren’t as presented by Mark, Rhett and company.
Let’s look at a few assertions by Engenious Designs, Mark Cole and Company:
“We are being sued” “We”?? The lawsuit is against Engenious Designs (Rhett Petterson is an owner). Engenious is selling infringing products after turning down invitations to obtain a license. And, have you noticed they are actively encouraging folks to boycott dealers of Way Too Cool products? If Way Too Cool doesn’t manufacture products, how do they have dealers?? Way Too Cool and the dealers are ordinary folk just trying to make an honest living. Bill Gardner and many of his dealers work regular jobs and run their UV business’s from home.
“Let’s keep our hobby free” Engenious is out to make money, otherwise they would be giving away their lights for free. Have you looked at the prices on the lights they manufacture?
The lights on the Engenious Designs sell for prices up to $1,300.00 dollars.
And, the excuse about why the lawsuit is still going on, called “legal gobblygook” by Mark. The below link goes to the US Kansas District Court’s last ruling where Way Too Cool applied to amend their complaint. This is actually not a hard read. The case is discussed in general and Way Too Cool’s complaints are judged plausible enough for the amendments to be approved and the lawsuit to continue. In their conclusion, the Kansas court stated “Leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, and Engenious has not shown that the proposed amendment is futile. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion to amend.”
It is important to note that the court approved without exception 100% of the requested amendments to Way Too Cool’s lawsuit, including defamation of character.
If you really want to read all the complex details (it’s long) from the beginning you can go to:
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csologin/login.jsf
You will have to set up an account, but here you can read all the documentation from both parties.
Now, the ending to this post is how sad this affair is. Way Too Cool, and their distributors are trying to make an honest living. The Patent issued in 2010, and all that is being asked is a license of about 6 cents on the dollar. Less than sales tax. Engenious and others would rather ruin honest businesses owned by your neighbors, your friends, even your relatives, than pay that royalty. Patents and product development cost many 10’s of thousands of dollars. 6% until the patent expires is not unreasonable and is quite common as license fees go.
It is also sad how many folk have been conned in this affair into giving money based on untruths and, emotional spin. Do your own research and you will be surprised at the truth.
Folks, at the end of the day, the US Federal Court will rule one way or the other on this. And if this was your issue, your car accident, your assault and battery claim, you would want your day in court. This issue deserves its day in court.
Lastly, it’s sad and shameful that the leaders and membership of the mineral groups across the country are staying silent and letting a few like Mark and Rhett hijack the social media sites, the club sites and newsletters, and control the conversation to the exclusion of any objective or rational input. If you have been paying attention, you will have seen that on places like the FMS FB website, that any comments against Engenious or in support of Way Too Cool get attacked and censored.
The silent majority of members and leaders should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing your hobby to become hijacked. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to remain silent. I don’t believe that this silent majority gets up in the morning, sits down for breakfast with their children and partner and tells them “well, today, I’m going to ignore the law on patents, I’m going to badmouth and spread lies about the manufacturer and his sellers, I’m going to do my best to boycott them and put them out of business, and I’m going to be encourage everyone else to do the same. And kids, be good in school, follow the rules, be respectful to your teachers……” This may not be the conversation with your partner and children. But, your silence and inaction speak volumes in the world of your hobby. You should do the right thing.
I did my research, found the patent absurd, donated to the fundraiser, and shared this here. The patent should never have been granted and should be invalidated. To be issued a patent, an invention should be useful, novel, and inventive/creative.
- Putting a visible light filter over a UV source is definitely useful.
- It isn’t novel. Wood’s glass was invented over a century before this patent was filed. Putting anything that transmits UV and reflects or absorbs other wavelengths in front of any light source is fundamentally the same idea, and that’s what US7781751B2 describes. Changing the light source to a UV LED and the power source to a battery is irrelevant.
- Finally, it isn’t inventive. Given that UV LEDs and Wood’s glass already existed, anyone who has seen any kind of filter used on any kind of light would think to put the Wood’s glass over the UV LED if there was too much visible light.
I see US7781751B2 as pure rent-seeking: attempting to extract money from people who are doing useful things without actually contributing anything of value.
It’s one thing to patent something unique you actually did R&D for, but that’s not the case here.
And in any case, patents stifle the speed of innovation.
rent-seeking is parasitism