PTO.htm

<h1>Patent Ownership</h1>
Below are documents retrieved from the US Patent Office (PTO) by my lawyer Shawn Pearson. They are a matter of public record and can be obtained by anyone.

<p>The PTO maintains a searchable database of <a href="\\assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat">Patent Assignments</a>. <em>It indicates that I have just assigned my interest in the MMP patents to my Equinox Trust.</em> It also indicates that certain patents have been assigned by Charles H Moore to TPL (Technology Properties Limited). 
<p>This has created confusion as to the ownership of these patents. I never assigned any patents to TPL.

<p>I did assign 2 patents to iTv, a company for which I developed a microprocessor. They needed to own Intellectual Property in order to obtain financing.

<p>Dan Leckrone (TPL) negotiated my employment agreement which included the reversion of the patents to me in case the business failed. When it did, Leckrone obtained an assignment back to me in February 2002 from Joe Zott, VP of iTv. That document is included here. Leckrone did not then record this assignment with the PTO.

<p>In October 2003 Leckrone filed assignments of 4 patents with the PTO, without my knowledge or consent. These assignments were documented with excerpts from the Commercialization Agreement between TPL and me. I discovered this in July 2008.

<p>If you study the convoluted documents, what was assigned appears to be "rights and entitlements" devolving from the Agreement. That would be an exclusive license to, in turn, license and enforce the patents. Nowhere appear the magic words "entire right, title and interest in" that normally occur in patent assignments. And, in fact, occur in the assignment to me from iTv.

<p>TPL has claimed to own these patents in <a href="PressRelease.htm">press releases</a>. I contest this and expect to see ownership clarified in court.

<p>Here are the 2 assignments recorded by Leckrone:
<p><a href="assign1.htm">US 5,440,749 and US 5,530,890</a>
<p><a href="assign2.htm">US 5,440,749, US 5,784,584 and US 5,809,336</a>

<p>I recently learned of this court document: The <a href="stipulate.pdf">Stipulated Final Judgment</a> of Patriot's inventorship suit. Note the phrase "TPL is at least co-owner of the [patents]" in paragraph 5. Somehow that became an issue to be adjudged. Without my knowledge. It added the imprimatur of a judge's ruling to Leckrone's claim.

<p>The vagueness of the phrase has several interpretations:<ul>
<li>TPL is co-owner with me (presumably 45%/55%) of my 50%
<li>TPL is co-owner with Patriot - 50%/50%
<li>TPL has more than 45% share with me (the qualifier "at least")
<li>TPL has more than 50% share with Patriot</ul>

Questions abound:<ul>
<li>Why did Carl Johnson sign a document that clouds Patriot's title? <li>Why did my lawyer, F. Eric Saunders, not sign?
<li>Is the judgment valid without his signature?
<li>Who decided to conceal the document from me?</ul>
I'm told the time to appeal this verdict has long passed. Clearly I'm looking like a complete fool for trusting Leckrone, Cook and Saunders to look out for my interest. But I hadn't a clue that they weren't. How closely must you monitor and control your lawyer?