Response 2012 Grant
Invention Promoter’s Name: Davison
Complainant’s Name: Angelo Grant
Mail Stop 24
Commissioner for Patents
Inventors Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
RE: Reply to Complaint of Angelo Grant dated 06/22/2011
Dear Sir or Madam;
This letter is to address the complaints raised by Angelo Grant against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). We at Davison take pride in our work and endeavor to provide our clients with the highest level of service. As such, any concerns expressed by our clients are taken seriously and we will work to resolve any justifiable conflict. In his complaint, Mr. Grant makes numerous allegations which, as will be detailed below, are simply inaccurate. Further, Davison has endeavored to resolve any concerns Mr. Grant may have, however he has not responded to our proposed resolution of his concerns despite our repeated attempts to contact him. It is simply not possible for Davison to resolve a client’s concerns when the client does not maintain a line of communication.
Initially, in his compliant, Mr. Grant alleges that part of Davison’s services were to “get the patent” for his product idea. This is inaccurate. Davison in not a law firm and does not offer legal services. All contracts entered into with our clients explicitly state that securing any form of intellectual property protection is the sole responsibility of the client.
Second, Mr. Grant alleges in his complaint that Davison contracted to construct two separate product samples. This is inaccurate. The contract entered into by Mr. Grant and Davison was for the construction of a single product sample. When Mr. Grant contacted Davison with his new product idea, he did present two embodiments of the idea. In development discussions with Mr. Grant, it was noted that his product idea could be targeted to a residential, commercial or industrial market. The contract was for the design, development and construction of a single physical product sample and presentation materials.
During the process of developing his idea, Davison prepared a virtual rendering of his product sample. This virtual stage is necessary to ensure the developed design meets the client’s approval before the physical product sample is constructed. Based on the development discussions with Mr. Grant, the virtual rendering presented a single product directed to a single target market. When this virtual rendering was sent to Mr. Grant for his approval, he expressed his concerns over the design. Davison has attempted to resolve his concerns, and we continue to be willing to do so; however, Mr. Grant has not returned our numerous attempts to contact him.
As a final comment, it should be noted that when Mr. Grant first expressed his concerns to Davison, he threatened to file this compliant with the USPTO. Notably, when the complaint, filed by him with your office, was received by Davison, it was dated a full week before his letter of concern to Davison. Clearly, Mr. Grant has no aversion to presenting one course of action while at the same time pursing a contrary course of action.
/s/ Frank Vescio /s/ David M. DeMay
President Patent Counsel
Davison Design and Development, Inc. Davison Design and Development, Inc.