Response 2013 Tipton
Invention Promoter’s Name: Davison
Complainant’s Name: Laura Tipton
Mail Stop 24
Commissioner for Patents
Inventors Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Re: Reply to Complaint of Laura Tipton dated 01/05/2013
Dear Sir or Madam;
This letter is to address the complaints raised by Laura Tipton against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). Ms. Tipton’s complaint is filled with blatantly false and misleading statements. Following receipt of the complaint, Davison contacted Ms. Tipton who acknowledged each point set out below. Despite agreeing that Davison had performed all of its services with her approval and authorization, she has refused to withdraw her complaint. Such an unfounded, baseless position bears heavily on her credibility.
1. Ms. Tipton alleges she did not receive all the services outlined in the contract, particularly Production Quotes. This is misleading; the contract lists all services that may be relevant to a project, not all listed services are in fact relevant. For example, the contract states that a Circuit Design will be provided when applicable. Many projects, like Ms. Tipton’s, are not electronic in nature and there is no need for a Circuit Design. As for Production Quotes, the contract explicitly states these will be provided “if requested by the [licensing] corporation.” Her project was not licensed and thus Production Quotes were never requested by a corporation.
2. Ms. Tipton alleges Davison improperly sought additional fees contrary to the contract terms. This is false. The contact language quoted by Ms. Tipton is misleading an incomplete. The full term states’ “The Client shall not be responsible for any additional expenses to Davison within the scope and terms of the Agreement, with the possible exception being additional services to refurbish or repackage the sample, for which Davison currently charges $385.00”. Further, the $125 filing fee for a Provisional Application for Patent is the fee charged at the time by the USPTO, it is not a fee to Davison. Also, the fee for producing a commercial of her product idea was an additional service beyond the scope of the contract to which she entered.
3. Ms. Tipton alleges she did not receive her product sample. This is false. The physical product sample was sent to the on 10/17/2012, receipt of which she acknowledge on 10/26/2012.
Davison is committed to providing its services pursuant the contracts entered, and is willing to address any good faith complaints. However, a client, who acknowledges that all services have been performed yet files a complaint filled with inaccurate and misleading statements, is not being in good faith. Her complaint sets forth no basis to warrant a refund.
/s/ Frank Vescio /s/ David M. DeMay
President Patent Counsel
Davison Design and Development, Inc. Davison Design and Development, Inc.