Response 2012 Wtorkiewicz
Invention Promoter’s Name: Davison
Complainant’s Name: Valentine Wtorkiewicz
Mail Stop 24
Commissioner for Patents
Inventors Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Re: Reply to Complaint of Valentine Wtorkiewicz dated January 05, 2012
Dear Sir or Madam;
This letter is to address the complaints raised by Valentine Wtorkiewicz against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). We understand that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. In truth, customers are not always right and companies are not always right. In his complaint, Mr. Wtorkiewicz makes numerous allegations which, as will be detailed below, are simply inaccurate.
Initially, in his complaint, Mr. Wtorkiewicz alleges that he has paid “over” $6,000.00 to design a small box.” This is inaccurate. In truth, he has paid a total less than $6,000.00 for a variety of services which went beyond the mere “design of a small box”. The first contract for services was entered on April 21, 2010 and was for the compilation of research relevant to his submitted idea at a fee of $695.00. Davison completed this service and the research data was provided to Mr. Wtorkiewicz. Following the completion of this initial service, he entered into a second contract for the design and construction of a packaging solution and presentation materials. This second service was offered at a fee less than $5000.00. Davison completed this service and secured Mr. Wtorkiewicz’s written approval of the design and presentation materials on or about November 2, 2010. A third contract covers the services of presenting his product idea to corporations for possible licensing. This contract has a contingent fee, with no upfront monies due from Mr. Wtorkiewicz. Per his statement, Davison had agreed to present his product idea to three corporations. The first presentation was made on January 31, 2011. While we were waiting for a decision from the corporation, Mr. Wtorkiewicz terminated his contract.
Second, Mr. Wtorkiewicz alleges he hired Davison to “market my call system”. This is inaccurate on two fronts. As detailed above, the services for which he paid a fee were not associated with the presentation of his product idea, but for the initial research and the subsequent design and construction of the packaging solution and presentation materials. Also, it is misleading to state that Davison made an attempt to “market” his idea. Davison does not manufacture and market finished products. In Mr. Wtorkiewicz’s case, we designed and constructed a packaging solution and presentation materials in connection with an attempt to locate a corporation willing to license his product idea. This subsequent corporation would be the entity to manufacture and market the product.
Finally, Mr. Wtorkiewicz alleges the Davison “couldn’t even get my call into one company let alone three”. This is inaccurate. As detailed above, a presentation was in fact made to one corporation, and Mr. Wtorkiewicz terminated his contract before the additional presentations could be made. To the extent his statement implies a guarantee that a corporation would license his product idea, his is again mistaken. Product development is a high risk venture. Prior to entering into any contract, Mr. Wtorkiewcz was provided with and acknowledged, numerous disclosures that detail the success rates of securing a license.
In short, Davison has complied fully with it contractual obligations. We remain willing to complete the additional two presentations should Mr. Wtorkiewicz decide to proceed. Davison’s conduct was at all times, prompt, thorough and professional.
Records documenting the details referenced in this response are available.
/s/ Frank Vescio /s/ David M. DeMay
President Patent Counsel
Davison Design and Development, Inc. Davison Design and Development, Inc.