Complaint: July 2012 Bodmer & Harris



Name of the Invention Promotion Company: Absolutely New Inc

Invention Promoter's Address: 650 Townsend St. suite #475, San Francisco, CA 94103

Complainant's Name: Sean Bodmer & Brock Harris -HB Media LLC

Complainant's Address: 102 Surry Trail Peachtree City GA 30269

Customer's Name: HB Media LLC


Name of mass media invention promoter advertised in: USPTO #7,792,859-tiltled-media/data card

Invention promotion service offered to be performed: Identify angel investment and to market support & development.

Explanation of complaint between customer and invention promoter: In early 2008 I was solicited via the US mail by the company Absolutely new Inc. We received several letters from them promoting their invention marketing services. In February of 2008 we decided to contact them and learn more about their services. My first contact was with XXX. After long conversations and many questions I decided to hire their company to market our patent pending system. XXX sent me the contract via email on February 20th. He sent me a second contract on February 10th due to a mistake he said he had made in the first agreement. We faxed him the signature page on March 20th with my signature. On March 20th we mailed a check for the fee of $10,000.00. During this process, we were presented with two copies of the signature page to sign. XXX and XXX signed on behalf of the company and I was given one of the copies for my records. Several days later I received a hard copy of the marketing agreement via U.S. mail.

During the execution of the marketing services I began having issues with Absolutely News's performance. I decided to look at the hard copy I had been mailed to see if they were honoring the agreement as written. It was at this time that I discovered a paragraph had been added to the last page of the agreement that was not in the two contracts that had been previously emailed to me. I did some research on the internet and discovered that the information that had been added was a disclosure required by Cal.Bus. & Prof. code section 22379& 22381 as well as federal statute 35 U.S.C. section 297 of the American Invention Protection Act of 1999. This disclosure had information that was in direct contrast to the representations made by XXX to me prior to agreeing to hire his company. We attempted to work with Absolutely New to resolve these issues with the company for over two months, and in the process have discovered more misrepresentations & breaches of the contract. After several suspicious discussions where Absolutely New mentioned big names of the customers they were speaking with they never once showed up any valid proof or evidence these discussions were ongoing and that they were moving forward. When I requested in writing the details of her marketing efforts, which per the contract was supposed to be provided to me within 7 days of the postmark on the letter, the company failed to do so. The company in March 2011 stated they had finally got hold of Sony with high interest after we told them we no longer desired their services as over a 3 year period none of the contract deliverables were completed on time, at all, or as per the quality stated in the contract. They told us they owned part (20%) of our patent since we paid them $10,000.00 without delivering any actual or legitimate leads. After our protest that they were rescinding our contract and sending me a full refund which never came. This was the last I have heard from them, as they have ignored our emails ever since.

Additionally I have discovered that this company has been operating their business under a suspended status with the CA. Secretary of State since May 2, 2011. I have filed a complaint with the Das office of San Francisco and they are opening an investigation. I have all original documents and emails to prove my claims. This is a bad company and I am sure we are not their only victim as we have discussed this with other individuals who have had the same "snatch & disappear" act by the Absolutely New team. Through the course of their efforts they stated if we went with another group to try and find funding they would come after us legally although they never once presented us with any legitimate work or having met any contractual obligations.

Signed: /s/Sean Bodmer Date: February 28, 2012

XXX - indicate names that have been redacted by the USPTO