| Inventors > Response |
|
|
|
|
Invention Promoter's Name: Davison Design & Development, Inc. Complainant's Name: Jeremy Robertson Response: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Dear Sir or Madam: Davison Design & Development, Inc. (“Davison”) is in receipt of your complaint submission dated May 23, 2006. Davison is an industrial design firm that provides research, design and prototyping services. Naturally, Davison is a consumer orientated based company and we would expect a reasonable explanation of fact before considering Mr. Robertson’s submission. Davison was retained by Mr. Robertson to create a product design research portfolio that consisted of a product related data search, a research and design patent search and the submissions of Disclosure Documents to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The fee to produce such work was $685.00 US funds. As well, Mr. Robertson elected to enter into a no-fee Contingency Agreement. Therefore, Davison provided a written full-disclosure of each party’s responsibilities. The design research portfolio was completed and forwarded to him. The only complaint drawn from his submission is that he is requesting a refund for the product design research portfolio because Davison offered to perform additional services, which included a product sample and virtual reality image of his product’s concept for an additional fee, to which he declined. Davison offers prototyping, design and packaging services to clients who otherwise could not assemble a professional product sample. Mr. Robertson was free to decline our offer of services and seek prototyping elsewhere, or not at all. This aspect of his complaint simply is not a valid issue. Furthermore, Mr. Robertson agreed upon the terms and conditions within the Contingency Agreement, attached. This agreement clearly states, on page 4 of 8, section 4 – Ownership… “As such, Client is responsible for obtaining and paying for any and all protections available including but not limited to patents, trademarks and tradenames. Also, client is responsible for obtaining a virtual reality presentation and/or a prototype and any relevant information about the product if a manufacturer desires to review new products at Client’s sole expense. Client acknowledges that Davison has made him/her aware of such and that Davison can provide further development services, under a separate contract, to assist in obtaining or creating the material for the targeted corporation.” Therefore, Mr. Robertson was made aware of his responsibilities for producing certain new product development materials prior to entering into any agreement. In addition, section 4 within the Contingency Agreement states… “Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them at all.” Again, clearly informing him that he was not obligated to hire Davison for development services. He may elect to produce the needed materials himself and/or hire another design firm to create the necessary materials. To date, Davison has contractually built a design foundation for his project on which to base future product designs. We suggest that he request competitive prices from other product design firms and upon doing such, he will find our design research, product design, prototyping and final product sample presentation with packaging costs to be at a great discount. Mr. Robertson may discover such competitors at a Barnes & Nobles book store in their periodical section under the titles: Industrial Design (ID magazine) and Innovation magazine. Nowhere in his submission has he provided information concerning any type of misrepresentation on Davison’s part or identified any part of the various agreements that were breached. Davison has complied to all contractual arrangements and Mr. Robertson is in possession of the Pre-Inventegration report. Hence, Davison must deny his request because he has not provided a reasonable explanation of fact within his submission to justify such a refund. If there is a segment of the Pre-Inventegration report that he believes was not properly accomplished, Davison will revisit the report’s contents and make any necessary enhancements. We have tried to understand Mr. Robertson’s complaint and have examined our actions in fulfilling our contract with him. To our knowledge, we have violated no contractual provisions and have done nothing other than offer him high quality professional design and prototyping services at a very fair price, which he declined. We are sure that Mr. Robertson does not work for free, yet he expects Davison to do so. Our customer care program is a top priority for our clients and employees. Of course, Davison conducts its business affairs with standard precautionary procedures, record keeping, computer logs, written contracts, client questionnaires, complies to the state of Iowa’s mandatory written disclosure requirements and abides by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. If Mr. Robertson believes that there is some other aspect of his complaint that requires and additional response, we will be happy to hear from him. We wish Mr. Robertson the best of luck with the next stages of product development. If your office has any questions, please forward such in writing. Very truly yours,
|
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)