Invention Promoter's Name:
Mail Stop 24
Commissioner for Patents
Inventors Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Re: Reply to Complaint of Debra Grant dated 12/02/2014
Dear Sir or Madam;
This letter is to address the complaints raised by Debra Grant against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact, to the presentation of a client's product sample, we try to maintain an open channel of
Communication and secure our client's approval throughout the process. Regrettably, Ms. Grant’s complaint is filled with blatantly false, misleading and unsubstantiated statements. A review of her project file indicates that Ms. Grant was fully informed of all services and fees before she entered any contract. Further, she had sought independent legal counsel before entering any contract. Davison performed its pre-development research services, and Ms. Grant denied any further services. With the exception of a complaint to the Better Business Bureau, and this current complaint, Davison has had no contact with Ms. Grant since 01/02/2009.
Ms. Grant contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison's website. The System Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and
the person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 08/25/2008, Ms. Grant
acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read the two disclosure
statements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client makes any
payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that "It is Davison's normal practice
to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea." The disclosure then
provides a listing the various services and related fees.
Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, on 09/2412008, Ms. Grant entered into
an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data
related to her product idea. Davison completed the Pre-Development services and forwarded the
compiled research to Ms. Grant on or about 10/30/2008. The Pre-Development Agreement states
in relevant part (emphasis added); "Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,
packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to
a Licensee, at Client's sole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further
development services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or
creating the sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or
she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them at all."
Following the completion of the services under the Pre-Development Agreement, on
12/ 17/2008, Davison provided to Ms. Grant a proposed agreement for further development work.
This proposal is consistent with our disclosures and the terms of the Pre-Development
Agreement. Ms. Grant did not engage these additional services, which is her prerogative.
Further, it should be clarified that, as Ms. Grant has neither engaged Davison's services to create
the product sample and presentation material, nor has she provided these items on her own, there
has been no presentation of her product idea. The last direct contact with Ms. Grant was on
In her complaint, Ms. Grant claims she contracted to "develop my idea and product a
product sample and packaging". THIS IS FALSE. As stated above such a service was offered,
though Ms. Grant declined this service.
In her complaint Ms. Grant claims that Davison "got a utility patent for my idea and
received license agreements ... " THIS IS FALSE. She offers absolutely no support for this
allegation. While it is not possible to prove a negative, Davison has not pursued the development
of Ms. Grant's idea. Davison has abided by its obligation of confidentiality with regard to her
idea, as it adheres to this obligation for all of our clients. Davison is not aware, and simply can
not be aware, of every idea for a new product that any person, anywhere, may conceive. It is not
uncommon for multiple people to conceive of the same or similar products independently.
Because of this fact, Davison requires all of our clients to undergo the initial pre-development
research so that some level of knowledge may be secured as to what is in the prior art.
In her complaint Ms. Grant alleges the in response to her complaint to the Better Business
Bureau, Davison "never denied that they stole my idea". THIS IS FALSE. Davison's response
explicitly stated; "Davison has not licensed any idea that Ms. Grant disclosed to the company.
The company has kept all information from her in strict confidence. Thus, no royalties have been
generated and none can be provided to her." There cannot be a more unequivocal denial.
In summary, Ms. Grant was fully informed of all services and fees before she entered any
contract for services. Davison performed the services for which there was a contract. Ms. Grant
did not engage any product development services. Davison has not pursued her project. Her
complaint has no basis in fact.. .