Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Inventor Robert Randall Kelly

P.O. Box 678 Merlin, Oregon 97532

Phone: 805 340 8302

RRKelly@gmail.com

 

This document is available in e-form by return email.

This document is available on cd rom by mail. The many links work in the e-copies.

This document is available in paper by mail.

This html version posted at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6420.html

You can click through the html version to the pdf version at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6420.pdf

You can click through the html version to download the WordPerfect version at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6420.wpd

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court for Oregon

Medford Division

310 West Sixth Street, Room201, Medford OR 97501

Clerk: 541-776-3926

http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/

 

Robert Randall Kelly,

 

Plaintiff

v

 

Joseph Wortsmith dba Laser Tools Company,

Laser Tools Company, Inc. a/k/a LTCI

Robert Sean Kelly,

Patrick R. Kelly,

Estate of Robert Royce Kelly,

Ryobi Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation a/k/a RTI,

Ryobi America Corporation,

One World Technologies, Inc.

Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. a/k/a TTI,

Attorney Robert Bugos,

Attorney Brandenberg,

Jeff Dils,

and unnamed defendants,

                                                   Defendants


Case Number: CV 05- ____________

Document #6420 Version 0.73

COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement, RICO, and common fraud.

JURY DEMANDED

Complaint for Money Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Infringement for conversion, fraud, common counts, embezzlement, identify theft, conspiracy, and infringement on my patent #5,862,727.

 

Complaint for Money Damages for false marking.

Demand for an accounting.

Petition for imposition of constructive trust.

 

 

List of Exhibits.

Proposed Orders.

 

 


Contents of this complaint:

 

Jurisdiction

 

Venue

 

Plain Statement of Facts pursuant to Rule 8:

 

Brief List of the main players

 

Description of My Patent

 

The gist of this case

Re: Sears. They are not a defendant. They are nonetheless part of the story.

Ryobi. See further below for their causes of action

Cause of Action against Ryobi: Interference in potential advantage. I could have sold to Sears.

Robert Sean Kelly and his brother Patrick Kelly. See further below for their causes of action

The attempt to create plausible deniability for the lawyers who drew up the various documents instrumental to the fraudulent assignment

Techtronic Industries - parent of Ryobi

One World Technologies - Ryobi affiliate: fraud on me and the patent office

 

Complaint

History of my patent pertinent to all causes of action

The video that I made and Joe Wortsmith misappropriated to perpetrate his poseur scheme

Joe Wortsmith and LTCI

The head start by Sears ruined my chance to license Skil/ Bosch.

Discussion with Sears led me to Ryobi - who had rejected my offer 6 years earlier

The fraud and deception of Ryobi: Telling me that they weren’t interested and then conspiring to defraud me; false marking; conspiring with Wortsmith and the poseur; defrauding the patent office with a bogus fraudulent design patent on the same day.

Ryobi having paid the poseur in May 2001 was now caught red-handed.

Flashback. What Wortsmith did after rejecting my invention in 1995. He built a copy of my Laser Arbor using my patent disclosure that I sent them in 1995. He was selling my invention at trade shows and that is how Ryobi found them,

In 7 years Wortsmith never contacted me - and has not contacted me to this day. Instead Wortsmith misappropriated my patent and tried to see it as his own using the vehicle of the poseur who was either an accomplice or duped.

Robert Sean Kelly - the poseur/ accomplice.

1st cause of Action: Infringement by Ryobi

Unfair Competition defined by Section 337 of Tariff act of 1930

 

Therefore Ryobi had designed and manufactured the infringing devices before they even bought the patent from the poseurs on May 12, 2001. In retrospect Ryobi reneged on the 3% deal of exhibit 8. They proposed a different “royalty” and defrauded the poseurs with the papers depicted in Exhibit 9. This is part of a pattern that constitutes RICO.

Proof of Scienter

Cause of action: Patent Infringement

Induced and contributory patent infringement

False Marking

 

RICO and common fraud.

 

Prayer

 

Jury Demand

 

Appendix #1: Supplemental List of Parties who were players not amounting to defendants.

 

List of statutes cited in this complaint:

 


 

Jurisdiction

1.         This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1338 which reads in pertinent part:

Section 1338. Patents . . . and unfair competition: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents . . . .. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent . . . cases. (b) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the . . . patent . . . or trademark laws.

2.         This court has pendant jurisdiction in other claims.

Venue

3.         Venue is proper here in Medford, Oregon, pursuant to 28 USC 1391. 28 USC 1391 in pertinent part reads as follows:

28 USC 1391. Venue generally (a) [Irrelevant: Pertains to diversity only.] (b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. (c) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts. (d) An alien may be sued in any district. (e)(Irrelevant: Defendant officer of U.S.) (f) (Irrelevant: Action against foreign state.)

4.         Venue is proper in Medford, Oregon, under 28 USC 1391 because it is. . .” (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that identity theft, fraud, and embezzlement happened in this judicial district.

5.         Venue is proper here under 28 USC 1(b) which reads in pertinent part as follows:

Section 1400. Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs 1 . . .(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business

6.         Some of the actions of the defendant happened in Grant’s Pass, Oregon, which is located within the geographical boundaries of this Medford division of this court.      

Notice of Upcoming Motions

7.         We will be asking for bifurcation on the issue of the first manufacturing run of Ryobi.

8.         We will seek a court order demanding immediate payment of $810,000 by Ryobi as compensation for infringement of the first 135,000 units.

9.         These 135,000 units have already been sold.

10.       In the interim I have sold Laser Arbors in this quantity for $2 each.

11.       Triple damages for 135,000 units at $2 each = $810,000.

12.       Ryobi practiced unfair business practices by refusing to license my invention.

13.       They would only buy the entire patent thus depriving me of my rightful monopoly.

14.       They had already sold infringing devices when I discovered the infringement.

15.       Had they done the right thing upon discovery of Wortsmith’s fraud we would not be in court.

16.       We will seek an Order to Show Cause why Ryobi should be ordered to immediately disgorge itself of the $270,000 rightful license fee built into their price to Sears for the first 135,000 units - reserving the issue of triple damages for later.

17.                                        Plain Statement of Facts pursuant to Rule 8:

Plaintiff/ Inventor Robert Randall Kelly

18.       I, Robert Randall Kelly am the Robert R. Kelly who invented and owns patent #5,862,727.

19.       I own one other patent.

20.       I have received two other patents for a total of 4, to wit:

21.       I received a 3rd patent which I assigned to my then-employer.

22.       I received a 4th patent as a team of 4 inventors.

23.       In this case Defendant Robert Sean Kelly accepted money from Ryobi under false pretenses.

24.       I am not related to Robert Sean Kelly.

25.       I had never heard of Robert Sean Kelly until I began investigating this case of patent infringement.

26.       Robert Sean Kelly fraudulently posed as the son of an inventor.

27.       Robert Sean Kelly’s deceased father is Robert Royce Kelly.

Brief List of the main players

28.       I am Robert Randall Kelly. I am the plaintiff and inventor. I was born in 1951.

29.       Robert Royce Kelly was born in 1923. He died in 2000. His 2 sons are the poseurs. His death certificate is Exhibit 5. His will of December 1998 is Exhibit 6. He mentions no patent in his will. This should have been a tip off to the lawyers from Ryobi.

30.       Robert Sean Kelly is one of the 2 poseurs. He is the son of the late Robert Royce Kelly. He accepted money from Joe Wortsmith in exchange for a patent that he never owned. He wrote the Affidavit depicted in Exhibit 4.

31.       Patrick R. Kelly is the other poseur. He is the son of the late Robert Royce Kelly.

32.       Patrick John Kelly is one of the attorneys in this case. He did the probate work.

33.       Joe Wortsmith is the main villain. He found the late Robert Royce Kelly but was careful to avoid actually talking to him while he was still alive. Joe Wortsmith bought the patent from the poseurs and then sold it to Ryobi for $1 million. On information and belief we state that he kept the money.

34.       Attorney Bugos is employed by Defendant Ryobi. Bugos directed Attorney Brandenberg in Michigan and Attorney Lindi in Grants Pass to assist him in defrauding me.

35.       Jef Dils is the executive at Ryobi. He perpetrated this fraud and fails to do the right thing.

Description of My Patent

36.       My patent is shown in Exhibit #3.

37.       My patent can be seen online at the U.S. Patent Office http://www.uspto.gov/ at this following page:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5862727.WKU.&OS=PN/5862727&RS=PN/5862727

38.       One the face of this patent is clear proof that Robert Royce Kelly was not the inventor; my lawyers have their names on the patent, i.e. Attorney William S. Lovell and Attorney Eric Karich are named on the patent.

39.       Lovell and Karich are easily reachable from the information on the patent.

40.       The clear proof that the poseur was not the son of the inventor is on the face of the patent, to wit: my address: 747 Bridge Street, Grants Pass, Oregon 97526.

41.       More clear proof is in the video which I sent to defendant Wortsmith with an invitation to become a licensee of my patent.

42.       This video shows a house and yard that is not the house and yard of the deceased dad of the poseur brothers.

43.       This video is at this link __ on the cd that contains the e-version of this complaint.

44.       The poseur’s Dad never lived at that address on the patent.

45.       Wortsmith never communicated with the poseurs at that address that is on the patent.

46.       Robert Sean Kelly and other defendants could simply have inquired of either of my lawyers.

47.       The poseurs knew that their Dad never lived at the address designated on the patent.

48.       The poseurs knew that their Dad did not know the 2 lawyers listed on the patent.

49.       The poseurs knew or should have known that the owner of my invention was not their deceased father.

50.       Had they simply called either of these lawyers they would have discovered that the true inventor is still alive.

51.       By comparison the father of the poseurs is deceased.

52.       Therefore the living inventor cannot be the deceased father.

53.       Q.E.D.

54.       Patent #5,862,727 pertains to my invention called a Laser Arbor.

55.       At first it could be seen at any Sears store.

56.       It continues to be sold at Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, Diamond and the biggest retail tool stores.

57.       It can be seen on the website for defendant Joe Wortsmith’s LTCI who infringes my patent by offering to sell the device at www.lasertools.com

Venue considerations of the main defendants: Ryobi, LTCI

58.       Laser Tools Company, Inc., hereinafter “LTCI” is a corporation with adequate contacts pursuant to International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/326/310.html 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L Ed 2nd 95 to qualify under 28 USC 1391(c).

59.       Similarly, Ryobi and the affiliated Ryobi corporations have adequate contacts pursuant to International Shoe Co. v. Washington to qualify under 28 USC 1391(c).

60.       All defendants named herein have adequate contacts pursuant to International Shoe Co. v. Washington to qualify under 28 USC 1391(c).

The gist of this case

61.       I offered my invention to Sears, Ryobi, and LTCI and many other prospective vendors.

62.       They each rejected my invention.

63.       Thereafter LTCI embezzled my sales materials and offered my invention to Ryobi who ultimately manufactured it for Sears.

64.       All of the defendants knew that the invention was mine.

65.       Sears and other vendors have sold millions of my Laser Arbors.

66.       No defendant has ever paid me even a penny for their infringement of my invention.

Re: Sears. They are not a defendant. They are nonetheless part of the story.

67.       Sears sells my patented device.

68.       Early in this story Sears indicated that it expected Ryobi and me to work out a deal.

69.       Sears calls my patented device a “Laser Trac.”

70.       My Laser Arbor is on a variety of their Craftsman brand power saws such as the 10" Miter Saw, 12" Miter Saw, Radial Arm Saw, Compound Miter Saw and possibly more.

71.       My Laser Arbor has the Sears part number 0015901.

72.       It could at one time be purchased online or at any Sears for $55.72 plus applicable taxes and S/H.

73.       On October 26, 1997, I emailed Craftsman from their web site mentioning my new invention.

74.       Tom Murphy, a Sears employee responded by telling me to contact him when I got my patent.

75.        After receiving my patent I contacted him by regular mail on March 25, 1999. I never got a response back.

76.       Other persons contacted in the Sears organization are Michael J. Burke, the Sears trademark attorney.

77.       I got his name off a 'trade name/ trade mark' internet site.

78.       I contacted him on 5/19/01 about their infringing Sears Laser Trac miter saw.

79.       I wanted to know if the device was patented and if they were in the stores.

80.       He didn't know.

81.       A few days later on 5/21/01, I got a call from someone named Stew Stanstrom, who said he was a Sears buyer at the corporate head office in Chicago.

82.       He asked me if I was interested in the Laser Trac.

83.       He said it was in stock and gave me a stock #24315.

84.       After the learning of the infringing Sears Laser Trac product, my lawyer, Eric Karich, wrote a letter dated May 31, 2001 to Lynn Hudson Boone, general counsel for Sears.

85.       Eric asked why Murphy did not answer my letter to him regarding the infringing Laser Trac.

86.       I believe Sears at this point deferred the issue to Ryobi who manufactures the device for them.

Ryobi. See further below for their causes of action

87.       Ryobi Technologies Inc., hereinafter “RTI” is at 1428 Pearman Dairy Road, Anderson, SC 29625.

88.       The phone number is 800 323-4615.

89.       Ryobi is a Japanese group.

90.       RTI manufactures the infringing Laser Trac device for Sears at RTI’s China facilities.

91.       RTI’s China plant is also know as the “Singer plant.”

92.       I believe that RTI had an agreement to supply Sears with the infringing Laser Trac devices till December 31, 2003.

Cause of Action against Ryobi: Interference in potential advantage. I could have sold to Sears.

93.       I could have sold that first production run of 135,000 units!

94.       Ryobi and LTCI stole that opportunity.

95.       Robert Bugos, general counsel for RTI is the first attorney that my lawyer Eric Karich dealt with after becoming aware of the infringement.

96.       Wortsmith clearly lied to the poseurs when he told them that he knew me well and had long talks with me. See the declaration of Robert Sean Kelly in that regard. Exhibit #4. I only spoke to Wortsmith twice. That was on the phone. It was brief. I asked if he wanted to license my patent. He said No.

97.       He found a then-living Robert Royce Kelly and duped his sons into believing a cock and bull story that paid $30,000.

98.       Bugos wanted to believe. He had a duty to look at the address on the patent and investigate the veracity of the dead inventor story.

99.       Even after Bugos was informed of the truth he continued to perpetrate the lie by directing Attorney Brandenberg to defraud the patent department with the fraudulent assignment using the papers depicted in Exhibit #19.

100.      Extrapolating from the 3% letter depicted in Exhibit 8 it is obvious that Wortsmith was paid exactly $1,000,000 by Ryobi.

101.      It appears that the $30,000 paid to the poseurs was sold to them as a royalty. Indeed the contract in exhibit 9 is called a “royalty agreement.” In fact the poseurs did not know that Wortsmith has sold their putative rights for $1 million. It is fraud like this that makes the defendants eligible for RICO punishment.

102.      As seen in Exhibit 9 , Ryobi took over the responsibility for paying the 3% mentioned in the original deal with Wortsmith depicted in Exhibit 8.

103.      To add insult to injury, Ryobi only advanced 10% of their meager $30,000 to the poseurs who were themselves have been victims to sharp dealing - as seen in Exhibit 9. They sold their million dollar patent for $30,000.

Robert Sean Kelly and his brother Patrick Kelly. See further below for their causes of action.

104.      Defendant Robert Sean Kelly is one of the 2 poseurs. He lives at 1415 Bidwell, Portland, Oregon 97207. Home phone 503 232-5670. Cell 503 449-5304.

105.      He was the executor of the estate of his father who was Robert Royce Kelly of Grants Pass.

106.      The then-living Robert Royce Kelly was, according to the poseurs, unable to communicate with them regarding the patent.

107.      However, the head poseur appears to be a convenient liar.

108.      He backdated the date of death of his father by one year in his affidavit. This affidavit is depicted is Exhibit #4. The backdating happens in the last line of the first substantive paragraph.

109.      The backdated death date precludes the question of why they did not simply ask their dad about the invention.

110.      Exhibit 8 shows that the poseur son Robert signed the agreement with Wortsmith on 12 Feb 2000 nearly 2 months before his father died.

111.      From Exhibit 9 Robert Sean Kelly and his brother Patrick were to receive a check for $3,000 upon signing from defendant RTI (Ryobi group) for a my patent - something that they never did own.

112.      To their credit they say that they did not cash the check.

113.      Their lawyer is Patrick John Kelly, 717 NW 5th Street, Grants Pass, Oregon. Phone: 541 474 1908.

114.      Lawyer Kelly was paid to handle the estate of the deceased Robert Royce Kelly.

115.      However the will (Exhibit 6) does not mention a patent. That was a clue that should not have been ignored - and would not have been ignored but for fraud.

116.      See page 6 of Exhibit 9 for the signature of Attorney Lindi Baker on the letter to the poseurs. Attorney Lindi of Schultz, Salisbury, Cauble & Dole (hereinafter “Attorney Schultz etc.”), 111 S.E. 6th street, Grant’s Pass, Oregon 97528 ( 888 870 8825) acted at the behest of Ryobi to perpetrate the infringement on my patent.

The attempt to create plausible deniability for the lawyers who drew up the various documents instrumental to the fraudulent assignment

117.      Attorney Lindi Baker knew or should have known that the poseur was a poseur.

118.      Attorney Linda Baker executed an affidavit of Robert S. Kelly (Exhibit attached) and fraudulent assignment (Exhibit 8 attached) to RTI of my patent.

119.      Attorneys Brandenberg and Bugos conspired to record the fraudulent assignment depicted in Exhibit 20.

120.      Attorney Bugos of RTI directed the writing of the fraudulent assignment.

121.      They did so by the fraudulent application package depicted in the certified record from the patent office depicted in the 19 pages that constitute Exhibit 19.

122.      I contacted Ryobi via certified mail on June 8, 1995 as depicted in Exhibit 11.

123.      They replied with a letter of no interest depicted in Exhibit 12.

Techtronic Industries - parent of Ryobi

124.      Techtronic Industries Company Limited, a/k/a TTI Power Tools, hereinafter TTI is the parent of Ryobi.

125.      Roy Chi Ping Chung is their Managing Director.

126.      Patrick Chan is their executive director.

127.      Their Headquarters is at 24/F CDW Building, 388 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan, N.T. Hong Kong. Telephone 852 2402 6888. Fax: 852 2413 5971,

128.      Chairman's Office, Horst J. Pudwill CEO 1806 Central Plaza 18 Harbour Road Wan Chai Hong Kong Tel: 852 2802 9068. Fax: 852 2827 0082.

One World Technologies - Ryobi affiliate: fraud on me and the patent office

129.      One World Technologies, Inc., hereinafter “OWT” Anderson, South Carolina is another corporation that is part of the Ryobi group of companies.

130.      It is located in the same state as RTI.

131.      It has the same employees earning and handling the patents that have issued to Ryobi.

132.      This company filed a design patent on May 9, 2001 for a Laser Arbor. This application is depicted in page 2 of Exhibit 10.

133.      Not coincidentally, this was one day before Ryobi fraudulently infringed by fraudulently obtaining a signature from the poseurs on a fraudulent assignment depicted in Exhibit 9.

134.      Their patent issued July 16, 2002.

135.      Their design patent names my Utility patent as Prior Art.

136.      Their design patent is a fraud.

137.      In order to sue Caluori and others without using my patent, Ryobi further defrauded the patent office with the bogus patents depicted in Exhibit 10 - especially Design patent 460469.

138.      The law requires permission of the utility owner in order to obtain a design patent.

139.      The conspiring perpetrators perpetrating this fraud against me and the patent office are:

140.      Yue; Siu Sum (Hong Kong, CN

141.      Thurler; James E. (Pickens, SC)

142.      Kaiser; William E. (Anderson, SC)

Complaint

History of my patent pertinent to all causes of action

143.      In December 1993 I invented my Laser Arbor.

144.      On November 28, 1994 a notary public notarized my sketch of my Laser Arbor for me.

145.      On Feb 6, 1995 I filed a document disclosure with the US Patent office by certified mail.

146.      Thereafter on Feb 10, 1995 I received from the Patent Office confirmation #369701 for my disclosure.

147.      Thereafter I built a prototype of my invention.

The video that I made and Joe Wortsmith misappropriated to perpetrate his poseur scheme

148.      Thereafter, on June 16, 1995, I produced a video tape of my invention in actual use.

149.      This video is Exhibit 27. It is on the cd and can be seen at this link: _______

150.      This is the video that defendant con artist Joe Wortsmith misappropriated.

151.      Although Joe Wortsmith knew it was my video tape of my invention, he found a person with the same name as was on my patent (to wit: Robert R. Kelly) in the same town (Grants Pass).

152.      Then Joe conspired with the son of the dead person to pose as the executor of the estate of a patent holder.

153.      At Exhibit 9 Ryobi promises to pay $30,000 to the poseurs.

154.      This is the 3% promised by Worthsmith in Exhibit 8.

155.      The proof of scienter is in the other fraudulent activities that they did on the same day, to wit:

            a.         Ryobi obtained a design patent based on my utility patent.

            b.         They intended to rely on the design patent thereby reducing scrutiny.

156.      I began to produce literature to market my invention.

157.      On March 11, 1996 I received my provisional patent with an application number of 60/ 033, 244.

158.      The significance of this was that I could then say that I had a “patent pending”.

159.      On October 26, 1997, I emailed Craftsman from their web site mentioning my new invention. Mr. Tom Murphy a Sears Craftsman Associate responded by telling me to contact him when I got my patent. After receiving my patent I contacted him by regular mail on 3/25/99. I never got a response back.

160.      On January 26, 1999 I received my utility patent #5,862,727.

161.      A utility is the dominant and major patent.

162.      A utility patent is distinguished from a design patent in that the utility patent is the patent on the function and operation of the machine.

163.      By comparison, a design patent is merely a decoration or accessory.

164.      Defendant Ryobi attempted to bolster their previous fraud by obtaining a fraudulent design patent.

165.      A design patent is parasitical to a utility patent.

166.      Ryobi has no utility patent for the Laser Arbor.

167.      Therefore Ryobi’s design patent is a legal nullity, the product of fraud.

Joe Wortsmith and LTCI

168.      On or about 4 October 1995 I telephoned Joe Wortsmith, president of LTCI in Little Rock, Arkansas.

169.      I invited him to license my patent for his exploitation.

170.      He asked me to send my video.

171.      On October 11, 1995, feeling secure that my invention was officially disclosed I sent to LTCI a certified letter enclosing a freshly produced video of my Laser Arbor in action.

172.      This letter is depicted in Exhibit 16.

173.      I sent the video to Joe Wortsmith and Dennis Milam via certified mail #Z 202 252 037.

174.      The address of LTCI was 12221 Arch Street Pike Little Rock, Arkansas 72206.

175.      Their phone number is 501 888 8831 and 800 598-5973.

176.      I made a follow up call a month later.

177.      Joe Wortsmith said he was not interested.

178.      I asked for a return of the video tape.

179.      He did not ever return the video.

180.      LTCI continues to advertise my Laser Arbor on their website as you can see on page b of Exhibit 14.

181.      They infringe by offering to sell a device that infringes on my patent.

182.      I received no letter back from LTCI.

183.      I heard nothing back from LTCI until 7 years later, in the year 2001

184.      In retrospect I now see that Wortsmith sold a fake patent for $1,000,000 to Ryobi.

185.      The poseurs might reasonably have expected 3% of the gross sales from Laser Arbors.

186.      Instead they paid a 97% commission for Wortsmith to sell their patent to Ryobi - or so they thought.

187.      The 3% amounted to $30,000 as shown in page of Exhibit 9.

The head start by Sears ruined my chance to license Skil/ Bosch.

188.      In October of 2000 my lawyer Eric Karich sent me to David Halstead who eventually led me to be in a position to license my invention to Skil/ Bosch.

189.      David Halstead is a major buyer and supplier of tools to the construction industry,

190.      He used his access to the executives at Skil/ Bosch to obtain an introduction for me.

191.      I signed an agreement with Skil/ Bosch.

192.      I built a prototype of my Laser Arbor for Skil/Bosch.

193.      As depicted in Exhibit 15 Skil/ Bosch sent me a letter of intent to continue moving toward a licensing agreement on May 1, 2001.

194.      On May 14, 2001 Skil/ Bosch announced that they discovered that Sears was selling a Laser Arbor which Sears called Laser Trac.

195.      Skil/ Bosch did no more business with me although I eventually did a deal with Bosch.

Discussion with Sears led me to Ryobi - who had rejected my offer 6 years earlier

196.      On May 17, 2001 I began an internet search regarding the infringing Sear Laser Trac.

197.      Note that this was only 5 days after Ryobi has tricked the poseurs into selling their putative “million dollar patent” for a mere $3,000 up front and $27,000 more later.

198.      I found the name of an attorney who did the trademark filing for Sears.

199.      On May 18, 2001 I telephoned this man; he is Attorney Michael Burke, in-house counsel for Sears.

200.      Burke told my lawyer Eric Karich that Ryobi manufactured the infringing devices for Sears.

201.      The product had been on the market by Sears for 3 weeks then.

202.      I bought one.

203.      It infringed on my patent.

204.      It had a patent number. That number 3 054 901 is depicted in Exhibit 2.

205.      On Dec 17, 2001 I photographed the infringing Laser Arbor.

206.      That photograph is depicted in Exhibit 2.

207.      The patent number was a false marking applied by Ryobi.

The fraud and deception of Ryobi: Telling me that they weren’t interested and then conspiring to defraud me; false marking; conspiring with Wortsmith and the poseur; defrauding the patent office with a bogus fraudulent design patent on the same day.

208.      That patent number pertains to an expired patent for an irrelevant lighting device having nothing to so with the infringing device.

209.      It proves that Ryobi was well aware of the infringement when they manufactured the very first batch of 135,000 Laser Arbors.

210.      My lawyer Karich immediately began negotiating with Attorney Bugos.

211.      Bugos is in-house counsel for RTI (Ryobi Technologies Incorporated).

212.      Ryobi had previously rejected my offer to license 6 years ago.

213.      I wrote to Ryobi via certified mail on June 8, 1995.

214.      My letter is depicted in Exhibit 11.

215.      They replied back with a letter of non-interest depicted in Exhibit 12.

216.      Jeff Dils who signed the letter has since been promoted; he is now the COO, the top person for Ryobi in America.

Ryobi having paid the poseur in May 2001 was now caught red-handed.

217.      Remember, it was May 14, 2002 when Skil/ Bosch told me that Sears already had my Laser Arbor on the market.

218.      Just 4 days earlier, On May 10, 2001, Ryobi had signed a deal with Robert Sean Kelly ( a poseur - not an inventor or patent holder) paying him and his brother $30,000 as complete payment for a license that they did not own.

219.      Extrapolating from 3% we see total price paid by Ryobi was $30,000/ 3% = a cool $1,000,000

220.      Wortsmith apparently paid himself a 97% commission on the bogus license from the poseur.

221.      It appears more likely that Wortsmith kept the entire $million and persuaded Ryobi to pay the $30,000.

222.      The poseurs were nonetheless satisfied because they obtained $30,000 for nothing.

223.      On May 12, Ryobi and the poseur sons signed a formalized agreement depicted in Exhibit 9.

224.      The infringing devices had been built and were in the store before Ryobi bought a fake patent from the poseur.

225.      In the first week of June, 2001 Eric, my lawyer, told me about a guy named Robert Kelly from whom Ryobi’s bogus license was obtained.

226.      Further investigation showed that this guy was a poseur.

227.      His name is Robert Sean Kelly the son of now deceased Robert Royce Kelly of Grants Pass, Oregon, the town where I lived when I received my patent.

228.      Ryobi, who had paid $30,000 to the poseurs and $1,000,000 to Wortsmith now offered me $80,000 which I rejected.

229.      On 10 December 2001 Ryobi offered $400,000 which I rejected.

230.      Six months after hearing about the poseur I searched for this Robert Kelly among approximately 10 or more Robert Kellys in Grants Pass, Oregon.

231.      Clyde Kelly told me that his deceased brother’s sons had sold the patent that his brother never owned.

232.      I telephoned one of the sons, Robert Sean Kelly 6 months later in November 2001.

233.      The poseur wrote in his affidavit of Jan 28, 2002, what we talked about. This affidavit is Exhibit 4.

234.      The poseur said that Joe Wortsmith of LTCI had convinced him that his deceased father, Robert Royce Kelly, was the inventor of the Laser Arbor.

235.      We are now full circle back to Joe Wortsmith, the LTCI CEO who rejected my invention in 1995 but refused to send my video back.

Flashback. What Wortsmith did after rejecting my invention in 1995. He built a copy of my Laser Arbor using my patent disclosure that I sent them in 1995. He was selling my invention at trade shows and that is how Ryobi found them,.

236.      Obviously Joe Wortsmith used my video and disclosure materials to sell my Laser Arbor as his own even before he has procured the fake patent from the poseurs.

237.      The poseur gave me a picture of a letter that he got from Worthsmith along with the prototype.

238.      This letter picture is depicted in Exhibit 7, page 4 and mentioned in the Affidavit of Exhibit 4.

239.      Wortsmith signed an agreement to pay the poseur 3%.

240.      3% of what?

241.      Wortsmith apparently purposely left this blank to facilitate a sharp deal and his fraud.

242.      Rather than pay a royalty to the poseurs, he acted as their agents and paid himself a 97% commission on the $1,000,000 license fee paid by Ryobi.

243.      He sold the putative rights to the patent to Ryobi for a cool $1,000,000.

244.      Based on exhibit 9 we believe that Ryobi paid the 3%, the $30,000 directly to the poseurs.

245.      On Sept 27, 2000, the poseur received a “prototype” counterfeit Laser Arbor from Joe Wortsmith.

246.      On Oct 12, 2000, the thief, Joe Wortsmith became infuriated because the poseur has retained a lawyer to draft a formal agreement.

247.      Ryobi later refused to ratify the 3% deal but instead ripped the poseur off by buying from him on May 10, 2001, the patent that the poseur did not own.

248.      The poseur did not ever cash the check.

249.      The poseur told me and I now assert the following sentence on information and belief:

250.      The poseur went to a trade show on Feb 26th, 2002 and took a photograph of a Laser Arbor manufactured by the thief LTCI.

251.      Obviously this photo was taken after LTCI talked to the poseur because the poseur had no clue of this invention business until Wortsmith found him.

252.      Ryobi approached Wortsmith at a trade show.

253.      Some months after Oct 12 2000, Brian Whiffen of Ryobi telephoned the poseur saying that he purchased the rights to the Laser Arbor from Wortsmith.

254.      Ryobi wanted to buy the remaining rights from the poseur.

In 7 years Wortsmith never contacted me - and has not contacted me to this day. Instead Wortsmith misappropriated my patent and tried to see it as his own using the vehicle of the poseur who was either an accomplice or duped.

Robert Sean Kelly - the poseur/ accomplice.

255.      Further information regarding Wortsmith was relayed to me by Robert Sean Kelly.

256.      On or about October 2000 the thief Wortsmith of LTCI forwarded my video to Ryobi under the false pretenses that he was licensed by the patent owner, me.

257.      In fact Wortsmith had rejected my license offer immediately upon receiving it on although he did keep the video with the express intent to attempt to exploit my patent.

258.      The opportunity came years later when he found a nearly dead guy with a name almost the same as mine - differing only in the middle name but having the same middle initial. See the “list of players” above.

259.      On October 27, 1997 I offered my patented product to Sears. My offer is depicted in Exhibit13.

260.      On June 8, 1995 I offered my invention to Ryobi by certified letter. This letter is depicted in Exhibit 11.

261.      Ryobi rejected my offer. Their rejection is depicted in Exhibit 12.

1st cause of Action: Infringement by Ryobi

262.      I have tried to negotiate with Ryobi.

263.      They refused to answer my last two letters to them regarding negotiation and settlement.

264.      They reneged on their promise to undo the fraudulent assignment perpetrated by their lawyer defendant Brandenberg whose work is depicted in Exhibit 19.

265.      Infringement is defined as by 35 USC Section 271. Which reads in pertinent part: Infringement of patent:

            a.          Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

            b.         Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

            c.           Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

            d.         No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following:

                         1          derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent;

                         2          licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent;

                         3          sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement;

                         4          refused to license or use any rights to the patent; or

                         5          conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned.

            e.         (Irrelevant. Pertains to biological patents.)

            f.          

                         1           Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

                         2           Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

            g.          Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after -

                         1           it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or

                         2           it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.

            h.         (Irrelevant. Liability for infringement by state agency.)

            i.           (I) As used in this section, an ''offer for sale'' or an ''offer to sell'' by a person other than the patentee, or any designee of the patentee, is that in which the sale will occur before the expiration of the term of the patent.

Unfair Competition defined by Section 337 of Tariff act of 1930

266.      Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 declares that unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the U.S. are unlawful. More particularly, importation into the U.S., or sale for importation into the U.S., or sale within the U.S. after importation (a) of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent, or (b) of articles which are produced by means of a process covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable U.S. patent are unlawful activities.

267.      By statute, my patent is presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C.282.

268.      On or about December 1, 2000, my then assignee, BHC began negotiations with a Skil-Bosch of Chicago, Illinois to license my patent.

269.      I was on track to license them and earn money for my patented invention. Exhibit 15 depicts a letter of interest from Skil Bosch written on May 1, 2001.

270.      On that same day, on or about May 1, 2001, Sears began selling their Craftsman saws infringing on my patent.

271.      Ryobi manufactured the saws, imported the saws, sold the saws to Sears, and otherwise infringed on my patent.

272.      Therefore Ryobi had designed and manufactured the infringing devices before they even bought the patent from the poseurs on May 12, 2001. In retrospect Ryobi reneged on the 3% deal of exhibit 8. They proposed a different “royalty” and defrauded the poseurs with the papers depicted in Exhibit 9. This is part of a pattern that constitutes RICO.

Proof of Scienter

273.      Sears calls their Laser Arbor a Laser Trac.

274.      The inside of a Laser Trac, is identical to my December 1993 original sketch.

275.      See Exhibit #1 for a side by side comparison.

276.      This sketch in included in my disclosure document which I registered with the patent office and then delivered to forgerer Wortsmith.

277.      They did not merely infringe; they stole my patent.

278.      The proof of scienter is in the patent number 3,054,901cast into the case as seen in exhibit #13.

279.      Sears has removed the word “patented” in a latter production run, but the original number stands as lasting proof of scienter of the person who first putting that number on the device.

280.      The number 3,054,901 is an expired patent number.

281.      It was put there to give the impression that the device is patented without providing a trail back me, the patent holder.

282.      My patent is 5,862,727.

283.      Their predecessor in interest stole my patent.

284.      The inventory of Sears from the beginning has been falsely marked.

285.      The Laser Trac is indeed patented; I invented and patented it.

286.      Sears uses it after having rejected both of my offers to license it to them.

287.      Instead they bought a counterfeit license from Wortsmith.

288.      On or about May 14, 2001, Skil-Bosch dramatically altered their negotiating posture with my assignee.

289.      The infringing Sears saw was cheaper than the projected price of the Skil-Bosch saw.

Cause of action: Patent Infringement

290.      I incorporate by reference into this cause of action every other paragraph in this complaint.

291.      Defendants Sears and Ryobi have each manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported rotary saws which, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, infringe my patent in violation of 35 USC 271.

292.      Defendants' infringement will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

293.      On information and belief, Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate and with full knowledge of the existence of and infringement of my patent.

294.      Defendants' willful and deliberate infringement of my patent justifies triple damages pursuant to 35 USC 284 and qualifies

295.      This is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 35 USC 285.

296.      Defendants' infringement has damaged and continues to damage and injure me.

297.      My injury is irreparable and will continue unless and until each of the Defendants is enjoined by the Court from further infringement.

Induced and contributory patent infringement

298.       I incorporate by reference into this cause of action every other paragraph in this complaint.

299.      Defendants Sears and Ryobi have each manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported rotary saws which induce or contribute to infringement of the one or more of the claims of my patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

300.      Defendants' conduct will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

301.       Defendants Sears and Ryobi actively induce and contribute to the infringement of one or more claims of my patent by advertising the use of their products for uses that infringe my patent.

302.      There are no substantial non-infringing uses of the products sold by Sears and Ryobi.

303.      Defendants' activities are willful and deliberate and with full knowledge of the existence of my patent.

304.      Defendants' willful and deliberate induced and contributory infringement of my patent justifies triple damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.284.

305.      This qualifies this as an exceptional case supporting an award of attorneys fees and costs.

306.      Defendants' induced and contributory infringement has damaged and continues to damage and injure me.

307.      My injury is irreparable and will continue unless and until each of the Defendants is enjoined by the Court from further activities that induce or contribute to infringement.

False Marking

308.      I incorporate by this reference every other paragraph in this complaint.

309.      Without my consent and with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee, Sears and Ryobi marked the housing of the Laser Trac with "3054901" and "PATENTED", in violation of 35 U.S.C. 292.

310.      35 USC 292 reads as follows in total:

Section 292. False marking 1. (a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words ''patent,'' ''patentee,'' or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the word ''patent'' or any word or number importing that the same is patented for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article, the words ''patent applied for,'' ''patent pending,'' or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense. (b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.

311.      Neither Sears nor Ryobi owned or currently own a patent protecting the products being marked, used, sold, offered for sale, and imported into the United States.

312.      Sears and Ryobi marked the housing of the Laser Trac device with "3054901" and "PATENTED" for the purposes of deceiving the public.

313.      Sears and Ryobi want the public to think that Sears and Ryobi own a patent that covers the product being sold.

314.      This is a violation of 35 U.S.C. 292.

315.      Patent number 3,054,901 is irrelevant to the Laser Trac.

316.      Defendants Sears and Ryobi only included this patent number to deceive the public.

RICO and common fraud.

317.      Ryobi, Bugos, Wortsmith, and Brandenberg committed the requisite predicate crimes to make them eligible for RICO civil action.

318.      There action was malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent.

319.      They benefitted and enriched themselves by profiting from their crimes.

320.      Lawyer Bugos was sophisticated enough to employ a cadre of detached ignorant lawyers in order to provide plausible deniability to the actors in his treachery.

321.      This is more than mere patent infringement.

322.      This is a pattern of crime.

Prayer

Wherefore I ask for the following relief:

323.      I ask for my RICO and common fraud remedies.

324.      I ask for an immediate accounting from all defendants who manufactured, sold, or otherwise exploited by Laser Arbor patented invention.

325.      I ask for imposition of a constructive trust upon the Ryobi, LTCI, and Wortsmith defendants.

326.      I ask for prejudgement writ of attachment of all bank accounts of the Ryobi, LTCI, and Wortsmith.

327.      I ask that patent 5 862 727 be deemed infringed by Ryobi.

328.      I ask for immediate payment of $260,000 for the first run of 135,000 by Ryobi.

329.      I ask for triple damages based on a market value of $2 per license unit.

330.      I ask that the infringement by Ryobi and Wortsmith be judged to be willful.

331.      I ask that the activities of Ryobi and Wortsmith be found to be inducement and contributory infringement.

332.      I ask that the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Ryobi, Worthsmith, their subsidiaries, divisions, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in concert or active participation with them from further infringement of my patent, or any activities that induce or contribute to infringement of my patent.

333.      I ask that this court order Defendants Ryobi and Wortsmith to file and serve on me a declaration explaining how they have complied with injunction.

334.      I ask that I be awarded judgment against Ryobi for triple damages for patent infringement based on 3 times $2 per unit plus interest at the legal rate from the date of infringement.

335.      That I be awarded treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284.

336.      That I be awarded its attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

337.      That I be awarded its costs of suit.

338.      That Ryobi be fined up to $500 for every unit that was falsely marked "PATENTED" or "3054901" and either made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 292.

339.      I ask that similar or appropriate judgments be made against all other defendants.

340.      That I be awarded such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

Jury Demand

341.      I demand a jury.

Inventor Robert Randall Kelly _____________________________ Saturday, August 27, 2005 


 

List of Exhibits in Approximate Order of Probative Value

Sub-Document #5861 Version 2.3 Upgraded Sunday, August 21, 2005. Friday, August 26, 2005. Saturday, August 27, 2005.

This document is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5861.html

Related pages:

            Oregon complaint: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6420.html

             Appendix 1: Supplemental Chronology:

 

 

1.         Side by side comparison of page from Inventor Kelly’s Inventor’s notebook and photo of the infringing Ryobi device which was designed from my drawings. Significance: This tends to prove that Ryobi’s Laser Arbor does not infringe on my patent. Joe Wortsmith built the first Ryobi device by employing a university to follow my drawings that I submitted to the patent office.

 

Date: 1993 Dec. Notes by me, the inventor.

Date: 2002 Sept Photo taken by Harland Burge. It is an exhibit in Los Angeles case.

 

 

2.         Smoking gun #2. Patent 3 054 901 is expired but fraudulently stamped onto counterfeit laser arbors. Who took this photo and when? This patent number depicted is an expired patent for an unrelated device. This patent number is on the items sold by Sears; their illegally imported counterfeit goods were then intentionally falsely marked for the purpose of seeking patent protection wthout acknowledging that it was my patent. Maybe Ryobi did it.

 

I took this photo of the device that I bought from Sears.

Date: 2001 Dec 17.

 

3.          Laser Arbor patent 5,862,727. Issued Jan 26, 1999. 5 pages. My patent can be seen online at the U.S. Patent Office http://www.uspto.gov/ at this following link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5862727.WKU.&OS=PN/5862727&RS=PN/5862727

The following are fat jpeg copies of the pages from the patent office.

 

            Page 1 of the patent is shown at the following link: 1.jpg

 

            Page 2 of the patent is shown at the following link: 2.jpg

 

            Page 3 of the patent is shown at the following link: 3.jpg

 

            Page 4 of the patent is shown at the following link: 4.jpg 1.3 meg

  

            Page 5 of the patent is shown at the following link: 5.jpg 1.4

 

Date: 1999 Jan 26 is the date that the patent was awarded.                                                              

 

 

4.         Our best proof of fraud of Wortsmith. Affidavit of the poseur Robert Sean Kelly. 28 Jan 2002. This exhibit attests to the wire fraud used by LTCI's thief Wortsmith to persuade the poseur that Wortsmith was a friend of the poseur’s recently deceased father. 3 pages.

            Page 1 of the affidavit is at the following link: http://ronfox.250free.com/SeanAff1.jpg

            Page 2 of the affidavit is at the following link: http://ronfox.250free.com/SeanAff2.jpg

            Page 3 of the affidavit is at the following link: http://ronfox.250free.com/SeanAff3.jpg

Date: 2002 Jan 28

 

 

5.         Death certificate. Proves lie on 2 affidavits. However, in the affidavit prepared by Attorney Linda Baker of Grants Pass she has the date of death at 2000, April 9 -one day different from the death certificate.

 

Date of Death: 2000 April 8. The poseur lied on his affidavit and backdated the date of death at 1999 April 9.

 

 

6.         1998 December. Will of the dad of the poseur. Will of father of the poseur mentions no patent. This tends to prove that conspirators KNEW that the father of the poseurs had no patent. The conspirators are at least: the poseurs, Attorney Brandenberg, and Wortsmith.

 

Date of will: 1998 Dec 16.

 

7.         Photo taken by poseur. Set of photos. Copy of photograph of counterfeit of my patented Laser Arbor. Thief Wortsmith sent this prototype to poseur Robert Sean Kelly on September 27, 2000 - just 7 months before an April magazine article about the Sears Laser Trac. See 2, page 1, line #31 where the poseur says in his affidavit that he still has the dated handwritten note enclosed with the prototype depicted in this 12 shown above. Picture taken by the poseur of the Laser Arbor sent by Embezzler Joe Wortsmith to the poseur on . Compare this to the document disclosure drawing by Inventor Kelly which is depicted in Exhibit # ________. Also see figure _____ for a side-by-side comparison showing the document disclosure drawing and identical product sold by Ryobi.

 

 

Date of handwritten note from Worthsmith: 2000 Sept 27.

 

8.         The smoking gun # ---. Void fraudulent license/ legal nullity between Joe Wortsmith & Robert Sean Kelly of Feb 2, 2000.

 

Date of 3% Letter: 2000 Feb 1

 

 

9.         2001 May 10. Conspiring Lawyer Bogus’s offer to buy the “million dollar patent” from the poseurs for $30,000. The net result is that Wortsmith took a 97% commission fee for finding a buyer for the patent not owned by the poseur’s. Had they owned the patent this would have been an exorbitant fee. Ryobi’s lawyer Brandenberg got the probate papers from somebody - perhaps attorney Kelly. The poseurs should have re-opened the estate for an accounting but they may have known by then that the patent story was a fraud.

            a.         2 page cover letter from local Grants Pass lawyer Lindi Baker. May 10, 2001.

            b.         Cover letter from defendant conspiring lawyer Bugos. 10 May 2001.

            c.          Three page Fraudulent named “Royalty Agreement” is not a royalty agreement but rather an agreement to sell the “million dollar patent” to Ryobi for $30,000. Ryobi paid a million kickback to Wortsmith who pretended to be an agent for the poseurs but then sold them out to Ryobi. Notice that Ryobi paid the poseurs a piddling $3,000 in advance for the million dollar patent for an item that had already been manufactured by them and sold to Sears!

            d.         One page assignment from the poseurs to Ryobi. May 12, 2001. This is part of the 19 page package shown elsewhere in Exhibit 19.

            e.         Affidavit of Robert S. Kelly regarding probate. 3 pages. May 12, 2001. This also is part of the package by Brandenberg shown in Exhibit 19.

 

The smoking gun #. Cover letter and Forged license created by Ryobi. Void non-assignment of Laser Arbor patent. May 12, 2001. 1 page.

 

 

Date of signature of poseur on 3 page Affidavit: 2001 May 12.

Date of signatures of poseurs on 1 page assignment.: 2001 May 12.

Cover letter by Grants Pass lawyer Linda L Baker.

 

10.       Smoking gun #____. Design patent D 460 469 is filed within 1 day of the fraudulent assignment by the posers, Fraudulent patent No. US D460,469 S filed May 9, 2001 by One World Technologies a conspirator with Ryobi, dated July 16, 2002. This patent was obtained to fraudulently defraud me of the royalty from my patent. This document infers the Ryobi knew that they had no license from me. This document infers that they used a parasitic patent to attempt to perpetrate the fraud began by Wortsmith. Having paid $1,000,000 to Wortsmith they obviously wanted to go forward now that they have additional money invested in product.

            a.         Page 1. Correction: 2002 Dec 17. This proves that the patent office does indeed make corrections for mistakes.

 

            b.         Page 2. Application date: 2001 May 9 for a “design patent” #460 469. Significance. This tends to prove that Ryobi knew at this time that their license with the poseurs was a legal nullity and that I was the true inventor and patent owner. Around this time there was a flurry of activity. Brooks and Kushman made the application. They employ Attorney Brandenberg who defrauded the patent office by filing the fraudulent assignment package which is exhibit #__ .

            c.          Page 3. Application date: 2001 May 18. Another case in the flurry of work around May 2001. Only 3 days after the date of this application I was talking to Attorney Michael Burke of Sears but he withheld information about Ryobi. This drawing permitted Ryobi to sue Caluori (another infringer on my patent) without resorting to the use of my patent -which is something that they would not need to do if they believed that my patent was truly assigned to them. By July 18, less than 2 months after my conversation with Attorney Burke, Broglen Hotel, my assignee, filed against Sears and Ryobi for patent infringement. This exhibit proves that Ryobi knew the truth before the date of the earliest of this spat of applications and so did Attorney Brandenberg and he did not deny knowing it. He conspired with Attorney Bugos to perpetuate the fraud.

            d.         Page 4. This is an application for a “submarine patent”. “Submarine patent” is patent jargon. It is a pejorative term used to describe patents filed by patent system abusers such as the notorious and now deceased Jerome Lemelson. The patent fraudster abuses the system by filing patents on things that he does not and can not produce. Then, when somebody takes the initiative to produce the item, the fraudster surfaces with his submarine patent. This exhibit portrays an application for a device that has not been built.

            e.         Page 5 is a “stick drawing”. It is significant in that it shows figure 5 is a terrible drawing. This tends to prove the apparent urgency of this filing - as though the inventor had invented slip rings. Nothing is invented here. It is merely more of the pattern of abuse of the patent system by Brooks and Kushman the firm that employs Attorney Brandenberg, the lawyer who committed fraud on the patent office by submitting a fraudulent assignment of my patent. Kushman’s fraudulent application is shown in Exhibit # ____. Even after he was informed that it was a fraud, he did nothing to fix it.

 

11.       Inventor’s offer letter to Ryobi. June 8, 1995. They rejected this honest offer and later paid thief Wortsmith having been duped by Wortsmith into paying $1,000,000 for worthless paper - to wit, the forged licensed that Wortsmith forged. Then they conspired with Wortsmith to perpetuate the theft.

 

12.       Ryobi's rejection letter to the inventor. June 26, 1995

 

13.       The inventor's email offer to Sears with their reply asking the inventor to contact them when the inventor obtained the a patent, 1 page, dated Oct 26, 1997.

 

14.       Various web pages from Wortsmith’s and other websites connecting Wortsmith’s LTCI to Laser Arbor (which Wortsmith mentions by name) to Sears - which he mentions as a seller of the Laser Arbor. And indeed Sears does sell the Laser Arbor. There is no doubt that the Laser Trac is a name that Sears assigned to the Laser Arbor. Sears is licensed by Ryobi. Ryobi is not licensed; their putative license is a forgery sold to them for $1,000,000 by thief Wortsmith after Wortsmith embezzled my promotional video and other promotional materials way back in (date) _________. Wortsmith fraudulently claimed to be an agent for Inventor Kelly and used the embezzled promotional video as his own. Wortsmith thereby duped the poseurs into posing as children of a deceased inventor. Ryobi, having already committed to manufacturing the Laser Arbor for Sears, now chose to perpetrate the fraud and cover up the theft by falsely marking the Laser Arbors and by defrauding the patent office by obtaining a fraudulent design patent.: “A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent” - 35 USC 281- Remedy for infringement of patent.

            a.         2001 May. Kansas university news letter ties thief Joe Wortsmith to duped Sears.

            b.         2005 Aug 13. Joe Wortsmith continues to offer my Laser Arbor for sale.

            c.          AMI current web page explains their role in designing for thief Joe Wortsmith.

            d.         Worthsmith New letter.

            e.         Another newsletter from Wortsmith.

 

15.       2001 May 1. Skil Bosch letter of interest. Skil bosch opportunity letter.

 

16.        1999 Oct 17. Inventor Kelly’s offer to license Joe Worthsmith.

 

17.       Patent Disclosure package by Inventor Kelly including Notarized Disclosure of Invention.  

8 pages

Date reached mailroom: Feb 10, 1995.

 

18.       Page 1 of Attorney Brandenberg’s fraud upon the patent office. Has his name on it.

A. Certificate from patent office.

B Brandenberg’s fraudulate application. Date: 2001 May 30. Recall that Ryobi knew about the fraud before may 9 at least.

 

19.       Attorney Brandenberg’s fraudulent application to the patent office. Note that Attorney Brandenberg failed to attach that page from the probate records that showed what was in the inventory of the estate. On per speculation we contend that the patent was not listed in the property of the estate.

19 pages.

Date: 30 May 2001. Recorded 6 June 2001.

Date of approval of accounting: November 9, 2000.

As of this date the probate lawyer Kelly must have known that there was no invention or he would have listed it in the estate.

 

20.       2005 August 27. As shown in this recent copy from the website of the patent office, the bogus assignment instigated by Bugos remains on the records. The patent office has been defrauded into making an assignment of my patent to the poseurs and then to Ryobi. This mistake is the intention of defendant conspirator lawyer Brandenberg of the firm of Brooks in the state of Michigan working a the behest of defendant lawyer Bugos of Ryobi. Despite being advised of the mistake they have never taken any steps to correct. The mistake. I even explained to them how to correct the mistake in my letter depicted in Exhibit 25.

 

21.       Became Exhibit 9.

 

22.       2002 April 23. Order in the Chicago case regarding my invention. 8 pages.

 

23.       2002 Jan 15 and later. 2 version Letter from Attorney Michael Davidson proves that they knew that Inventor Kelly is not Broglen Corporation.

 

24.       2004 Dec 13. In response to our accusation of fraud against Attorney Brandenberg, Ryobi agrees to sell the stolen patent back to us for $1.

 

25.       Robert’s letter of January 4, 2005, rejecting the $1 offer of Ryobi.

 

26.       Email from Mallin telling us that many defendants are represented by counsel but failing to tell us who is their counsel.

 

27.       My 14 minute video filmed on June 16, 1995 depicting my working prototype is at this following link: q.wmv This video is on the CD at this following link: ___ and is published on the internet at this link: ____ This is the video that Joe Wortsmith misappropriated and converted to his own use in order to attempt to steal my patent. He received $1 million from Ryobi for my patent which he never owned. 1995 June 16. I filmed my Laser Arbor promotional demonstration video. Later I would send this to Wortsmith the thief from LTCI. Wortsmith would later commit wire fraud and mail fraud as follows: Wortsmith would then reject my proposal to license him. Wortsmith would nonetheless embezzle this video and my document disclosure information. Wortsmith would later build my patented device and attempt to sell my rights to Ryobi - telling them falsely that he owned the rights.

 

 

 

 


 

Appendix #1: Supplemental List of Parties who were players not amounting to defendants.

1.         Sears is not a defendant. Sears is a retailer. They sell my product. Their liability stems from the bad deeds of Ryobi and Wortsmith. I can get my remedy from Ryobi and Wortsmith.

2.         Ridgid/ Emmerson Electric get their infringing products from Ryobi. I can get my remedy from Ryobi.

3.         Attorney Lindi Baker of Exhibit 9 is not a defendant. She was merely duped.

4.         Attorney Kelly is not a defendant. We have insufficient proof.

5.         Caluori is not a defendant in this case.

6.         The patent worker/ engineer types at Ryobi are not defendants.

7.         Caluori will be sued in another case. His patent 6 035 757 fraudulently fails to mention my earlier patent 5 862 727 as prior art. Caluori is a convicted felon scam artist.Non-Defendant: BladePoint and Raymond Caluori.

8.         BladePoint sells an infringing device in this judicial district.

9.         We have elected to sue them in a separate action.

10.       In order to sue Caluori without using my patent, Ryobi further defrauded the patent office with the bogus patents depicted in Exhibit 10 - especially Design patent 460469.

11.       Raymond Caluori of Bladepoint is a convicted felon who has switched to patent fraud as his new career.

12.       BladePoint Corporation is at 5 Briggs Street, Suite 3, P.O. Box #182 Quincy, Massachusetts 02170 Phone: 617 770-4575.

13.       This cause of action appears to be unrelated to the Ryobi infringement.

14.       The founders of BladePoint, Raymond Caluori and James R. Baird obtained a patent by fraud.

15.       They sell an infringing device for $149.95.

16.       The patent office erred in issuing them US Patent No. 6,035,757 in that the device offers nothing new and novel.

17.       My patent was filed and issued more than a year before their patent.

18.       Caluori defrauded the patent office by willfully failing to mention my patent as prior art.

19.       Raymond Caluori of Quincy, Massachusetts was convicted in federal court of promoting a fraudulent credit repair scam.

20.       Caluori tried to steal my invention when he got information about the Laser Arbor before it was patented, possibly from my early marketing stages when I only had a Document Disclosure on file with the patent office.

21.       Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation, hereinafter “KTEC” was apparently duped into assisting the Infringer, Joe Wortsmith.

22.       KTEC is at 214 SW 6th St., First Floor Topeka, Kansas 66603. Phone 785 296 5272. Fax 785 296 1160.

23.       KTEC is a state-owned corporation established by Kansas to promote advanced technology economic development.

24.       KTEC has built a statewide network to support researchers, entrepreneurs, and businesses through each phase of the technology life cycle, resulting in a successful product.

25.       KTEC's many programs and affiliate organizations fall into three basic functional areas: research, investment and business assistance.

26.       KTEC is funded by proceeds from the Economic Development Initiatives Fund, which consists of revenues from the Kansas Lottery and Racing Commission.

27.       KTEC article is at http://www.amiksu.org/fall00.html

28.       Mid-America Commercialization Corporation hereinafter “MACC” is an organization duped by Joe Wortsmith to pursue additional commercialization opportunities to promote the Laser Arbor patent.


 

List of statutes cited in this complaint:

28 USC 1338 Jurisdiction for patent cases. 1

28 USC 1391. Venue 1

35 U.S.C. 292. False marking. 1

35 USC 271. 1

35 USC 282. My patent is presume valid. 1

35 USC 284 triple damages 1

35 USC 285. attorneys fees and costs 1

35 USC Section 271. Definition of patent infringement 1

Tariff Act of 1930. Section 337 1

28 USC 1338 Jurisdiction for patent cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 3 of 29

28 USC 1391. Venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 of 29

35 U.S.C. 292. False marking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 19 of 29

35 USC 271. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 of 29

35 USC 282. My patent is presume valid.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17 of 29

35 USC 284 triple damages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18 of 29

35 USC 285. attorneys fees and costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 of 29

35 USC Section 271. Definition of patent infringement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 16 of 29

Tariff Act of 1930. Section 337. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 17 of 29