A bit of research on the law firm representing this "company" indicates they are a reputable law firm with offices in the USA.
The information on the signer of the letter indicates that this individual specializes in, among other areas, intellectual property and software.
The letter I saw is exactly like the one that kseldridge1 posted.
Here is a link to a short, 5 minutes, CBS News video about what they term "patent trolls:
Legalize it: "Patent troll" lawsuits slow the economy, squash innovation - CBS News Video
Originally Posted by Colorblind
This looks like what happened in other industries... Example for the movie business, some studios have initiated the same letter scheme (from some low grade attorneys offices) asking people who downloaded an illegal copy of their movie (in this case "Hurtlocker") to pay a few thousand dollars to avoid a lawsuit against them. Since their "proof" was circumstantial only (they had IP addresses), it was doomed from start and had no chance in court. However, the phishing letter scheme got them money from people (without legal experience) who were scared.
This looks like the same scheme.
My 2 cents...
Last edited by Ultimate; 04-26-2013 at 07:23 AM.
I agree that the letter does appear to be a phishing exercise - especially considering its general nature, that it's not directed to a specific individual, that it requires you to provide the information as to how you're supposedly guilty of infringing, at that there's an arbitrary threatening deadline.
I wouldn't contact the authors of the letter. Instead I would contact my workflow vendor, tell them that the purchase of their workflow (do you own it or are you merely licensing it as is the case with almost all software) may have put you into a patent infringment liability. Your vendor has access to more lawyers than you and may be able to advise you.
I'm not a lawyer gordo
That is what we are doing first. We have calls into Kodak and Fuji which are both listed on patents as "referenced". A couple of other printers we know in town with same basic equipment have not received this letter...yet. We did buy our trendsetter 800 from Bob Weber. We wondered if some issue with preowned equipment. I doubt it. Just a thought. I really think they are just looking for a sucker.
My search at USPTO.gov shows both patents are from 1999 and were assigned to Banta Corp. They basically describe in very broad terms web-to-print, in terms of a business practice, and in terms of a file processing system, also incorporating FPOs and thin postscript.
It wants to look like an official document. No stamp, no signature? 101% it's a scam.
I recall years ago some company trying to enforce a "business practices" patent having claimed ownership of combining stochastic + waterless printing.
If anyone who received this letter feels it is a scam it should be reported to the USPS as it would constitute mail fraud.
The letter does include contact information, a law firms mast and was signed by one of the lawyers employed by the firm. I am sure kseldrodge1 removed those items, along with the salutation to his company, as I was doing to post my copy when I noticed he had posted his copy. If you watch the video link I posted earlier you will see that these kinds of suits are growing in number and costing industry a lot of money. In the video clip they mentioned that Microsoft fought a similar suit for 8 years before settling.
Both patents list Banta Corporation as the assignee of the patents not CTP Innovations LLC.
Is CTP Innovations LLC a business arm of Banta Corporation?
How does one know if CTP Innovations LLC actually owns the patents that they think they should receive licence fees for?
Is anyone here a member of the PIA? What is their response? I've just sent an email to Michael Makin at the PIA about this. If he responds I'll let everyone know.
Last edited by gordo; 04-26-2013 at 12:46 PM.
Donnelley owns Banta now. Maybe Donnelley has hired people to go after potential patent earnings.
Originally Posted by gordo
Last edited by Erik Nikkanen; 04-26-2013 at 01:29 PM.