Copyrights, Designs & Patents
Our philosophy has always been "to make the footprints, not to follow in them". We do all our own research and development work.
The proprietors, authorized distributors and valued clients hereby let it be be known that disclosure of information via this website is intended solely to promote satisfactory understanding of the disclosed concepts. No part of this disclosure may be reproduced in any form for the purpose of trade or promotion of any kind of technology, treatment, material, product or concept without the written permission from the proprietors. Registered names, trademarks and patents, even when not specified as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Disclosure constitutes proprietors' offer to sell products, materials and treatments, for purchase by distributor/ consumer. Authorization to use described product, material, treatment, technology in a battery system must be so confirmed by way of invoicing, as issued by the proprietors or by their authorized distributors. Disclosure does not constitute concession to acquire or dispose of by way of trade, nor consent to any use of products, materials, treatments, technologies as herein described. Permission to acquire, dispose of by way of trade or use will not be unreasonably witheld.
Proprietors manufacture product for sale in own country, and also for export. Propietors may, instead of exporting, consider licensing the technology in other countries. Proprietors may consider selling patent relating to a country or countries where local industry is obviously in a much better position to promote the technology. Proprietors may consider assisting growth of industries in economically deprived areas.
A patent is an exclusive right granted to a person(s) by government authority for an invention, to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale or selling the invention or importing the invention for a period of twenty years from date of filing. Batteryvitamin is not an improvement but an original technology. Twelve years in preparation, it is patented comprehensively in terms of material, function and structure - no aspect may be used for the purpose of manufacture, trade, nor battery treatment, without proper written authorization.
Patent offices do not have jurisdiction over questions of patent infringement. Enforcing that exclusive right is entirely up to the owner of the patent, via courts of law. This can be relatively easy if the parties are happy to sit down together and work out an equitable solution, or has the potential of becoming a drawn-out and costly procedure if agreement cannot be reached. Infringement has become remarkably easy to detect: The way the internet works not only provides every business with an audience of billions, it also provides the individual members of this audience with an unobstructed view of the activities of every business.
Some people believe patents are unfair. There is an element of truth in this but having no patenting system at all would probably destroy the fabric of our modern industrialized societies. Most large corporations do not hold the rights of small entity patent owners in high regard. They can be surprisingly willing to infringe patents belonging to small entities when they can see that it makes economic sense. Lawyers for these corporations instruct their clients not to respond to letters from the owners of the patents and to refuse to negotiate. That is their strategy.
There have been some very significant changes in recent years in the way patents can be protected (42 pages pdf). Patent litigation specialists charging by the hour have been overtaken by patent litigation specialists who work on contingency: No win, no fee - win and share the proceeds. This area of legal practice has grown exponentially, (although not the number of actual cases), (Article: David L Schwartz, 54 pages pdf.). Large litigation lawfirms are increasingly representing private inventors and small businesses on this basis. Venture capital is increasingly backing contingency patent infringement litigation.
The Supreme Court of the United States, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), confirmed:
"The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
"The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court. Some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so."
The small business entity patent owner and the self-made inventor have finally been emancipated.