Patent Fraud Evidence Site Home
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
1/30/12: USPTO Opening Satellite Office in Columbus, Ohio Would Be Rewarding
Battelle’s Admitted Patent
Fraud [This page includes
2008-12 Emails to/from USPTO and Dept. of Energy regarding Battelle fraud
with extensive evidence & deposition testimony] From: SatelliteOffices Sent: Tuesday, January 31,
2012 2:03 PM To: 'pulver@bmi.net' Subject: RE: To avoid charges
of unfairness/bias/corruption and protests, USPTO should not award satellite
office to Columbus OH, home of Battelle that's admittedly engaged in
patent fraud [Falsifying inventions] and perjury to conceal 2nd false claims
violation. Dear Mr. Pulver, We received your comments regarding potential future locations
of USPTO satellite offices. The USPTO will consider all comments in response to the Federal Register Notice. Thank you for taking
the time to contribute to this process. Thank you, The USPTO Satellite Office Team ----- Original Message ----- From: pulver@bmi.net Sent: Monday, January 30,
2012 8:53 PM To: satelliteoffices@uspto.gov
Cc: David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV
; azam.khan@uspto.gov
Subject: To avoid charges of
unfairness/bias/corruption and protests, USPTO should not award satellite
office to Columbus OH, home of Battelle that's admittedly engaged in
patent fraud [Falsifying inventions] and perjury to conceal 2nd false claims
violation. Attachments: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
; PortmanBrown-to-USPTO-SatelliteOffices-012612.pdf
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Sent: Saturday, September
25, 2010 7:20 PM Subject: IG Greg Friedman's
Closing/Rejecting the DOE-OIG Complaint Submission Re: Battelle-PNNL Admitted
Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents
Confirm Practice of Invention Misrepresentations/Fraud to the USPTO [e.g.,
False Statements (18 USC 1001) Mr.Kappos, Your email server rejected this email below due to size of the
attachments. Please click http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
for the other document that was originally attached. Thank you. Philip Pulver -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Cc: Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; Steven Koonin [Science] ; Secretary
Chu ; Commerce
Secretary Locke ; David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:55
PM Subject: Greg Friedman's Closing/Rejecting the DOE-OIG Complaint
Submission Re: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony
& Documents Confirm Practice of Invention Misrepresentations/Fraud to the
USPTO [e.g.,
False Statements (18 USC §1001)] Attachments: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
; P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf
-----
Original Message ----- From: Madden,
Ray To: 'Philip
Pulver' Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:20 AM Subject: RE: OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted
Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents
Confirm Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements (18
USC §1001)] Phil: Good afternoon and greetings! Thank you for your Hotline call this morning, followed by your
e-mail. I will incorporate this information into your complaint, P10HL597. If I should have any other questions, I will contact you. I hope you will enjoy a good afternoon and weekend. Ray -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:37 AM Subject:
Re: OIG Complaint
Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirm
Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False
Statements (18 USC §1001)] Ray, See
my answers that immediately follow your
questions below. Thanks. Phil
-----
Original Message ----- From: Madden,
Ray To: 'Philip
Pulver' Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:03 PM Subject: RE:
OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL
Testimony & Documents Confirm
Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False
Statements (18 USC §1001)] Phil: Good afternoon and greetings! Thank you for your two calls to the IG Hotline today, followed
by your e-mail. I will incorporate this information into your complaint, IG Hotline Predication Number P10HL597. Please provide me with an e-mail response to the following two
questions: 1.
When did you file your initial complaint with the USPTO
and what was the outcome? The initial complaint was filed on 10/24/08 [see
below]. USPTO responded on 1/16/09 [below] by avoiding/dropping
the whole fraud matter and recommending I visit the online Inventors
Assistance Center (IAC) for general questions. And despite my
subsequent emails to them, there's been no response. 2.
Why are you reporting this matter to the DOE IG when the
matter/issue may be under the jurisdiction of the USPTO? Battelle's
admitted patent filing fraud is occurring on the premises of DOE
facilities, PNNL which is the first lab Battelle operated prior to the other four 4 DOE
labs it now manages; hence, there's sufficient probable cause for
concern that this patent filing fraud practice is systemic at these 4
labs as well. Battelle makes millions from patenting of DOE-funded inventions;
while admitting patent filing fraud, Battelle is likely
illegally "skimming" royalties away from DOE. Dept. of Commerce
[overseeing USPTO] has done nothing to address this; moreover, Dept. of
Commerce has rewarded Battelle by naming it to the National
Advisory Council on Innovation & Entrepreneurship. Clearly, Secretary
Locke and USPTO Director Kappos are overlooking Battelle's
fraud just as the SEC overlooked Madoff's. Hence, if the DOE-IG passes
on investigating this admitted patent fraud by Battelle, it will
continue unabated at across any or all five Battelle-managed national
labs. Finally, keep in mind that Issue 2 [below] is an actual
2005 incident of such fraud; it pertains to the MDM software developed
for my business under the DOE Technical Assistance Program in 2002-03 and
thus is a continuation of
Battelle's fraud cited in I04RS007. Thank you for your additional insight. I can just see my
management asking me these questions. If I should have any further questions
after I thoroughly review this information, I will contact you. I hope you will enjoy a good afternoon. Ray -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:47
AM Subject: OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent
Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents
Confirm
Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False
Statements (18 USC §1001)] Attachments: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf ; P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf Ray, I am filing a complaint to the DOE Office of Inspector General.
The issues of the allegations are as follows: Issue 1 -- Practice
of Patent Filing Misrepresentation to USPTO: In sworn testimony [Also attached], Battelle-PNNL openly admits
to fraudulently evading
statutory USPTO
patent deadlines
by writing “new” invention reports [with new names] on pre-existing inventions when it needs new “timeframes” [extensions] to file a patent on those inventions they plan to commercialize but
for which prior patent filing deadlines [statutory bars] have expired due to Battelle’s using or disclosing the invention
publicly. By such “resetting the
clock”, Battelle circumvents statutory patent filing rules, thereby
misrepresenting the originally-dated invention(s) to the USPTO when applying
for a patent on the “new” invention; such false statements to the
USPTO violate 18 USC §1001 [False
Statements] and its patent Rules
[§10.23 Misconduct]. Note, because PNNL
is Battelle’s first national lab managed, it’s most
likely that such systemic patent fraud practice is occurring at the other
Battelle-run national labs [ORNL, BNL, INL & NREL]. The public, including inventors and others who legitimately file patent
applications, has a right to know that DOE Office of Science is granting
Battelle an illegal exemption from patent rules [and unfair advantage] in
applying for patents on taxpayer and privately-funded inventions. Issue 2 -- 2005 Incident/Example
of 1: In the testimony cited in Issue 1, Battelle acknowledged an example of such
patent fraud, i.e., 2005 renaming the MDM [Mobile
Data Manager] developed for Pulver’s small business via funding from DOE’s Technical Assistance Program in 2002-03. Namely, after acknowledging that the
2004-05 follow-on MDM software versions were exclusively licensed to Pulver,
Battelle wrote a “NEW” invention report on the 2002 MDM software
inventions [after DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project
adapted MDM to BlackBerry], renamed the “NEW” invention to “RDADS”,
“reset” the statutory patent filing bar/deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions] to 1/31/06 [2005 “NEW” invention], marketed RDADS under NDAs, filed RDADS
patent application in Sept. 2005, and later invested in RDADS/RFID
commercialization. Battelle’s
own documents confirm that MDM was marketed/publicized/demoed in 2003,
thereby invalidating the “new” reset 1/31/06 deadline/bar. Click on the “new code” section for details on this
documented patent fraud incident. See also the evidence site [www.ccol-inc.com/PvB] that has extensive supporting Battelle documentation and deposition
testimony transcripts.
Battelle’s patent-related fraud is detailed in this write-up
[click to download]: P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf [Also attached] The emails below provide further
background. Note, USPTO never responded to my emails or the cited evidence
including Battelle’s admitting to patent filing fraud. Because Battelle manages half the US
national labs, DOE's investigating and
stopping such ongoing admitted systemic patent fraud of DOE-funded
research is clearly in the public interest; Battelle earns many millions of
its patenting each year. Ray, if you need more information,
it's available on request. Thanks. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver CCOL Inc. -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Richard
Cronin Cc: Steven Koonin
; Friedman, Greg [DOE-IG] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:28 PM Subject: Further Justification for DOE-ORO to Release the Trade
Secret Patent-Related Pages Re: 2008-09 Emails Citing Battelle-PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirming
Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice(s) to USPTO [e.g., False Statements
(18 USC §1001)] Attachment: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf Richard
Cronin [DOE-OHA], Per my 8/17/10 email to you, I'm forwarding this 1/29/10
email to the USPTO that also pertains to Battelle's admitted patent
fraud practice
[e.g., evading filing deadlines/bars] and example/incident;
see attached transcript and P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf.
That email cites implications of USPTO [and DOE] exempting
Battelle [managing 5 national labs] from patent rules and laws; citations from the SEC Inspector General show that
the Commerce [USPTO] and Energy Depts. are overlooking
Battelle's fraud in the same way the SEC ignored evidence
implicating prominent Madoff who [like Battelle] served on advisory committees.
As stated below, "In key respects, USPTO’s
refusal to address this substantiated patent fraud/abuse [while still issuing
patents to Battelle] is more egregious than SEC/Madoff" and gives
"credence to recent concerns by Congress and businesses that Commerce
Secretary Locke and the USPTO [Kappos (IBM) & Berejka
(Microsoft)] are proposing patent reforms favoring ‘technology
behemoths’ to the determinant of smaller businesses: www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29002.html". The Commerce Dept. never responded to my 1/29/10 email that cited evidence of Battelle's admitted patent fraud; instead, it named Battelle to the National Advisory Council on Innovation & Entrepreneurship [see 8/17/10 email]. As I stated then, "The absence of any meaningful reply will confirm that the USPTO stands by its current official position of ignoring the evidence [documents & testimony], overlooking billion-dollar Battelle’s ongoing misrepresentations to the USPTO, granting Battelle exemption from USPTO Rules and Laws, and thus tainting the objectivity [level-playing field] of the patent process which adversely impacts entrepreneurs, small businesses, universities and others." DOE releasing the trade secret and patent-related documents would provide compelling evidence for the public, the administration, Congress/GAO and others to address/rectify/halt the fraud and illegal/unfair waiver of patent rules/laws that USPTO & DOE have granted Battelle to the detriment/disadvantage of other inventors and contrary to the President's declared support for small business in the worst economy since the 1930’s. Note: The
scientist [Dorow] implicated in Battelle’s 2005 patent fraud/misrepresentation [18 USC 1001 & Patent Rules §10.23 Misconduct] is a top-secret Q clearance holder who continues accessing DHS air cargo explosives research and other
classified material. Thus, there is probable
cause to conclude that the still-withheld &
concealed patent-related material in Pulver’s file at Oak Ridge further
implicates Dorow in false statements, fraud & perjury which concerns
not only the taxpaying public [re: national security…] and law
enforcement but also the FBI, DOD, DOE, DHS and other agencies divulging
counter-terrorism and other classified information to him. [This Battelle breach
of safeguarding classified information (10 CFR §710) is
cited in my 1/13/10 letter to Secretary Chu.] Richard, in addition to my evidence-based July FOIA appeal and other 2010 emails demonstrating that it is in the public interest to release all the still-withheld documents, the above situation that's tainting the patenting process further justifies DOE releasing the 180 trade secret and patent-related pages that Oak Ridge concealed from its 7/1/10 FOIA response, thus violating DOE-OHA Order TFA-0362 [“Under Department of Energy (DOE) regulations, a document exempt from disclosure under the FOIA shall nonetheless be released to the public whenever the DOE determines that disclosure is not contrary to federal law and in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.”] and forfeiting its right to still withhold those pages. OR’s refusal to even list/describe the 180 pages raises reasonable suspicion that DOE-Science is hiding illegal and criminal activity by Battelle that runs/monopolizes five Office of Science labs and will soon bid PNNL; this further shows that releasing the other 106 pages [withheld per litigation FOIA exemption] with the 180 pages is in the public interest regarding integrity of the US patent process and safeguarding classified information at five national labs [PNNL, ORNL...] and regarding other matters cited in the extensive emails and at the evidence site. Sincerely,
Philip
Pulver Evidence
site: www.ccol-inc.com/PvB -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV
; Margaret.Focarino@USPTO.GOV ; Commerce Secretary Locke
; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:58 PM Subject: Update to USPTO & Request RE:
2008-2009 Emails Citing Battelle-PNNL Testimony & Documents
Confirming Battelle's Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice(s) to USPTO [e.g., False Statements (18 USC
§1001)] Attachment: P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf Information on Battelle's misrepresentations and false
statements [18 USC§1001] to the United States Patent and Trademark Office is being provided to those with the authority & obligation to act in the public interest. CCOL Inc. 2415
South Garfield St. Kennewick,
WA 99337 January
29, 2010 Mr.
Robert Stoll Commissioner for
Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Dept. of Commerce 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Dear
Patent Commissioner Stoll, I’m a small business entrepreneur who is providing evidence of Battelle
patenting misrepresentations [False Statements 18 USC §1001] that was repeatedly sent to
the USPTO since 2008, but which was
ignored. These
violations against the USPTO were uncovered during 2008 depositions at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [PNNL]; Battelle is being sued for misusing
PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] by withholding/pocketing research [Mobile Data Manager
[MDM] software] that DOE
specifically paid Battelle to develop for my small business; details are at
the evidence site. My lawsuit is NOT a
patent dispute. However, in deposition testimony, Battelle acknowledged [admitted] its violations of USPTO
rules/laws: (1) Practice
of Patent Filing Misrepresentation to USPTO: Battelle writes “new” invention reports on pre-existing inventions
when it needs new “timeframes” [extensions] to file a patent on inventions they intend to
commercialize but for which they
have shown publicly or used [statutory bar] By resetting the clock, Battelle
circumvents USPTO statutory filing rules and misrepresents the
originally-dated invention(s). (2) 2005 Incident/Example
[“new code” scheme]: After acknowledging
that MDM follow-on versions were exclusively licensed to Pulver’s small
business, Battelle wrote a
“NEW” invention report on 2002 MDM software inventions [after DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project adapted MDM to BlackBerry], renamed “NEW” invention to
“RDADS”, reset statutory
filing bar/deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions] to 1/31/06 [2005 “NEW” invention], marketed RDADS under NDAs,
filed RDADS patent application in Sept. 2005, and later invested in
RDADS/RFID commercialization. Note, MDM was marketed/publicized/demoed in 2003,
thereby invalidating the 1/31/06 bar.
Previously
sent to USPTO, the attached P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf
includes Battelle
emails, 2002 MDM invention reports, RDADS 2005 patent application, and 2008
PNNL testimony substantiating the violations.
The following excerpts from the PDF and the MisrepresentationToUSPTO section clearly
implicate Battelle: Battelle Testimony: Writing “New” Reports on Old
Inventions to Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example [Q=Question, A=Battelle Answer] “Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there
would have had to be something new, something different between... what Mr. Dorow
was doing and what was previously listed on the Invention Report? A. Most probably
that would be the reason for doing a new Invention Report, although there could be other
reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for instance? I mean, can you think of any? A. Timeframes. Q. What sort of
timeframes?
I don't understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention
Report. A. The timing on how
long we have to process the patent application...there are time
constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]... Example/Incident: Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow
around this timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]? A. We later decided
to try and get a patent on it, after we did a fairly in-depth market
analysis.” Q. So when you say, "New name
- totally different please," what does that refer to?... A. It refers to
trying to get a name that means something in the marketplace... Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it
doesn't sound like the invention had changed.
Is that inaccurate? A. No.“ [Note,
the 2009 Tri-City Herald news article also references
Battelle’s patent-related misrepresentations.] 2009 emails below confirm that the USPTO and Commerce Dept.
Inspector General [Zinser] have taken the official
position of ignoring prima facie evidence/admissions of Battelle’s
patenting misrepresentations [False Statements] that’s occurring
at PNNL and possibly/likely at other labs [ORNL, INL,
BNL...]. Since then, John Doll has retired; there are
new officials in leadership roles at USPTO and Commerce including you, David
Kappos, and Secretary Locke. Accordingly, I request
that the USPTO again review the evidence of Battelle’s
misrepresentations to the patent office and confirm that the USPTO either: (1) Affirms its official [current] position of exempting Battelle from USPTO rules/laws [e.g., statutory
bars, false statements] and
continues granting Battelle unfair advantage over others who accurately/truthfully
represent inventions to the patent office. OR (2) Rescinds Battelle’s
exemption, will conduct investigation [or DOJ referral], holds Battelle
accountable for violations/fraud against the USPTO,
and takes measures preventing this patenting fraud/abuse at ALL labs they
manage [PNNL,
ORNL...] Concerns/Questions
Re: Battelle Being Exempted from USPTO Rules & Laws [Note:
Prior cited concerns and issues are enumerated in the 2008 & 2009 emails below.] • This patenting fraud/abuse may be systemic practice at half the US national labs where Battelle
patents & commercializes DOE-funded inventions. USPTO’s
continuing to grant such an exemption to Battelle materially taints the objectivity
of the patenting process and will outrage entrepreneurs, corporations, and
others adversely impacted by the double-standard favoring Battelle, which is
among the most
prolific patent filers in the US, generates significant fee revenue for budget-strapped USPTO, earns millions on
patenting & commercializing taxpayer-funded research, receives billions in federal contracts annually, and
manages other sites [e.g., DHS National Biodefense
Analysis and Countermeasures Center at Fort Detrick]. Is the USPTO overlooking these violations
to ensure that Battelle [a major revenue source] wins the upcoming bid(s) of PNNL and ORNL [Oak Ridge]? •
For decades, Battelle’s prominence/expertise in patenting and
technology commercialization [e.g., R&D 100] has been well known by the USPTO and by Secretary Locke
for whom Battelle-PNNL was a key constituent during his terms as WA governor.
Similarly, undisputed was Madoff’s stature on Wall Street and with
the SEC, which helped him escape accountability for many years until he
confessed. The 2009 SEC Inspector General Report,
citing Madoff’s prominence/reputation at the
SEC, clearly shows parallels between SEC/Madoff & USPTO/Battelle
situations. It further explains why
USPTO senior officials
are similarly overlooking Battelle’s admitted patenting misrepresentations/fraud, as the following
excerpts illustrate: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf
- IG Investigation of
Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme “The OIG
investigation also found the
Enforcement staff was skeptical
about Markopolos’
complaint
because Madoff did not fit the “profile” of a Ponzi scheme operator, with the branch chief...noting...“an inherent bias towards sort of people who are seen as reputable members of society.” [Pg. 36] “Examiners...aware of Bernard Madoff’s stature
in the securities industry...Madoff’s
firm “was very prominent”...served on various industry committees,
was a well respected individual...SEC
examiners used an NASD manual with Bernard Madoff’s
name in it...stated...because of [his] reputation... may not have been any thought to look into Madoff’s operation any
further.” [Pg. 50] “examiners recalled OCIE
[Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations]
telling them Madoff was a powerful
and well-connected individual... interpreted the statement to raise a concern for them about pushing
Madoff too hard...supervisors at the SEC appear to have been reluctant to push issues
against influential people” [Pg. 199] After
Madoff confessed, Lamore
[Examiner] reflected in an e-mail with...Enforcement Assistant Regional Director, about why they were unable to uncover the
fraud...acknowledged that at the senior levels of the SEC, the hesitancy
towards rocking the boat may be
even more pronounced with respect to someone
like Bernie Madoff, who’s a well-known
person in industry... easier to be more aggressive when you are examining
a “penny-stock firm” rather than, for instance, Goldman
Sachs...“very difficult”...“to tell Bernie Madoff that
he’s a liar.”” [Pg. 387] •
If the USPTO continues
allowing Battelle to act as a ‘Madoff’ of the patenting & intellectual property community, then inventors,
Congress and others need to know that USPTO has granted Battelle [501(c)3] unfair advantage over small
businesses, universities and others who abide by the patent Rules and Laws. It would also give credence to recent
concerns by Congress and businesses that Commerce Secretary Locke and USPTO [Kappos (IBM) & Berejka (Microsoft)] are proposing patent reforms favoring ‘technology
behemoths’ to the determinant of smaller businesses: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29002.html [In key respects, USPTO’s
refusal to address this substantiated patent fraud/abuse [while still issuing
patents to Battelle] is more egregious than SEC/Madoff.] •
The current situation raises many questions;
many are in emails below, but I also cite some here. Is Battelle now further
emboldened to violate USPTO rules/laws now that Gary Locke is Commerce Secretary? Battelle-PNNL was a key constituent when he
was WA governor. Will Battelle rely on
this relationship to shield them from oversight & enforcement in the
same way that Madoff’s
interactions/reputation with SEC officials enabled him to defraud investors
after SEC rebuffed credible whistleblower complaints for a decade? Is Battelle using its dominance/monopoly at
the national labs [with substantial patenting] to bully the USPTO and/or DOE to overlook its
admitted fraudulent patent practices at PNNL or elsewhere? If so, is Battelle violating anti-trust
laws? Note:
Additional concerns, implications and questions are in the 2008-2009 emails
below. If you need more information or have questions, please let me
know. The absence of any meaningful reply
will confirm that the USPTO stands by its current official position of
ignoring the evidence [documents & testimony], overlooking billion-dollar
Battelle’s ongoing misrepresentations to the USPTO, granting Battelle
exemption from USPTO Rules and Laws, and thus tainting the objectivity [level-playing field] of the patent
process which adversely impacts entrepreneurs, small businesses, universities
and others. I look
forward to hearing from you. Thank
you. Sincerely, Philip C. Pulver (509) 528-9212 cell http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB [Evidence
Site - Main Page] http://PatentFraud.org/MisrepresentationToUSPTO.htm [Dorow False Statements to Patent Office - Battelle Commercialization admits evading USPTO Statutory Bars] http://PatentFraud.org/Emails-NewCode-2005.htm
[Dorow Suddenly Calling MDM-on-BlackBerry
“new code” to Defraud Licensee [“Pulver is Toast”]
and Mislead USPTO] http://PatentFraud.org/Declaration-PulverAwards-CrtDoc221.pdf [Pulver Background &
Entrepreneurial Awards from Battelle] http://PatentFraud.org/Depositions.htm
[Battelle-PNNL Scientist Testimony Showing Dorow's
Perjury & False Declarations, and False Statments
to USPTO] http://PatentFraud.org/Documents.htm [Summary Detailed Outlines by
Topic with Pop-Open Exhibits]
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: W.
Covey [USPTO.gov] ; john.doll@uspto.gov ; M.
Focarino [USPTO.gov] ; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV ; hotline@oig.doc.gov
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:34 PM Subject: Response to 2/23/09 USPTO
Email Responding to Pulver's 1/31/09 Email Re: Testimony & Documents
Confirming Battelle Patent Fraud Practice(s) Attachments: Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
; 20090223103929044.pdf
; FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf Dear
Mr. Wiley [Office of Commissioner for Patents], I have
received your 2/23/09 USPTO final response to my 1/31/09 letter to Mr.
Covey [Deputy General
Counsel for General Law at USPTO] who
responded to my 1/5/09 email; all are below.
I am emailing a reply which consists of the following sections: 1.
Specific responses to your 2/23/09 USPTO message [20090223103929044.pdf attached] 2.
Questions raised by the USPTO ignoring Battelle’s
acknowledged/admitted patent fraud and false statements 3.
Relevant closing points [e.g., SEC/Madoff vis-ŕ-vis USPTO/Battelle and
Congressional hearings] 1. Specific responses to your 2/23/09 USPTO message [20090223103929044.pdf]
As with Mr. Covey, your response ignores the critical Battelle
deposition testimony acknowledging fraudulent patent filing practice at the Pacific Northwest National Lab. Instead, you
did a cursory cut & paste from (1) Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure [MPEP] (Regulations), (2) 18 USC §1001 [Fraud
& False Statements] which I cited, and (3) USPTO
General Information Page [http://www.uspto.gov/go/pac/doc/general].
The
following excerpts of my 1/31/09 email reiterate the central, critical issue that the USPTO repeatedly disregards: (i)
“This
message is response to your 1/16/09 email below that referred my complaint to
the USPTO Inventors Assistance Center [IAC] Contrary
to your email, I’m not a customer but a whistleblower who’s
providing evidence [testimony & documents] of Battelle’s practice of evading statutory
deadlines by writing “new” [faked] invention reports... By referring my complaint to an organization [IAC] that
obviously doesn’t address fraud, Deputy Director Doll’s office is
turning a blind eye and ignoring prima facie evidence of Battelle’s patent fraud and false statements [18 USC
§1001], allegations substantiated by Battelle documents &
testimony to a Federal judge.” (ii) [Writing “New” Reports
on Old Inventions to Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example] [Q=Question, A=Battelle
Answer] “Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there would have had to be something new, something different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what was previously listed on the
Invention Report? A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new
Invention Report, although there could be other reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for
instance? I mean, can you think of
any? A. Timeframes. Q.
What sort of timeframes? I don't understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention
Report. A.
The timing on how long we have to process the
patent application...there are time
constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]... [Example/Incident: ] Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around this
timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]?. A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after we
did a fairly in-depth market analysis.” Q.
So when you say, "New name
- totally different please," what
does that refer to?... A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something in
the marketplace... Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it doesn't sound
like the invention had changed. Is
that inaccurate? A. No. “ [From re-attached Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
]” You state that “the USPTO
generally trusts that the applicant's statements are true”. However, after being provided with
information showing otherwise, you and Mr. Covey sidestep
the issue by ignoring Battelle’s candid testimony confirming ongoing
deceptive patent filing practice(s). You cite the 2005 patent fraud
example and mischaracterize my complaint as a patent dispute despite my prior
emails to the contrary. In so doing, you
evaded the central issue, i.e., Battelle’s systemic patent fraud
practice(s) at PNNL and possibly at other labs they manage. You note
that “since the USPTO is not a regulatory or judicial agency with
prosecutorial authority, it does not prosecute people for fraud”. Yes,
that’s true, which is why Dept. of Commerce and other agencies [DOE,
SEC...] refer criminal matters [e.g., fraud &
false statements (18 USC §1001)] to Dept. of Justice when wrongdoing is uncovered in agency
investigations. Although not a
regulatory agency per se, the USPTO has sole statutory responsibility to
issue patents in accordance with its many regulations, some of which you
emailed to me. In sum, their inability
to prosecute doesn’t justify the USPTO and its OIG turning a blind eye
to patenting fraud & abuse, especially by Battelle,
prominent in patenting of Government research. Cited neither by you nor Mr. Covey, the Commerce Dept. OIG Web site states the following: “As mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978, the mission of the Office of Inspector
General is to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and detect and prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement
in the programs and operations of the Department of
Commerce.” [http://www.oig.doc.gov] Accordingly, I sent complaints to
the DOC-OIG on 10/24/08 and 1/5/09.
Mr. Covey responded to my “complaint sent January 05, 2009, via email to the Department of Commerce Inspector General Hotline”. Therefore, the Covey and Wiley emails
document that the USPTO and the Commerce Dept. Office of Inspector General
have taken the official position to overlook Battelle-PNNL’s fraudulent patenting
practice(s) that’s unequivocally confirmed by Battelle testimony and
their numerous exhibits. 2. Questions raised by the USPTO ignoring
Battelle’s acknowledged/admitted patent fraud and false statements Others will now ask questions why USPTO senior officials flatly
ignored Battelle’s fraudulent patenting practice that’s
corroborated by testimony. Examples of such questions are as follows: Why is the USPTO turning a blind eye to
admitted patent filing fraud by tax-exempt Battelle which runs 5 of the 10
DOE national labs, manages many others [e.g., DHS (National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center) and DOD
(Fort Detrick(Anthrax))], files far more
patent applications than most, takes title to
inventions and commercializes taxpayer-funded research, oversees top-secret Q clearance holders filing patents, and receives billions in
Federal Gov. contracts annually? Why are USPTO Deputy Director Doll and Patent
Commissioner Focarino tolerating Battelle’s
admitted fraudulent patent filing practice(s) that could undermine the reputation and integrity
of the patent-examining process that they’ve both worked in and managed
for over 30 years? Will Battelle be further emboldened to violate
USPTO rules & laws once Gary Locke
is confirmed as Commerce Secretary? Battelle-PNNL was a major constituent during
his terms as WA governor. Is the USPTO stonewalling a fraud
investigation [and criminal referral to Dept. of Justice] that could
jeopardize one of its “best customers”, Battelle, winning the upcoming recompete/bid of PNNL that’s been managed & operated by Battelle
since 1965? Given the SEC/Madoff debacle and other
fraud-related current events that have outraged Congress and the taxpaying
public, why is the USPTO precluding an investigation of 501(c)3
tax-exempt Battelle regarding these serious fraud matters that have ominous
implications for inventors, investors, small and large
business, and others who, in good faith, rightfully rely on an unbiased, level-playing field regarding patents and trademarks? 3. Relevant closing points [e.g., SEC/Madoff vis-ŕ-vis
USPTO/Battelle and Congressional hearings] The USPTO’s ignoring
Battelle’s patenting fraud is akin to the SEC’s overlooking
detailed & analytical allegations
against Madoff dating back to 1999. Madoff was
prominent in finance/investing, e.g., Chairman of NASDAQ. Similarly, Battelle, preeminent in
patenting/commercialization/ventures of taxpayer-funded research, manages
more Federal labs than anyone. Given their dismissive responses to
extensive Battelle documents &
testimony, it’s quite apparent that USPTO senior officials are ignoring
lessons learned from SEC/Madoff and will repeat history if they allow
Battelle’s fraudulent patenting practice(s) to continue. There’s a critical difference between the SEC/Madoff and
USPTO/Battelle situations. Unlike the SEC which received
an individual’s
allegations [“Markopolos v. Madoff”], the USPTO was provided with official Battelle-PNNL deposition testimony
clearly acknowledging Battelle’s fraudulent patenting
practice(s). SEC ignored
allegations while USPTO even ignores actual testimony with corroborating
documents. In that important
respect, the USPTO’s abject refusal to
investigate/address this substantiated patent fraud/abuse evidence [while nonetheless
issuing patents to Battelle] is more egregious than the SEC dropping the ball with
Madoff. Due to
key similarities between SEC/Madoff and
USPTO/Battelle, these excerpts of recent Madoff-related
Congressional hearings are most relevant: Excerpt of Congress’s outrage at SEC agency abdicating oversight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I&feature=related
[Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) re: SEC ignoring whistleblower Markopolos’ reporting of Madoff fraud 10 years
ago.] Madoff whistleblower Markopolos
testifying to Congress voicing concerns similar to mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06vrqMJd2NQ&feature=related [Excerpts: “Mr. Madoff was one of most powerful men on Wall Street. He owned a prestigious brokerage firm. He and his brother held numerous top-level positions on the most influential
industry association boards. Clearly,
the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff.”] This chain of emails, with explicit Battelle testimony & exhibits, provides
a documented audit trail repeatedly showing that the USPTO and its OIG are waiving patenting rules for Battelle
[prominent in intellectual property commercialization] which generates
significant patent fee revenue back to the USPTO annually. It’s
pointless to send a 3rd response dismissive of Battelle’s
admitted violations of USPTO regulations.
Apparently, only parties external to the patent
office will ultimately hold Battelle accountable and end their ongoing
fraud/abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Pulver http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm [Patent Fraud Section] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 [Main Case Site] PS. As background for those later reading this
email chain, I reattached the evidence documents [Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf & FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf]. -----
Original Message ----- From:
"Jackson, Elisa" <Elisa.Jackson@USPTO.GOV> To: <pulverps@frontier.com> Sent: Monday,
February 23, 2009 7:03 AM Subject:
Response to Your E-Mail of January 31, 2009 This
e-mail is being sent to you on behalf of David Wiley. A copy of the
signed letter is attached. [20090223103929044.pdf]
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Covey,
William Cc: Deputy Director
Doll ; Commissioner Focarino ; hotline@oig.doc.gov
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:55
PM Subject:
Re: January 05, 2009, Hotline Complaint to
the Department of Commerce Inspector General Re: Battelle Patent Fraud Attachments: Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
; FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf Dear Mr. Covey, This message is response to your 1/16/09 email below
that referred my complaint to the USPTO Inventors Assistance Center [IAC] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pacmain.html].
However,
for the following reasons, referring my complaint [re: Battelle fraud] to the IAC is clearly
inappropriate: 1. In a 1/16/09 call, the IAC itself clearly
confirmed that (a) It does NOT address fraud and
other issues in my complaint, (b) IAC’s
purpose is to answer questions and provide instructions to
inventors writing patent applications, and (c) Regarding fraud, I should call
541-272-8800, Patent Commissioner Focarino’s
office (copied previously). 2.
Contrary to your email, I’m not a customer but a whistleblower
who’s providing evidence [testimony & documents] of Battelle’s practice
of evading statutory deadlines by writing
“new” [faked] invention reports that’s illustrated by their
2005 rename [RDADS] of 2002 software
inventions. By
referring my complaint to an organization [IAC] that obviously doesn’t
address fraud, Deputy Director Doll’s office is turning a blind eye and ignoring prima facie evidence of
Battelle’s patent fraud and false statements [18 USC §1001], allegations
substantiated by Battelle documents & testimony to a Federal judge. [See attached FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf.] Accordingly, the following
questions are justified and likely to be asked by investigators,
subcommittees, watchdog groups, GAO, inventors, bloggers, corporations,
universities, and others outside USPTO: - Why is USPTO abdicating oversight by looking the other way and waiving
patent rules/laws for Battelle?
Why the double standard? - Is such a waiver occurring because Battelle nationally
provides significant revenue [fees] to USPTO through its extensive patenting of
Government-funded research? - Did DOE Science Undersecretary & Tech. Transfer Coordinator Orbach or other
DOE officials pressure USPTO not to investigate Battelle’s
admitted/documented patenting fraud in this matter? [Note, DOE-Science refused to address the
patent fraud; see 8/27/08 email below.] - Why is USPTO ignoring my evidence [95-page report, Web site &
testimony] against Battelle just as SEC
previously ignored Markopolos’ 19-page complaint against prominent financial advisor Madoff? Is it because Battelle Memorial Institute is prominent in patenting & commercializing intellectual property? This email and attachments will document that the USPTO
was aware of testimony & documents implicating Battelle Memorial
Institute in patent filing fraud at PNNL and possibly at four other DOE
national labs, at the DHS National Biodefense
Analysis and Countermeasures Center, etc. To further show that the USPTO knew
of this fraud, excerpts of Battelle testimony from attached Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf are quoted below. Battelle's
sworn statements speak for themselves: [Writing “New” Reports on Old Inventions to
Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example] [Q=Question, A=Battelle
Answer] Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there would have had
to be something new, something
different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what was previously listed on
the Invention Report? A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new
Invention Report, although there could be other reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for
instance? I mean, can you think of
any? A. Timeframes. Q.
What sort of timeframes? I don't
understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention Report. A.
The timing
on how long we have to process the patent application...there are
time constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]. [Example/Incident: ] Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around this
timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]?. A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after we
did a fairly in-depth market analysis. Q.
So when you say, "New name - totally different please," what does that refer to?... A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something in
the marketplace... Q. So when you say, "New IP number driven from the NEW IR that you write," IR, is that
Invention Report? A. Correct. Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it doesn't sound like the invention
had changed. Is that inaccurate? A. No.
... Q. And is this the IR that you had asked Mr. Dorow to submit
with a new
name on it? A. I assume so. Q. Okay. So the new name
is Rapid Data Acquisition and Dissemination System? [RDADS] [See Patent App.] A. That appears to
be the case. USPTO
refusal to hold Battelle accountable for documented/admitted patent fraud
necessitates others to investigate and ask why USPTO is granting 501(c)(3)
Battelle an exemption from patent rules/laws, thereby granting them an unfair
advantage over corporations, universities, other DOE/DOE/DHS contractors, and individual
inventors that submit patent applications in good faith. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm [Patent Fraud Section] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm [Official Testimony Corroborating Battelle Patent
Fraud] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 [Main Case Site] -----
Original Message ----- From: Covey, William Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 11:00 AM Subject:
January 05, 2009, Hotline Complaint to the
Department of Commerce Inspector General CCOL Inc. 2415 RE: Your January 05, 2009,
Hotline Complaint to the Department of Commerce Inspector General Dear Mr. Pulver: I am sending this letter in response to your
complaint sent January 05, 2009, via email to the Department of Commerce
Inspector General Hotline. You copied John Doll, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director, upon sending the
complaint. The USPTO takes
very seriously the concerns of its customers, such as yourself, and the
public in general. Accordingly, I am responding to you directly on
behalf of Deputy Director Doll and the USPTO. In
furtherance of the USPTO’s commitment to
serving our customers, the USPTO has established The Inventors Assistance
Center (IAC), which provides patent related information and services to the
public. The IAC is staffed by experienced former primary and
supervisory patent examiners who are highly knowledgeable with regard to the
policies and procedures of the USPTO. I
invite you to contact the IAC with any concerns or questions you may have
regarding our patent policies or procedures. The IAC operating
hours are Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST. You may
contact the IAC at the following telephone numbers: 800-786-9199 or
571-272-1000. The
USPTO is committed to providing its customers with the highest level of
service. I encourage you to contact the IAC directly when you have any
patent related questions or concerns Sincerely, William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel for General Law -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: todd.zinser@oig.doc.gov
; Commissioner Focarino ; Deputy Director
Doll ; andrew.caldwell@uspto.gov Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:46 PM Subject:
Complaint Re-Submission: Battelle
documents & their 2008 deposition testimony confirm/admit
fraudulent patent practice at PNNL - 2005 incident cited. Attachments:
FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf ; Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
OIG at
Dept. of Commerce, As shown in
the previous email, I provided the OIG hotline with detailed documents and
candid testimony substantiating Battelle's fraudulent patent practice at
PNNL; all this evidence originated from Battelle itself and not from
me. The OIG did not respond to my complaint
of 10/24/08 [over 60 days ago]. Today’s email is my 2nd submission of this complaint to
the Dept. of Commence OIG. Battelle’s violations of patent rules and its false
statements [18 USC
§1001] warrant
diligent attention by appropriate officials. Battelle emails, other
documents, and testimony speak for themselves. However,
I re-emphasize the following key points made previously: · My lawsuit against Battelle is NOT
patent litigation. However, Battelle senior
commercialization staff gave testimony [attached] clearly
acknowledging: (1) Their
practice of renaming prior inventions and filing
them as "new" to bypass USPTO
statutory bars [re:
use & public disclosure] on the original invention[s] and (2) Their renaming
2002 software inventions in 2005 to call
them “new”, “resetting the clock” to extend
previously missed statutory deadlines, and fraudulently filing a patent
application on the "new" 2005 invention. See http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070064477&OS=20070064477&RS=20070064477 · The attached 96-page FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf contains Battelle documents [e.g., emails, 2002 invention
reports & 2005 patent application] and 2008 testimony confirming their patent filing fraud/abuse practices, 2005
example/incident and false statements to USPTO et
al. This document also includes side-by-side comparison of their
2005 patent claims with the 2002 software inventions. · The online
version of this patenting-related information [exhibits, testimony &
case background] is at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm. Battelle deposition
transcripts are at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm. Site homepage with
additional evidence is http://www.ccol-inc.com/1. · The substantiated patent
fraud/abuse allegations are highlighted in
my 8/24/08 email to DOE below. On 8/27/08, DOE
Office of Science acknowledged these concerns but flatly refused to take any
action; it’s apparent that DOE withheld this information from
the Commerce Dept. Accordingly, I forwarded this information to the OIG
at Commerce; now, senior USPTO officials are being copied. · This patent filing fraud/abuse may
be systemic practice at all five Battelle-managed
national labs that involve
Battelle’s actively patenting and commercializing taxpayer-funded
inventions. · Note, developer Kevin Dorow is the
primary named inventor on the patent application.
Battelle documents and testimony implicate him
in making false statements, perjury, patent fraud, and violating the False
Claims Act. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm. If I do not receive a substantive reply to this re-submitted
complaint by 1/23/09 [90 days from 1st submission], it will confirm that Dept. of Commerce OIG
is ignoring these substantiated allegations and waiving enforcement of USPTO
patent rules & laws for Battelle [501(c)(3) tax-exempt] which manages half
the country’s national labs, has unique privileges in commercializing
publicly-funded research, and is the largest private research organization in
the US.
Battelle files
far more patents annually than most other government, educational or
corporate/industrial organizations. Regardless of the OIG’s
decision, this email and accompanying Web site will serve as documented
record that your office received a preponderance of evidence substantiating
Battelle’s violations of USPTO rules and US Code. Technology
companies, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, universities, other
contractors, lawmakers, appropriation/oversight committees, licensees of
Battelle patents, and others would want to know the
extent of this fraudulent patenting practice at PNNL, at other
Battelle-managed labs [ORNL, INL, NREL, BNL & LLNL], and at other
facilities Battelle manages [e.g., Ft. Detrick] or owns. They
would be justifiably
concerned about such a USPTO rule waiver for Battelle Memorial Institute
which is paid billions annually by DOE, DHS & DOD, and receives millions in income [license royalty/fee
& venture] from its patenting of
Government-funded research. As stated previously, I waive confidentiality and it’s okay to release my name and any of the exhibits to non-OIG personnel in order to investigate this complaint. [Note, because the site is currently in a sub-directory, Google searches by the public won’t find it.]
If you
have any questions, please contact me. I look forward to your
response. Thank you. Sincerely, Philip
Pulver
PS. On 9/29, I replied to DOE Office of Science's 8/27
email; see http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PulverResponseToDOE--092908.pdf. A USPTO-relevant excerpt is as follows: “DOE Technology Transfer
Coordinator allows Battelle’s admitted fraudulent patenting practices
to USPTO. As DOE Coordinator for Technology Transfer,
you ignored PNNL testimony confirming the following: 1) Battelle’s
practice to evade USPTO filing rules and statutory bars, i.e., writing
“new” invention reports on older inventions, resetting the filing deadline [re: use or
public disclosure], and filing a patent application on the “new”
invention. 2) The ongoing patent
fraud, i.e., 2005 RDADS “new code” is the DOE-funded 2002 MDM
inventions. Your decision puts in question the integrity
of Battelle’s patent filing process. Dept. of Commerce [USPTO]
may ask why DOE withheld this information and investigate
how pervasive is this practice at the 5 national labs and other facilities
managed by Battelle. Companies licensing patents from Battelle
may be at risk because the patents may later be invalidated if/when such
fraud is determined.” -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Complaint
Submission: Battelle documents & 2008 deposition testimony confirm fraudulent
patent practice at PNNL - 2005 incident cited Attachments: FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf ; BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf
; Transcript-BattellesMorganDeposition.pdf
; RDADS-PatentApplication-US2007-0064477A1.pdf OIG
Hotline at Dept. of Commerce, I am filing
a complaint regarding substantiated allegations that Battelle [manager of
PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) is violating patent filing
rules/laws of the USPTO. This complaint pertains not only to a 2005
incident of such patenting fraud, but also to systemic patent filing abuse at PNNL and possibly
the national labs that Battelle manages. As cited below, the evidence supporting these
allegations includes testimony[admitting such fraud/abuse], invention reports, patent application, Battelle
emails and other exhibits. Attached are the following documents
descriptively titled: FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf
[Main Evidence
Compilation - Indexed];
BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf;
Transcript-BattellesMorganDeposition.pdf; and RDADS-PatentApplication-US2007-0064477A1.pdf
Summary
of the allegations and related facts are presented below. Note, in the
8/24/08 email further below, I provided extensive documentation to senior DOE
officials regarding Battelle’s patenting violations and other issues;
to expedite the review process, I highlighted the patent-related matters in that email. As
their 8/27/08 reply email shows, DOE acknowledged but refused to take action
on any of the issues, including the patenting fraud. Accordingly,
I’m now contacting the Dept. of Commerce directly via its OIG email
hotline and providing evidence substantiating the patent-related
allegations. [Note: My
lawsuit is NOT a patent dispute; see http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 for case summary. However, Battelle testimony
&
documents revealed patent fraud/abuse that's now cited in
this complaint to the DOC-OIG.]
Summary of Allegations Battelle-PNNL documents & 2008 deposition testimony
confirm that Battelle violates patent filing rules of US Patent & Trademark Office by
rewriting and renaming prior inventions to “reset the clock” and
evade statutory deadlines [bars re: invention public disclosure and/or
usage]. This evidence also confirms the following 2005 incident:
After DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] implemented the 2002 MDM
software inventions to run on BlackBerry handheld
in 2004, Battelle called it “new
code” [RDADS] with a new filing deadline, and submitted a patent
application on RDADS invention in 2005. In sum, Battelle
evidence confirms the following: 1. Patent Filing Practice: Battelle writes
“new” invention reports on pre-existing inventions when they need
more time to file a patent on inventions that they intend to commercialize but
for which they’ve already shown publicly and/or used [statutory
bar]. By such “resetting the clock”, Battelle circumvents
USPTO statutory filing rules and misrepresents the originally-dated
inventions; see attached BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf 2. Example/Incident: In early 2005, after
acknowledging PDAC/MDM was exclusively licensed to Pulver, Battelle wrote a
“new” report on the 2002 MDM software inventions after RPMP
adapted/ported MDM to BlackBerry in 2004, renamed
the report “RDADS”, reset statutory patent filing deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions]
to 1/31/06 [2005 RDADS
“new” invention], filed RDADS patent in Sept. 2005, and marketed RDADS
commercially. Emails chronologically show these events; see attached BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf. Documents also
confirm MDM/PDAC was marketed & publicized in 2002-2003 by Battelle [and myself], thereby invalidating
the 1/31/06 statutory deadline for
the “new” RDADS invention. Other Relevant Facts -
As DOE's 8/27/08 email indicates,
Undersecretary for Science Raymond Orbach [DOE
Technology Transfer Coordinator for all national labs] acknowledged this
documented evidence of Battelle’s patent [and other] fraud/abuse but
refuses to not only address the 2005 RDADS fraud to USPTO but also
Battelle’s ongoing practice of renaming inventions [to reset statutory
clock] revealed in deposition testimony of a senior commercialization
manager at PNNL. -
Battelle’s renaming prior inventions to reset statutory patent
deadlines at PNNL may be a systemic practice across all 5 national
labs managed by Battelle. PNNL was the first lab Battelle managed;
within the last 10 years, Battelle now runs four more labs. It’s
thus possible/likely that Battelle invokes this practice at these other
labs that DOE has awarded to them. - The
primary inventor on the 2005 patent application is scientist Kevin Dorow [top
security Q clearance holder]. Documents and testimony of 3 other PNNL
scientists all confirm that Dorow has made false declarations and false
testimony to the district court regarding RDADS and Radiation Portal
Monitoring Project (RPMP)[DHS – US Customs & Border Protection]. Details and exhibits
confirming his RDADS misrepresentation are downloadable at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm
-
Discovery documents and PNNL testimony confirm that industrial companies have
signed agreements with Battelle regarding the RDADS technology. - All of
the information herein is accessible at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/BattellePatentFraudAbuse.htm
I waive
confidentiality and it’s okay to release my name and any/all the
extensive exhibits to non-OIG personnel in order to investigate this complaint.
If you
have any questions/issues or need additional information, please let me
know. Thank you. Sincerely, Philip
Pulver -----
Original Message ----- From: Streit, Devon
<Devon.Streit@science.doe.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:29
AM Subject: Confidential Update to 5-Year
Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud; Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety
Implications for Lab Staff; Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts
[Bid-Protest] Dear Mr. Pulver: This email is in response your email dated August
24, 2008 sent to Under Secretary Orbach which provided, as you stated, an
update on Battelle evidence to corroborate the allegations in your OIG
complaints. We acknowledge your concerns; however, because the issues you
raised are currently being addressed in your ongoing lawsuit against
Battelle, action by this office is not warranted outside the context of that
litigation. Sincerely,
Devon Streit _____________________________________ L. Devon Streit
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver To: Orbach, Raymond
Cc: Glenn Podonsky ; David Dillman ; Friedman, Greg ; Secretary Bodman ; James Rispoli ; fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 8:57 Subject: Confidential Update
to 5-Year Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud; Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety
Implications for Lab Staff; Competing
PNNL & Hanford Contracts
[Bid-Protest] Attachments: CongressionalRecord-Laul-BattelleFraud-RepDavidSkaggs.pdf
; Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsImpacted.pdf This email & Web site is not
currently available to or intended for dissemination to the public. This information on
fraud and abuse is being provided to those with the authority to act in the
public interest. This email & Web site is for
sole use of the intended recipient(s).
Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. CCOL Inc. 2415 South Garfield Kennewick, WA 99337 August 24, 2008 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of
Energy Dear Under Secretary Orbach: This email with its accompanying Web site is a five-year
update/culmination of the preponderance of evidence that has confirmed
the following Battelle-PNNL fraud/abuse:
2003 Allegations [OIG - Misusing Technical Assistance Program (TAP)], Q-clearance holder
fraud misrepresentation
[falsification] of Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP], misappropriation [due
to Use Permit], and violation of U.S. Code [False Declarations (18
USC §1623), Perjury (18 USC §1621), False Statements (18 USC §1001) and False
Claims (31 USC §3729)]… Note:
This email chain was included in all the above emails to all
these government officials. |
