Friflyt forum Ski Enda et JJ innlegg

Sitat Armada:Dear Family and Friends,We regret that we have to send this note but feel it is necessary given much of the misinformation that is circulating. At this point you have probably heard that Rossignol is suing Armada in Utah.Back in April, our EST patent was issued which was a milestone for our company recognizing years of hard work in research and development. While the patent was pending, many companies made claims about the origination and spoke negatively of us. Ours was the view that the facts would be revealed in the long run and that slinging mud would accomplish nothing.We are proud of our innovation. We never suggested nor considered preventing others from utilizing the shape; we never thought about suing anyone. Our plans couldn?t have been further from trying to squeeze competitors. Our intention was to have a portion of proceeds contribute to a trust similar to ?1% for the Planet? that benefits athletes who have passed or been injured. Internally the development name of that trust has been ?Dudes for Other Dudes? or ?DFOD? for short. We recognize the contributions that Shane and other athletes have made which laid the ground-work for our innovation. We planned on announcing the launch of the organization in December around the new TST ski which is a tribute to Travis Steeger. We planned on dispersing proceeds to foundations/charities for Shane, Travis, and other athletes. We wanted to support our recovering friend, Riley Poor. Now any such announcement will be viewed with skepticism and doubt. However, we remain committed to the vision.Some facts to clear up any confusion:1) Armada has not sued any company. 2) Rather than filing a lawsuit against infringing companies, a letter was sent to Rossignol and others that closed with ?Armada is willing to discuss an amicable settlement of this matter?? We wanted to work out a friendly agreement with companies we felt were infringing.3) We never intended to prevent others from utilizing our patented shape. We are largely the same group of people who started the company in 2002. Our goals and vision haven?t changed. We love the sport of skiing and remain committed to contributing to it. We still don?t have a PR department and as such, the story will continue to be spun by others.You know us, you know our values, and you know the truth. Please don?t be swayed by the misinformation which will surely continue. We will not partake in it.We are here for you and are happy to address your questions and concerns directly.Sincerely,Erik and Hans

Sitat Armadas advokater:ACTUAL TEXT OF ARMADA CEASE AND DESIST LETTER SENT TO ONE SMALL SKI COMPANYPersonally identifiable information has been substituted in square brackets ?[abcdefg]?*** LETTER BEGINS ***VIA CERTIFIED MAILRe: Infringing SkisOur Reference: [reference number]To Whom It May Concern:Please be advised that this office represents, and is the intellectual property counsel for, ArmadaSkis, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California. Armada is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor ofhigh-quality, innovative snow skis, technical ski outerwear, and other products. It has come toour attention that you are currently selling products that infringe on the patent rights of Armada(U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674). Sales of certain [ski company] models (including the [ski models listed here]) constitute patent infringement under U.S. law. As such, Armada requests that you immediatelycease and desist your unlawful sale of these models and any other skis that infringe Armada?spatent.Under federal law, and particularly 35 USC Section 27l, whoever, without authority, makes,uses, sells, or imports any patented invention within or into the United States is an infringer. See,for example, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contrs. USA, Inc., 2010US App. LEXIS 17181 (Fed Cir. Aug. 18, 2010); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d1566, 1573 (Fed Cir. 1996) and SEB SA. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1374(Fed Cir. 2010). Armada holds patent rights that protect its products. Specifically, please beadvised that Armada is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674. A copy of this patent isenclosed for your review.Federal statutes provide that a patent owner may obtain injunctive relief against infringers (35U.S.C. Section 283) and may recover up to three times the amount of damages found adequate tocompensate for the infringement (35 U.S.C. Section 284). In addition, the prevailing party in apatent infringement suit may be entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the other side (35U.S.C. Section 285) and in some cases, the attorneys fees will exceed the amount of theinfringement damages.We reiterate, [ski company], is selling skis (at least the [ski models]) that fall within the claims ofArmada?s U.S. Patent. Absent an arrangement with Armada, we must insist that [ski company]immediately cease selling such skis or any others that fall within the patent. Please provide an accounting of all such skis sold to date, including the wholesale prices, models, sizes and dates sold. We require this information in order to assess damages that may be due to Armada.Armada invests heavily in its research and development and protects that investment with patent procurement and enforcement. Armada is willing to discuss an amicable settlement of this matter if you respond promptly.Please confirm by [date] that [ski company] will meet these demands,Very truly yours,[attorney]Enclosure:U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674Cc Armada Skis, Inc.