Lemelson -- EXPOSED
The for-profit Lemelson foundation is presently involved in several law suits pertaining to Mr. Lemelson's patents. In May of 2000 I was asked to testify on behalf of Lemelson. I read the claims they said were being infringed upon and found the charge so outrageous that I not only turned them down, I offered to testify free on behalf of any company involved in litigation with the Lemelson foundation. I wish to renew that offer here! The claims have no bearing on bar codes.
Mr. Lemelson was not an "inventor" in the true sense of the word even though he has over 550 patents to his name. He was a manipulator who used the patent law much as a criminal uses criminal law to avoid punishment. In Lemelson's case, he used the law to legally1extort great sums of money from innocent companies. These payments, over $1.5 billion, are actually a tax on you, me, and every consumer of products made by the companies he sued.
1Well, maybe NOT legally. See Appeal No. 00-1583 filed In The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in December 2000
Mr. Nicholas Varchaver published the article "The Patent King" in the May 14, 2001 issue of Fortune magazine. His article not only exposes Lemelson, but details his methods.
Several excerpts from that article follow:
... [critics] contend that he never invented the key technologies for which he had the patents. Even one of Lemelson's former attorneys, Arthur Lieberman, questions whether Lemelson was an inventor in the layman's sense of the word. Rather, he says, Lemelson would figure out where an industry was headed--and then place a patent claim directly in its path. "In many cases, Lemelson didn't patent inventions," says Lieberman. "He invented patents."
... the process of creation his wife describes so lovingly isn't markedly different from the process described by his critics. "He would look at the magazines and determine the direction of industry," shrugs ex-Lemelson attorney Lieberman. In this view, Lemelson wasn't attempting to create real products.
If you wonder why Mr. Liberman is referred to as a "former" Lemelson attorney, read a little further in Mr. Varchaver's article.
…"I said, 'It's unethical,'" Lieberman recalls. "And [Lemelson] said, 'It's not illegal.'" Lieberman continues: "I just was no longer comfortable representing him. I was tired of being called a lawyer for a parasite."…
Link to Fortune Magazine Home Page.
Link to Mr. Nicholas Varchaver Article. This link to Mr. Nicholas Varchaver's Article has expired. However, I have an *.pdf file that I will send to anyone who requests it under the "fair use" clause of the 1976 Copyright Act.
If any of the above links have expired, please contact me.
Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson: On January 24, 2002, the Federal Circuit ruled (2-1) in favor of our (Fish & Neave) clients Cognex Corporation and Symbol Technologies that there is a defense of prosecution laches which they may pursue in the Nevada district court litigation against the Lemelson Foundation. This defense can render a patent claim unenforceable if the patentee waited too long to present it to the Patent Office for prosecution, to the detriment of others. This is the first modern decision (since the 1952 Patent Statute) in which a Court has recognized the vitality of this defense. Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 938
Good News!
The law firm of Fish & Neave is representing the Cognex Corp. and Symbol Technologies in litigation against the Lemelson Medical,
Trial Update
Education & Research Foundation. The trial phase ended December 2002 and final briefs were filed June 2003. Judge Phillip M. Pro
of the 9th US District Court in Las Vegas rendered his judgement against the Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation.
January 23, 2004. Please go to MORE GOOD NEWS for more details. This decision will be of interest to anyone using bar codes or
building/selling scanning equipment.
Return to HOME page.
For contact information please go to my Contact Page.
Revised: January 24For more detail, 2004