IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038
March 18, 2003
Mark
W. Gaffney
Law
Office of Mark W. Gaffney
Boston
Post Road
Larchmont,
N.Y.
Re: Supporting Evidence Pertaining to the Allegations Contained in the Florida State Motion and Counter Complaint
Dear
Mark:
You
have requested the documentation pertaining to the above, and, on behalf of
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”), I
respond as follows:
1.
Memos, correspondence, retainer agreements, and legal bills showing
scope of professional legal services expected of each of the various attorneys
and/or undertaken by them. General
corporate, patent, trademark, licensing, etc.
a. Proskauer Rose LLP:
b.
Meltzer
Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel, LLP (“MLGS”)
Mark
W. Gaffney
March 18, 2003
Page 2
c.
Foley
& Lardner[1]
2.
Detailed explanation of defects, whether negligence or fraud, in Joao's
provisional patent applications.
a. Video Scaling Technology
b.
Imaging
Technology[2]
c.
Combined
Technologies (ZoomVideo)[3]
3.
Detailed explanation of defect, whether negligence or fraud, in William
Dick's patent applications.
a. Video Scaling Technology
Mark
W. Gaffney
March 18, 2003
Page 3
b.
Imaging
Technology
4.
Documents showing disparity between what Eliot Bernstein expected
attorneys to include in patent applications, and what they actually
included. If signature pages were
switched or content was materially changed between time of signature by Eliot
Bernstein and time of filing patent application, this allegation will need to
be supported by detailed comparison of actual documents.
a.
Video
Scaling Technology[4]
See Non-Provisional filings
from 3.a. and 3.b. above.
b.
Imaging
Technology
See Non-Provisional filings
from 3.a. and 3.b. above.
c.
Alleged
Switching of Signature Pages
Mark
W. Gaffney
March 18, 2003
Page 4
As for the allegation of switched signature pages
regarding the switched inventors, wherever all of, and only, Eliot I.
Bernstein, Jude Rosario, and Zachiryl Schirajee (and in one case, Jeffrey
Friedstein) do not appear as in Eliot Bernstein’s handwriting in the embedded
file “Switched Inventors,” these are the alleged switched signature pages. Moreover, Rubenstein, Joao, and Wheeler had
full knowledge of inventors from the outset.
More specifically, the Company alleges that there
existed two sets of patent books at Foley & Lardner, and that when all the
inventors repeatedly executed all applications for Joao and Foley and were
listed as such when the Company examined “Book 1” of the patents, a “Book 2”
emerges without them and that is what is filed, oblivious of the true
inventors, and included Brian Utley as an inventor.
5.
Detailed narrative description of Iviewit’s initial technology
licensing plans, what went wrong with them that was the fault of
Wheeler/Utley/Rubenstein, etc., how much it cost Iviewit in terms of
damages. This would include names or
categories of expected licensees, samples of non-disclosure agreements, basis
for Iviewit’s claim for royalties, basis for setting royalty rate, and amounts
of expected royalties. We would need
this information for an estimate of Iviewit’s damages - the difference between
royalty income streams if (1) initial technology licensing plan had been
executed correctly and (2) probable royalty income if Iviewit fixes the patent
problems and (3) probable royalty income if Iviewit is not successful in fixing
the patent problems.
See Exhibit B for the Company’s estimate of damages.
6.
Besides loss of technology licensing royalties, other categories of
damages would be the fees and expenses Iviewit has incurred that would not have
been necessary if Wheeler/Utley/Rubenstein/Joao/Dick had not harmed the
Company.
(i)
. Approximately $50,000 of past legal
billings by Melztzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel;
(ii) Approximately $200,000 of past legal billings by Foley & Lardner; and
(iii)
Amore thanpproximately
$550,000 of past legal billings by Proskauer Rose LLP;
Mark
W. Gaffney
March 18, 2003
Page 5
(iv)
Approximately $145,000 approximately
$219,000 of legal fees in reviewing, a repair, and reassigning the
Company’s patent applications by Blakely, Sokoloff Taylor and Zaffman of Los
Angeles, Cal and additional patent counsel, and when domestic and international searches are included;
(v) Approximately $210,000 of future legal bills as outlined in Exhibit A
The Company estimates the total of the above as $1,155,000.
Lastly,
Mark, we are available to respond to any additional questions you may have,
and, for convenience, I have attached the Company’s patent pending portfolio as
Exhibit A.
Sincerely,
IVIEWIT
HOLDINGS, INC.
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Cc:
Eliot I. Bernstein
Caroline P. Rogers
EXHIBIT “A”
IVIEWIT PATENT PORTFOLIO
|
Provisional Application
No. |
Non- Provisional
Application No. |
Last Application Title |
Estimated Cost to Repair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,125,824 |
09,522,721 |
Apparatus and Method For
Producing Enhanced Digital Video Images |
Abandoned[5] |
|
60,137,297; 60,155,404;
60, 169,559 |
09,587,734 |
System and Method For
Providing an Enhanced Digital Video File |
$40,000 |
|
60,137,297; 60,155,404;
60, 169,559 |
09,587,026 |
System and Method For
Playing Video |
$40,000 |
|
60,137,297; 60,155,404;
60, 169,559 |
09,587,730 |
System an Method For
Streaming Video |
$40,000 |
|
60,125,824; 60, 146,726;
60, 149, 737; 60,155,404; 60, 169,559 |
09,630,939 continued from
09, 522, 721 |
System and Method For
Producing an Enhanced Digital Image File |
Patent Counsel gave
adequate review of embodiment and claims |
|
N/A |
New Filing For ZoomVideo |
|
$55,000 |
|
N/A |
U.S. and International
Search Costs |
|
$35,000 |
|
|
Total Estimated Costs |
|
$210,000 |
