FTC wins preliminary injunction against operators of World Patent Marketing

By Gene Quinn
August 24, 2017

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has issued a preliminary injunction against World Patent Marketing, an invention promotion company the FTC charged with being nothing more than a scam. “The record supports a preliminary finding that Defendants devised a fraudulent scheme to use consumer funds to enrich themselves,” concluded United States District Judge Darrin P. Gayles. “Accordingly, the Court finds a preliminary injunction is necessary to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the merits.”

The Federal Trade Commission originally charged the operators of World Patent Marketing with deceiving consumers and suppressing complaints about the company by using threats of criminal prosecution against dissatisfied customers. The court temporarily halted the scheme in March, when the FTC filed a complaint alleging that the defendants charged consumers thousands of dollars to patent and market their inventions based on bogus “success stories,” and never delivered what they promised. Instead, many customers ended up in debt or lost their life savings.

“Defendants made a series of misrepresentations to potential customers to induce them to purchase WPM services. Even after customers made initial investments, Defendants continued making misrepresentations to induce them to purchase more services and to make larger investments,” wrote Judge Gayles. Gayles would go on to specifically detail more than a dozen typical misrepresentations made by World Patent Marketing to customers.

Perhaps most egregious, however, were the threats and intimidation World Patent Marketing directed toward complaining customers. Judge Gayles wrote:

When customers became frustrated and complained to Defendants that WPM did not fulfill its promises, many threatened to report WPM’s actions to the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”), offices of state attorneys general, the FTC, and other consumer agencies. In response, Defendants—including Cooper and WPM’s head of security—and WPM’s lawyers intimidated and threatened customers to prevent them from complaining and to compel them to retract complaints.

Judge Gayles then recounted the events surrounding one particular customer who was intimidated and threatened. Judge Gayles wrote:

After months of trying to receive a refund or services, she filed a complaint with the BBB. She received a letter from a second lawyer who told her that seeking a refund constitutes extortion under Florida law and, “since you used email to make your threats, you would be subject to a federal extortion charge, which carries a term of imprisonment of up to two years and potential criminal fines. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(d).”

Among many other things, this extraordinarily detailed preliminary injunction freezes the assets of the defendants, their officers, agents, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with any defendant (see pages 39-40 of order). The injunction also prohibits the defendants and all those aforementioned connected parties from making misrepresentations (page 38) and making threats or intimidating anyone making complaints or comments about the products or services offered (page 38-39). The injunction also orders the preservation of records (page 43) and requires the defendants and those aformentioned connected parties to notify the FTC of any new business enterprise (page 43-44).

The injunction will remain in place as the case is litigated.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 78 Comments comments.

  1. Tesia Thomas August 24, 2017 3:52 pm

    Inventors are everyone’s prey.

  2. Eric Berend August 25, 2017 12:34 pm

    @ 1., ‘Tesia’:

    The eagerness of inventor’s urgency to participate in the U.S. patent system, was built up over seminal, formative generations of current Western societies. It did not occur “overnight”.

    That this eagerness is now seen as inherent and gullible, is an ‘error of optimism’ as to the plans of IP pirates, some of which we can “infringers”. As the confidence and trust of U.S. inventors is rapidly destroyed in less than one generation, such eagerness cannot be restored except for another generational process.

    Political trauma is not easily forgotten, nor readily assauged. The harm to the Constitutional public-private compact long established, is deep and lasting.

    Personally, I am looking to other nations in active investigation of their societies and immigration policies and practices. Even if I should regard the U.S. markets as derogated, there are other markets in the world in which to practice some of my inventions; of the others, a couple or few might succeed to an extent as trade secrets.

    In the meantime, Tesia, I must agree with you: only when they try to beat this inventors-will-invent-anyway “horse” TEN TIMES with no innovative result, will it begin to dawn on the dolts, that the ‘great U.S. inventor’ was assassinated – betrayed at all quarters.

  3. Gene Quinn August 25, 2017 12:53 pm


    On “inventors will invent anyway” —

    Take a look at my interview with Congressman Massie, who is an inventor with 29 patents. We talked about this specifically, which is something I’ve heard him talk about in different forums in DC. As an inventor he gets it, and there are at least a few others that get it (Senator Coons comes to mind).


  4. Suresh August 25, 2017 3:09 pm

    This is the age of Science and Technology, and all the progress is brought about by people succeeding in their endeavours based on Intellect, logic, and reason. Scientists, Engineers, Technologists, and Inventors must be on the top of food chain, because they are the owners of their technologies and inventions. If masons of businesses want to exits and run their business competitively, they must be made to honour ownership of intellectual property.

  5. John Fetter August 26, 2017 5:46 am

    The single biggest mistake most inventors make is to invent something, patent it, act all excited – and on that basis expect a corporation to get involved and to do the rest of the work.

    Success requires inventors to be an integral part of a process that begins with the conceptualization and patenting, and continues with prototyping, evaluation, sampling, field trialing, manufacturing, marketing, and so on.

    Inventors must learn the fundamentals of manufacturing and learn the fundamentals of business. An invention remains worthless until its manufacturing, marketing and profit-making viability are established.

    The more the inventor knows, the greater the likelihood of success, the more money the inventor can make.

  6. Night Writer August 26, 2017 7:57 am

    Gene, Andrei Lancu nominated by Trump for PTO director.

    Big news.

  7. John Fetter August 26, 2017 10:50 am

    Tesia @ 1 – You invented a brand-new kind of fastener. Thirty years ago I invented a brand new kind of flow control device.

    You have been very active in a social media context. I kept a low profile.

    I teamed up with an industrial designer, a plastics injection molding business owner, a clever accountant, made prototypes, tooled up, went into production on a shoestring and persuaded a big corporation they needed my product as an adjunct to their main product line to stand out in the market place.

    I waited until I had something to sell and then I opened my mouth. It worked.

    I suggest you team up with people who can help you make a product.

  8. Mark Brown August 26, 2017 11:10 am

    Far too many IP pirates performing illegal crimes.

  9. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 11:26 am

    @John Fetter,

    These days you have to have a big social media presence.
    My biggest competitor is the government. They’ve been trying to figure out this fastener for 60 years.
    How do you defeat the govt? Well you don’t. You get what they give you as they’re your sovereign.

    NASA wants the closure for inflatables, flexible hatches, airostat envelopes, space suits
    Air Force, Navy, Army- flight suits, diving suits, chem/bio protective gear
    And more.

    Keeping a low profile would get the tech misappriated faster.
    Now there are people in the world who think new zipper + Tesia.

    Many large companies are contacting me or I’m being intro’d to them. Most don’t want to sign agreements so they don’t get samples.

    I have a small team and advisors.

    It just doesnt work that way. Now you and Stephen Key can blab about licensing but when you have a technology with such a high dollar potential and utility as mine then people just want to own it.

    Eventually this tech, whether by me or not, will replace the current toothed fastener.

  10. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 11:27 am


    I don’t need advice. I need better laws.

  11. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 11:31 am

    Lol sorry for the errors that make parts unreadable. On my phone.

    I just hate the Cronies. That’s my biggest issue. If there were laws to protect me and give me a fair chance against people with more money then I would be selling product now. But I’m delaying so I don’t send a signal to have competitors copy the tech at least just yet.
    I don’t have my IP and purposefully didn’t PPH or whatever the fast patent track is due to AIA.
    And now there’s a sliver of hope with Oil States.

  12. Suresh Patel August 26, 2017 1:21 pm

    When mouth watering technology appears in patent filing, the these business masons track it and try to find ways around. If they don’t succeed, there are indications, they attempt to plant their own patent to dilute the mouth watering tech in their favor in a style me too and possibly they corrupt system and even back date their filing. This is about who is powerful and capable of corrupting system. Therefore, only the best technology must be allowed to go to market, otherwise it is wateful of human effort and resources.

  13. John Fetter August 26, 2017 2:28 pm

    It appears from what I have seen, you have applied for a PCT, had some search feedback that shows there is plenty of prior art that anticipates your claims. If your invention is valuable, you need to find a way to address this problem. The claims must be suitably amended to obviate this problem. This can either be done, or if this either cannot be done, or for some reason is not done, you will not secure a patent. And since you elected to speak up so soon, the result is that you have put yourself under unnecessary financial pressure. There are people who know exactly how take advantage of this kind of situation.

  14. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 2:29 pm

    @Suresh Patel,

    And that’s exactly why inventors need to patent (preferably a PCT nowadays) and then immediately publicly disclose and get media attention.

    Then, if everything that you disclose is covered in your patent, it is prior art against anything not patented.
    And, it lessens the ability for people to know about a tech and then backdate and file because the tech will be disclosed but no one will know what your IP covers.

  15. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 2:38 pm

    @John Fetter,

    I’m not going into detail but…
    We expected this and I pressed my attorney to write the claims broad but with a lot of support. He was going to do that anyway. Just a bit more narrow first claim.
    If you think I’m worried about the ISR then I’ll be happy to tell you that I’m not. We actually got enough claims OK’d to go through PPH.

    I’m not under unnecessary financial pressure. But, thanks for telling me about my situation.

    I’ll only be in financial pressure if I get into lawsuits (who isn’t when in IPR litigation?) and I have actively reached out to IP attorneys who might take those lawsuits on contingency.
    Though, they’re just like, “Dude. You don’t have a patent yet.”

    I can afford IP. I can’t afford IP and litigation.
    Don’t worry about my claims. I’m not.

    Plus, the ISR sucks. I found much ‘better’ prior art.

    Trust me when I say that if my patents don’t get issued then half of the bagillion iterations on the toothed fastener and zip track need to go.

  16. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 2:50 pm

    Lol. My last comment isn’t showing up.

  17. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 2:50 pm

    Notice how there is more than 1 invention in my PCT.

    We’re going to fight for as broad of claims as possible and then get divisionals with less scope to cover all the IPR BS.

    Say I invented a donut:
    (example so I don’t tell private details about my own stuff)

    1st broad PCT-
    donut is a circle with hole
    with sprinkles
    and sugar
    and whatever

    Get this down to whatever they’ll allow.

    2nd patent/continuation/divisional-
    Let’s say they allow “donut is a circle with hole
    with sprinkles” for the 1st patent’s claim.
    This one will then include “donut is a circle with hole
    with sprinkles AND sugar” in the first claim.

    So some sh*thead comes along and attacks my IP in IPR. They go after the broad IP. Ok. Fine.
    Now, the next patent in the family is the exact same thing just a bit more specific.

    This is the THIRD type of zipper ever. I’m not worried unless the corruption gets to such a level that groundbreaking mechanical tech dies.

    If the ISR thinks it’s so obvious then why has DoD spent 60 years and billions of dollars on zipper R&D and not even thought of this possibility?
    Why are DoD contractors emailing me about looking for this closure for decades?


  18. John Fetter August 26, 2017 3:00 pm

    Tesia – You might be facing three final rejections, some RCEs and some appeals – and there will be nothing your lawyer will be able to do to prevent this. This will cost you a small fortune. The better the invention, the more obstinate the examiner. I have gone through the process many times. It used to be relatively easy. It has become the rule rather than the exception for examiners to give inventors the run around for many years.

  19. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 3:08 pm

    @John Fetter,

    Yeah one of my inventor friends received a final rejection and is now debating moving forward.

    I know about obstinate examiners and filing petitions and appeals and them not answering phone calls. And, whatever.

    What I’m saying is that they can do all they want. I’m not worried about it in the end.
    Hopefully other countries aren’t as corrupted.

  20. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 3:12 pm

    And, my friend had already filed 2 continuations I think. Yeah USPTO is BS.
    But there are other fish in the sea.

    And, no matter whatever I do get allowed and finalized, none of my competitors will get what don’t. I’ll make sure of that.
    I made sure of that with my broad claims.

  21. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 3:20 pm

    Patents are a shield, not a sword. It doesn’t really matter what they cover so long as it’s enough to block someone else from making my product.

    And, since the tech is so original, anything should be enough. It’s the first in its line.

  22. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 3:24 pm

    If my independent claims end up needing to be 500 lines in order to be allowed, then that’s 500 lines that others won’t be able to get because I’m starting from 2.

  23. Tesia Thomas August 26, 2017 3:33 pm

    Honestly, it’d be an SEP if Natick wasn’t full of so many corrupt researchers or leaders.


  24. John Fetter August 27, 2017 3:39 am

    Tesia – I have begun to find it significant that you spend so much time talking about about incidentals in the context of your application, while trivializing the essentials.

  25. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 3:51 am

    @John Fetter,

    Neither you nor I know what’s going to happen with my application.
    Frankly, there’s really no reason for you to be so worried at all.

    #1 You’re looking at the crappy ISR about that which I knew wouldn’t 100% be approving of my claims.

    #2 It’s all relevant. Nothing ‘essential’ is final and there’s nothing I can do with my IP until I enter national phase.

    #3 I’ve paid 4 patent attorneys and agents to look over everything just to get different perspectives and all of them understood the strategy behind the claims. None of them said anything extremely gloomy.

    #4 Who can escape corruption? Well…not really any inventor of the past 6 years so I’ll just do the best I can and likely join the club.

    Please stop talking about my PCT.

  26. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 4:04 am

    @John Fetter,

    Sorry but it just seems like you’re talking out of your butt.
    I don’t need your advice.
    I can manufacture product. I have a team. I have certified testing and fully manufactured samples to send around. I’m speaking with multinationals about licensing.
    My largest competitors contacted me or reacted to me disclosing.
    I’ve done over and above your advice.

    Great job with your inventions. I’m happy you were successful.

    I have many advisors. You’re not being helpful in trying to tell me what I already kniw and making assumptions from the outside looking in.

    Leave me alone.
    We can talk about fighting the Cronies and fixing the laws. We will no longer talk about my IP. You don’t know what’s going on with my company.
    I only publicize the bad parts to spread awareness.

  27. John Fetter August 27, 2017 8:15 am

    Tesia – According to the search report your PCT independent claims have been objected to since they lack novelty under Article 33(2), as being anticipated by numerous prior art patents. In addition, your dependent claims lack clarity, are indefinite and lack anticedent basis. There are two claims that are numbered 28. It is rather obvious the claims were (1) not checked prior to submission, or were (2) drafted by a “non-expert”. The more you bang your drum about your invention/ patent, the more curious I become and the more I dig.

  28. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 12:27 pm

    @John Fetter,

    Dude, YES. They have been rejected to for lacking novelty. And, guess what? It doesn’t matter. I expect to fight for the boundary.

    People make mistakes. I don’t think any patent attorney hasn’t made huge mistakes.

    You’re nitpicking and ‘grasping at straws.’
    Oh God! I numbered incorrectly! Maybe the examiner will shoot me!
    Oh, no…it’ll likely just be renumbered as an obvious mistake. And, life will go on.

    Thanks for the ISR that tells me exactly what the ISR told me.

  29. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 12:29 pm

    any* not huge mistakes

    But, yeah, we also didn’t label something on a drawing…and on and on.
    None of this greatly impacts the outcome of the IP.

    ‘The more you bang your drum about your invention/patent…’

    You sound like some jealous loser. Leave me alone.

  30. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 12:31 pm

    All of the stuff you’re talking about is considered ‘easily overcome.’

    So STOP TALKING. No one nitpicks with such futility over stuff that doesn’t even concern them unless they’re a jealous A-hole.

    You brought up my tech. I’d hardly said anything in this thread at all until that point.

  31. John Fetter August 27, 2017 8:20 pm

    Let me see if I can understand this. You asked four patent attorneys to look over everything – and they were happy to overlook as many basic and fundamental mistakes in the claims as were picked up by the PCT examiner?

  32. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 8:40 pm

    @John Fetter,

    After filing.
    Seriously get a grip. All of the stuff you’re mentioning is the result of a rushed filing.

    They are OBJECTIONABLE not rejections. I’m not going to lose my whole patent over numbering issues or spelling errors or whatnot. They just say please use more care next time. Lol.

    It’s not a negative of my attorney’s skills.

    The ISR gave us the good proof read that we needed. But it sucked as far as prior art search.

    Name one business that lost a patent over misnunbering, or obvious errors that was caught and corrected before issuance.

    Get a life.

  33. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 8:44 pm

    ‘Basic and fundamental mistakes’ are easily amended.
    USPTO realizes that attorneys make dumb errors.
    No one cares about that. Just the content. It only makes the patent harder to read.

    Antecedent basis is easily corrected often by changing an article ‘a’ to ‘the’.

  34. John Fetter August 27, 2017 8:59 pm

    An inadvertently flawed application or an inadvertently flawed invention?

  35. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 9:00 pm

    I paid 4 attorneys $1000ish each depending on rate to look over it and find other problems right after getting the ISR within the time period where you can change anything before publishing.
    Also, investor due dilligence attorneys looked over it.

    They all said it wasn’t even worth it to change those things before publication and to wait until entering national stage.

    John Fetter stop preying on inventors as an inventor. No one else supports us and we don’t need enemies in our own group.

    I’m sorry if your patents were assaulted. I’m happy if you made money. Stop tearing people down. It just shows a lack of confidence on your part.

    I can change just about anything with my IP because it’s pending. So long as I don’t add new matter.
    Nothing you say is an issue because my attorneys and I tried not to omit a single detail even claiming angles of stuff.

    While I’d like to be thorough and proof read. I’m happy just being detailed.

    But yeah…I’m not your enemy. Stop treating me like one.

  36. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 9:03 pm

    “An inadvertently flawed application or an inadvertently flawed invention?”

    That’s not even something you can judge via a pending app of which the ISR ‘allows’ most claims, enough claims to undergo PPH. Haha

    Why are you so worried about my invention?
    Oh yeah. Envy is the worst of all.

  37. Tesia Thomas August 27, 2017 9:19 pm

    Some ISRs reject the entire application. And still something issues. Typically because it was just too broadly claimed or examiners want to make you struggle.

    If the ISR rejected every claim then I’d still say…

  38. John Fetter August 28, 2017 5:37 am

    Tesia – Your PCT claims the benefit of four provisional applications. Suggesting that the process of inventing at the time of filing of the PCT was not complete and is likely still a work in progress. No sign of a national phase. An application in its infancy. You are up against four category “X” prior art patents. You are extraordinarily vocal about your invention in a way that suggests that you expect your patent application to fail – and are hoping to offset this anticipated failure by attracting as much attention to yourself as possible. All I am saying is that is how your story is coming across.

  39. Anon August 28, 2017 8:05 am

    Your PCT claims the benefit of four provisional applications. Suggesting that the process of inventing at the time of filing of the PCT was not complete and is likely still a work in progress.


    That is not what it means to lay claim to the benefit of four provisional applications.

    If you are going to climb atop a pedestal to preach, first make sure that you know what you are talking about.

  40. Tesia Thomas August 28, 2017 8:45 am

    @John Fetter,

    Get a life. As Anon said, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Yes, my app is in its infancy. So, I can change anything without adding new matter.

    The only thing I expect is for you to GET A LIFE. Let me know whether I’ll be waiting too long…

  41. John Fetter August 28, 2017 8:50 am

    Anon – I was not attempting to explain what it means but you might like to explain what it means to claim the benefit of four provisionals. Tesia – I apologize. I miscounted. There are six provisionals.

  42. Tesia Thomas August 28, 2017 8:55 am

    You’re actually still miscounting. But, you could get a life in the meantime.

  43. John Fetter August 28, 2017 9:13 am

    Your PCT: This non-provisional patent application claims the benefit of the (1) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on October 1, 2015; (2) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on October 9, 2015; (3) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on October 9, 2015; (4) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on January 20, 2016; (5) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on March 10, 2016; (6) Provisional Patent Application Serial No. —— filed on April 3, 2016 all of which are incorporated in their entireties in the present application. (I removed the provisional application numbers.)

  44. Anon August 28, 2017 3:59 pm


    My post at 39 stands. If I misquoted you, please feel free to revisit your original quote and provide corrections.,

    As is, though, your protest is emtpty and rather feeble.

  45. John Fetter August 28, 2017 7:14 pm

    Always a pleasure to receive criticisms leveled at my person.

  46. Anon August 28, 2017 8:41 pm

    The criticism is leveled at your comment.

    If you choose to see this as “at your person,” that is your doing.

    Once gain, my offer stands: point out my error, or revise your statement, but please, don’t be an unmitigated ass and pretend otherwise.

  47. John Fetter August 28, 2017 8:57 pm

    Anon – There are a number of criticisms leveled at me on this page. This one is insipid: “If YOU are going to climb atop a pedestal to preach, first make sure that YOU know what you are talking about.” Always a pleasure to receive criticisms.

  48. Marshall Barnes August 29, 2017 3:22 am

    Scott J. Cooper is corrupt as they come. It is apparent that he planned on expanding the World Patent Marketing scam into the advanced concept technology field with University of Connecticut professor, Ronald L. Mallett, to the tune of $500 mil.for a bogus telecommunications scheme based on “twisting space”. They had already launched a fraudulent fundraising scheme to fund Mallett’s initial false claims about time travel research which he hasn’t done anything of consequence (see https://www.academia.edu/33308409/The_Invalidation_of_the_Time_Travel_Physics_of_the_Ronald_L._Mallett_PhD_LOTART_Design_By_The_Rachel_Emily_and_Suzy_Experiments_of_Marshall_Barnes_R_and_D_Eng). Now Mallett, who was on the WPM advisory board, is claiming he was a victim too, which can, and will be proved to be false. After all, he formed an LLC with Cooper for those purposes – Time Travel Technologies, LLC (see https://florida.intercreditreport.com/company/time-travel-technologies-llc-l15000195662 )

  49. John Fetter August 29, 2017 3:56 am

    To Anon @ 39 – You said, “That is not what it means to lay claim to the benefit of four provisional applications.” – If not, your bland negative puts you under obligation to explain what it does mean before demanding that others do so. Albert Einstein is allegedly once to have admonished, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

  50. Anon August 29, 2017 8:08 am

    John @ 47,

    Insipid is as insipid does. Your view – without more – only confirms the veracity of my post.

    Either defend your post or retract it. Calling criticism of your post names does nothing. You are simply – quite simply – wrong in the attempted insinuation of a PCT application drawing to multiple provisionals.

    The choice is – and remains – yours (but choosing to criticize the on-point criticism remains a poor choice).

  51. John Fetter August 29, 2017 8:58 am

    Anon – You assume you have a right to tell others what to say and do. That’s funny. You are serving up words intended to divert. That’s clever. Your bland negative puts you under obligation to explain – before demanding that others do so. That’s a fact.

  52. Anon August 29, 2017 4:43 pm


    I have “assumed” no such “right.”

    I have made a comment upon YOUR comment, and my comment is accurate.

    I am not the one then “serving to divert.”

    While you may find my repartee clever, that finding is simply NOT indicative of how you now wish to spin this exchange.

    By the way, it was your very own “bland” and very incorrect “negative” that was first advanced. You attempted an incorrect derision against Tesia, and I merely called you out for your own statements. By your own “logic” then, YOU are the one that needs to explain.

    So far, you have chosen instead to lob baseless name-calling and inaccurate characterizations.

    Those, by the way, will not change my comments to somehow being incorrect or inaccurate. Please take note of such.

    Also, I am NOT telling you what to say or do, and I have been more than clear that YOU retain the choice to be wrong and to be an arse, if you so choose. You – however – do NOT have the right to be an arse and say that you are being otherwise. You do not get to control such factual matters.

    And THAT is a fact.

  53. John Fetter August 29, 2017 7:34 pm

    @ A NONPERSON – I have tried to be courteous, asked you to explain but you have allowed your rage to get the better of you. You appear to prefer making threatening noises to making sense. Too bad.

  54. Anon August 29, 2017 10:09 pm

    I am not the one reacting in rage, John.


    What exactly about my being correct threatens you so?
    What exactly about my pointing out that you STILL have options threatens you so?

    As it is, your continued choice of being an arse brings no threat whatsoever from me.

    “tis more than a bit hyperbolic of you then, your continued “protests,” eh?

  55. John Fetter August 30, 2017 2:50 am

    You said, “That is not what it means to lay claim to the benefit of four provisional applications.” – If not, your bland negative puts you under obligation to explain what it does mean before demanding that others do so. If you don’t know, there’s no need to get so upset. Simply admit you don’t know.

  56. Anon August 30, 2017 11:56 am

    That was a comment to your own statement – your own logic (or at least, attempt thereof), dictates that YOU are under a first obligation to explain.

    You are also the one “demanding” here – I am merely pointing out your shortcomings, both in the original comment by you, and in your continued arseness. There is simply no need to project any emotion (“so upset”, “allowed your rage”…?) to me, as my demeanor has been quite consistent.

    It is STILL your option to continue to be an arse or not, to be hyperbolic or not, to continue to project emotions falsely, or not.

    And it is STILL quite besides your power to change the facts of the exchange here.

  57. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 12:05 pm


    I’m saying that YOU brought up my IP in this thread just to ridicule it and insinuated that my invention is flawed.
    That makes you an A-hole.

    Anon is stating the facts just as I am.
    I wasn’t gloating. I was making statements of fact. And everything I said here is verifiable.

    The sad thing is for some reason you’re trying (yet failing because you are speculating and making incorrect assumptions) to degrade a fellow inventor.
    As I said, I’m not the enemy. Neither is Anon.

  58. Gene Quinn August 30, 2017 1:10 pm

    John Fetter-

    Anon is perfectly correct, and you are incorrect. Claiming priority to multiple different applications, even if they are provisionals, does not mean that the invention was incomplete or that any application was deficient. An invention is a process, not a singular event. Filing multiple applications, including multiple provisional applications, is a strategy that is used all too infrequently. It is a strategy used by savvy inventors and innovators, and one very frequently used by universities, R&D companies and others. Indeed, in the past I’ve written an article about Walmart filing a nonprovisional where the nonprovisional claimed priority to 37 previously filed provisional patent applications. See:


    As far as your comment about explaining the intricacies of patent practice to a six year old… well you need to grow up. A six year old isn’t going to understand the intricacies and nuance of patent practice or innovating. That should be self evident to everyone. That you expect anyone to explain it to you in that type of simplistic manner speaks volumes of you.

    The pages of IPWatchdog.com are full of free information for you to educate yourself. You really should have done that before going after Tesia here with a baseless and inaccurate claim that the patent application in question is garbage. You self proclaimed learned opinion was wrong.

    I invite you to inform yourself before proceeding, but your baseless ridicule needs to stop here.


  59. John Fetter August 30, 2017 1:28 pm

    Why are you both so doggedly determined to keep blowing off words and to repeatedly insult me? Perhaps it is because you both feel insecure. I am beginning to believe I have stumbled onto an irregularity of some sort.

  60. Gene Quinn August 30, 2017 1:33 pm

    John Fetter-

    I have not insulted you. I just told you that you were wrong. I have also told you that you need to stop insulting Tesia and criticizing the patent application in question because your criticism is baseless. That is NOT insulting you. It is merely pointing out that you are wrong, which you are.

    You asked for an explanation. I provided an explanation, and a link to even more information. There is still greater information on the use of provisionals on IPWatchdog.com. You really do need to inform yourself if you want to have a discussion here. I’m not going to allow you to continue to criticize Tesia’s application when your criticism is baseless. Those rules are not being made up special for you, they have been in place for more than a decade now. There are plenty of places where baseless accusations and criticisms are allowed, IPWatchdog.com is not one of those places.


  61. John Fetter August 30, 2017 1:39 pm

    I pointed out that the inventor’s PCT claims the benefit of four provisional applications. Suggesting that the process of inventing at the time of filing of the PCT was not complete and IS LIKELY STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
    Gene, you say that claiming priority to multiple different applications, even if they are provisionals, does not mean that the invention was incomplete or that any application was deficient. AN INVENTION IS A PROCESS, NOT A SINGULAR EVENT.
    What is the difference?

  62. John Fetter August 30, 2017 1:44 pm

    Anon called me an arse in 56. Tesia called me an A-hole in 57. I responded, “Why are you both so doggedly determined to keep blowing off words and to repeatedly insult me?”. So am the bad guy?

  63. Gene Quinn August 30, 2017 1:46 pm

    John Fetter-

    The difference is that you are imply that Tesia’s applications are defective because they were incomplete, which is a conclusion that you simply cannot draw without reading those applications very carefully and spending much time understanding the invention, what was known at any given time, and the prior art. I feel confident you didn’t do any of those things before you started criticizing.

    Invention is not a singular event. When you have something that can be protected with a patent you should absolutely go and file a patent application as quickly as you possibly can. That is today mandatory, but even before first to file that was always the best practice if you can afford to do it. It gives you an undisputed filing date with respect to the invention you have today. Then as you continue to improve the invention, learn more about the invention, make improvements to the invention and you come up with something of a different kind, sort, level that would not be supported by the first filing you make another filing, again as close in time to the improvement or new embodiment as possible so you can have a priority date locked in with respect to that which is new AND which you could not have described in the first filing because it did not exist as of that time. Then as you continue you keep doing the same over and over again. That is the process of inventing, and that is a very high level patent strategy. You suggest it somehow demonstrates an inadequacy, when to those in the industry is suggests a savvy understanding of the patent system, the need for establishing priority dates and the importance of filing as early as possible particularly when working in a crowded area of invention.

  64. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 1:47 pm


    So…what would that matter either way?
    Examiners don’t judge based on completeness. They judge what’s there.
    Even if what you say is true, then an inventor would just file continuations. That’s why the law allows continuations- for further developments.

    As I said, none of your comments affect my PCT. I’m not insecure. You are. You’re attacking an application.
    If I didn’t think my invention process thus PCT was ‘complete’ enough then I’d never have filed it. I could’ve kept filing provisionals and never allowed anything to publish.

    Please stop speculating. It’s annoying. You don’t know my development stage and it doesn’t matter either way.

  65. John Fetter August 30, 2017 1:51 pm

    Gene you say ” I’m not going to allow you to continue to criticize Tesia’s application when your criticism is baseless.” Did I criticize it?

  66. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 1:53 pm


    For the sake of getting you to stop complaining, I’m sorry I called you an A-hole. That’s my opinion though.
    But, it has no effect on the facts that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    You don’t know what’s going on in my business. So, any conclusions you draw will be likely wrong.
    The app just published. At least wait until examination begins and the file wrapper shows the examiner’s criticisms to start talking about it. The proof-reading objections are near meaningless especially because they were easily pointed out by the ISR.

  67. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 1:55 pm

    You talked about numbering errors as criticisms. Like the sky will fall down over my app and I’ll be shot by firing squad over having two # 28’s and never get an issued patent.

  68. John Fetter August 30, 2017 2:08 pm

    Gene, your say, “The difference is that you are imply that Tesia’s applications are defective because they were incomplete, which is a conclusion that you simply cannot draw without reading those applications very carefully and spending much time understanding the invention, what was known at any given time, and the prior art. I feel confident you didn’t do any of those things before you started criticizing.”


    Pub. No.: WO/2017/127131 International Application No.: PCT/US2016/038332
    Publication Date: 27.07.2017 International Filing Date: 20.06.2016
    A44B 19/02 (2006.01), A44B 19/16 (2006.01), B31B 1/90 (2006.01), B65D 33/25 (2006.01), A44B 19/26 (2006.01)
    Applicants: THOMAS, Tesia [US/US]; (US) Inventors: THOMAS, Tesia; (US) Agent: COHN, Howard, M.; (US) Priority Data:
    62/317,603 03.04.2016 US
    62/281,163 20.01.2016 US
    62/306,624 10.03.2016 US
    (EN)A zipper slider system (10) comprising at least one zipper profile/strip (14) formed along a tape and include a core (18) comprised of a series (19) of U-shaped bodies (16), and can be comprised of a section of webbing (17) attached to the series of the U-shaped bodies (16) or formed with the U-shaped bodies, and a core covering (24). A zipper slider (13) is used for opening and closing the strips (14a) and (14b) of the zipper tape 14. The zipper slider has first and second passageways (38) and (40) disposed so that the centerlines x-x and y-y through the first and second passageways extend at an angle b so that the first and second interconnection portions of the strips may be both forced into engagement with one another and forced to disengage from each another.

  69. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 2:10 pm

    Why do you care John?

  70. Gene Quinn August 30, 2017 2:16 pm

    John Fetter-

    First, why do you care?

    Second, where did you get copies of the provisional patent applications that you are now claiming to have read?

    Third, since you are making this an issue, please identify your credentials that allow you to reach an informed legal opinion on a patent application.

    Fourth, please identify how you know what Tesia knew at any point in time during the application/invention process so you can support your claim that the provisionals that you have apparently studied closely were deficient.

    I don’t know exactly what your game is here, but I’m growing tired of this unnecessary hooey.

  71. John Fetter August 30, 2017 2:23 pm

    The lady was bragging. I found that strange because she had nothing yet in the bag. I tried to point out that she had nothing yet in the bag. Politely. There is something very seriously wrong with a culture that finds it necessary to respond by hurling insults. It is not the patenting system that is broken, folks. It is the people who are broken.

  72. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 2:28 pm


    You came after me when the only thing I said was, “Inventors are everyone’s prey.”

    Everything is bragging to jealous people.

  73. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 2:33 pm

    I even said, “Eventually this tech, whether by me or not, will replace the current toothed fastener.”
    Indicating that someone could just take it and run.

    You’re just jealous John. It’s ok. I’m used to it.
    Why don’t you worry about your own devices? Doesn’t commenting take away a ton of time from your genius?
    You should put your analytical skills to good use and create the future. I’m just a woeful zipper maker. What do I know? You shouldn’t waste your time with me and my IP.

  74. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 2:42 pm

    What is the point of indicating that I have ‘nothing yet in the bag’?
    That’s something only jealous, insecure people do- tear down others.

    YOU brought my fastener up while AT THE SAME TIME talking about your glorious flow control device or whatnot.


    Just shush about my tech.

    Ye kings shouldn’t bother with a pauper like myself.

  75. John Fetter August 30, 2017 3:00 pm

    Gene – your four points:
    First, I don’t care. We’re having a discussion. Hello. Just chatting. But then the responses I get back start catching my attention. That encouraged me to keep talking to see what would happen – because my inventor’s detective instinct was urging me on. I suspect you will not be able to understand that.
    Second, if the information is available on line, I read it.
    Third, I did not make it an issue. I was simply following a hunch.
    Fourth, I respectfully decline to respond to wild allegations.

    I found the comments thrown at me highly informative. Not the patent system that is broken, but definitely the people.

  76. Tesia Thomas August 30, 2017 3:08 pm

    Dude wtf your detective instinct that Gene wouldn’t understand, as someone who works with inventors?

    Don’t you have better things to do? If my invention sucks so much then why not out-innovate it?
    If Gene doesn’t understand so much then get off his blog.

  77. Gene Quinn August 30, 2017 3:24 pm

    John Fetter-

    Provisional patent applications are not published, so I don’t know what game you are playing, but it is a game.

    Further, as I explained, you could not make an informed opinion with respect to the criticisms you have leveled unless you were privy to contemporaneous development information. So you can attempt to call that a “wild allegation,” but what is clear is your criticism is based on absolutely no information or basis.

    Obviously you do care, and obviously you do have an agenda. Since you continue in your criticism and refuse to explain yourself I’ve reached the end. Your brand of misleading commentary and criticism without basis is not tolerated.

    You are banned.


  78. Anon August 30, 2017 10:19 pm

    John Fettter does not show up on the USPTO practitioner rolls.

    In the grand scheme of things this “tit for tat” exchange with John is nigh meaningless.

    HOWEVER, a lessen for John (should he ever care to learn from his mistakes):
    Don’t try to play semantics with an attorney that is not only correct in what the attorney states, but also holds the “high ground” on the matter being discussed.

    You lose every way possible, and then you make the mistake of trying to dig in the hole to get yourself out of the hole.

    You were wrong from the get-go, and then instead of admitting your error and correcting it (without any sense of taint in “being wrong” at that time), you doubled down again and again somehow thinking that you could erase the initial fact of how incorrect you were.

    If this is some sense of “inventor detective instinct” that you purchased somewhere, I advise you to attempt to get your money back.

    On the other hand, judging from your last comment, you will FAIL to learn from this episode and continue to blame others for your own incorrect ways.

    I earnestly do hope that instead of walking away empty-minded, you contemplate “what went wrong” for you here and learn something.

    You are always free to be an arse. You are never free to deny the fact that you are being an arse when you are – objectively – being an arse.

    (you should have taken my advice at the first instance)