Document Security Systems Not Sapped By Patent Dispute

David Tyler of The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported today, December 29, 2006:

When Rochester's Document Security Systems Inc. filed a lawsuit against the European Central Bank for alleged patent infringement, observers could be forgiven if it seemed that the small company was tilting at windmills.

But the lawsuit is turning out to be anything but quixotic, and instead of waiting around for a resolution, the company is moving ahead with a series of projects that have its bottom line growing.

DSS makes patented technology that prevents counterfeiting. The techniques include special inks that create interference patterns when printed or copied to help detect fraudulent documents, anti-counterfeiting measures called pantographs, and thermal inks that disappear when rubbed a certain way.

In August 2005, DSS alleged that the euro currency had anti-counterfeiting measures that violated a European patent held by the company. The central bank countersued, saying DSS' European patent is invalid and was mistakenly issued. The bank asked that the lawsuit be heard not by a European Union claims court in Luxembourg, but separately in each country that uses the euro. The bank has filed lawsuits in those nine countries

In January, DSS Chief Executive Patrick White and President Peter Ettinger, who joined the company in June, will be in London for a week of hearings on the countersuit.

Read the full article here.

Comments

[dmcgege]

hey, folks, you should really do more homework; the same US counterpart to the EU patent of Document Security was invalidated by US courts in the late 1990's and the decision to invalidate those patents was affirmed the Federal Circuit Court....in fact the WIckers (DMC) have a bad habit of reselling the same patnets over and over; see litigation vs. Adler Tech and Standard Register and many many others.

[Michael Caton]

I would like to make comment on the 1 st post the standard Register case had nothing to do with the patents of the 90's and if this person had read the transcript of the court case against the US government if the the small family group was loaded with money and had A highly qualified Lawyer to represent them they would have not lose at all and keep in mind that Ralph the inventor died before the decision was made either way, there was a offer made to the family during the court proceedings and Ralph could not take it due to his intellectual investors want a lot more. As for Adlertech maybe people should just look at what the owners of this company have there experience in up to the point that they meet the Wickers and how all of a sudden they know all there is to know about printing and took people in the field to learn many many years and seem to just be puttig out products which match or are similar to DSSI. All I will say is the product which they are selling (ODT) patented technology which I help develop and was supose to be compesated for and never was is what they are sell. If I am correct if all the inventors are not named on a patent then the patent can be ruled invalid and I have a very good case if that is to be pushed. I think the Post above did not research very well before they posted.

[John]

Michael Caton,
Can you clarify your post? After the first read, it seems as if you are Anti-DMC. Once I found out you were an insider, I was able to better understand you.
What would cause dmcgege to form that opinion?

Thanks

[Michael Caton]

John,
Sorry about my writting in the last post. I was alittle upset when I see information about the Wickers and it is all mixed together and not spelled out the way it went. I was there when all these things went on and each one is a seperate issue and nothing to do with the other. All 3 comments have to do with different patents. The Standerd Register case was about a patent that Ralph invented in the 70's were he created a Big dot, Little dot Void systems made out of rosette patterns which is a process which is used to produce 4c in magazines and such. When it went to court Ralph sued them for there big dot little dot void which came out after Ralphs and was not even produced the way the patent was written because if you did create that way it would not work. In the court it did come out and is in the transcript that Ralph was the Godfather of the void system as we know it today. The part that Standard got in court was they were the first to place a camofluage pattern over it. Ralphs Lawyer had a smoking gun to use against them but was not allowed to enter it into court. Basicly the court said to just go your seperate ways and fight in the market place. As for the other 2 cases up that are not the way this person is trying to make it look. The only place I have seen it written this way was on the shorters board for Asencio which is all mixed up and not complete for the appearence of all thing where done to deceive. All I know was I was there for the whole thing and it was nothing like that.

[John]

Thank you. I find it interesting that a high court in England will be the first to determine the validity when they don't even use the Euro. Also, I read that the ECB is looking into issuing a new note with a microchip inside before the year 2010. Taking the current notes out of circ.