A documentary of massive medical greed, pushing inferior products to be used in this critical and and dangerous procedure, and attempting to invalidate a Valid U.S. Patent to Avoid Paying Royalties to the Inventor, as per the Law. A Law written clearly and concisely and placed Prominently In the U.S. Constitution ( Article 1, Section 8. The responsibilities of the U.S. Congress.).
Investors are welcome in this Battle to get the Best instrument into the Right Hands, ASAP.
The Breath you Save may be Your Own.
Brief History and Status of the seminal U.S. Patent for the Video Laryngoscope
January 1996 I get the idea for the video Larynngoscope.
October 1998 I receive a U.S. Patent for the video laryngoscope.
October 2000 I presented the idea formally to The Society for Airway Management in Quebec City and the following week I had a poster presentation in the Exhibit Hall at the World Congress of Anesthesiologists in
Montreal. There I had face-to-face presented the invention to companies involved in lntubation, including the Product Managers and their Technicians from the Karl Storz and Pentax. I wanted to bring the Invention to Market.
I wanted to bring the invention to market ASAP. I knew that my chances of finding the $5 million to bring a product of this kind to market were “SLIM..!!” and I knew that big, rich companies could financially bring it to market with the snap of their fingers.
From 2000-2005 I attended over 40 conferences of Anesthesiologists, Emergency Medicine Physicians, EMS personnel, Manufacturers and Investors. I was not aware that four companies were preparing product for market; among them Karl Storz and Pentax.
In 2005 pre-market announcements were made and in 2006 four companies with Video Laryngoscopes were in the U.S. market. Each had design faults that would result in their video I-scopes not being used as widely as 1t should be, could be, and would be if it was designed correctly. They were all infringing on Claim #I of U.S. Patent 5,827,178.
When they acknowledged my U.S. Patent their response was, “You can’t bother us, so we won’t bother with you “.
Their point was that it would cost about $5 Million to sue them
In August 2010 I sued them in Federal Court, a “Contingency” agreement with a law firm that sold me out at first calls from the infringing defendants: Demanding that I settle for 50-60% of what the defendants had offered before I had the “Help” of the Law firm. Verathon and Pentax immediately went back to the Patent Office Reexamination Division to argue that my U.S. Patent should not have been granted in 1998:
The case in federal court was Stayed pending the result of the Reexamination.
In January 2019 Nine (9) and over four thousand pages later the Judges at the Patent Office ruled that my U.S. Patent Was Valid.
After 7 Months of “administrative moves “(which normally take 2-3 weeks) the Patent Office finally cleared my U.S. Patent to return to Federal Court. My case had been in Federal court for 7 months. and the Judge has ordered a mediation….the Stay continues.
So you want to get a patent for excellent innovation?
Be prepared to be beaten and crushed.
Federal Court New York Southern District Case #: 1:10 – cv – 05777
“Berall v Verathon et al.”