Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers


"Frankly, the way Calvin Ayre is conducting himself is incredibly prejudicial," opines patents executive
A patents expert enlivened Easter weekend reading on the controversial 1st Technologies vs. Bodog dispute over patents with his opinion on the confrontation, saying that Bodog founder and chief Calvin Ayre's lawyers must "having fits" over the way in which some of the exchanges between the companies have been handled.
Ronald J. Riley, President of the Alliance for American Innovation and an executive for a number of other patents related websites including told gambling information website Gambling911 that he believes Ayre, is walking on egg shells with his firm's recent filing for a patent re-examination (see previous InfoPowa report).
"Frankly, the way Calvin Ayre is conducting himself is incredibly prejudicial," said Riley. "His attorneys must be having fits. I strongly suspect that Ayre thought that his offshore corporate status would protect him against infringement lawsuits and that the default judgment situation is totally his own doing.  Unbridled ego can be incredibly expensive."
Riley's organisation, The Professional Inventor's Alliance, was created more than a decade ago to protect American inventions and encourage innovation.
According to the organisation's website, American inventors saw a need to track congressional legislation and federal policy that impacts independent inventors, small and medium-sized businesses and colleges and universities. The Alliance provides independent inventors a united voice to improve public policy, and over the years its members have testified before Congress, offered counsel to key Senate and House committee members and successfully pushed legislation to protect America’s independent inventors.
Riley knows whereof he speaks. He has produced inventions in a multitude of areas, including the telecommunications, biotechnology and consumer products industries. Specialising in industrial controls and product development, he is best known for five patents related to the automated industrial monorail and two patents on his revolutionary enhancement of the treadmill.
"Inventors are also gamblers," Riley points out.  "We spend years perfecting an invention. Then we face many obstacles which could easily bankrupt us but we forge ahead.
“After sinking hundreds of thousands to a few million in the process we may have something of value. And at that point we have to deal with egotistical, fat-headed patent pirates. Those of us who make it that far are incredibly tenacious and we do kick the living crap out of those who pirate our property.
"Frankly, Calvin Ayre appears to have a very poor hand and should know when to hold and when to fold.  His problem is that the re-examination will make the patents much stronger if he does not successfully kill all the claims. That is unlikely. If just one infringed claim is left standing he will be in a really bad situation. Continuing to operate as usual while this drags out could expose him to punitive damages, up to three fold. Fallout from this could be the defining moment of his life."
Riley believes Ayre should rethink his current strategy.  He offered this advice:
"The smart thing to do at this point is to learn from the mistake, pay the judgment, and move on. The alternative is to suffer the same kind of fate as RIM. They had a case which could have been settled prior to infringement for perhaps five million. Up to the start of trial it could have been settled for ten to fifteen million. The court awarded 25 million and due to RIM’s conduct that was enhanced to more than 50 million. They appealed and faced losing the appeal – they could have settled for 450 million. They insisted on outrageous terms and in the end paid $612 million."