Download PDF - QuickSilver Controls, Inc.

QuickSilver Controls, Inc.
580 E. Arrow Hwy, Suite E., San Dimas, CA 91773
888-660-3801 fax: 909-447-7410
www.QuickSilverControls.com
Notice of Court Order Dated 01-26-04
27 January 2004
In December, Animatics submitted a motion requesting the Court to declare the
S-Series infringes based on new disassembly techniques and that the production
units were not like the prototypes. Although we disagree with the Court’s finding
and are submitting an emergency appeal with the Federal Court (Appeal's Court),
the Court has found the S-Series infringes and has barred the sale, manufacture
and use of the product. Please see the 1-26-04 Order on the Legal Page of our
website entitled “Order Barring Sale and Manufacturing of S-Series Product-Line
Units 01-26-04”. Anticipating our emergency appeal, the Court is allowing us to
sell the S-Series until February 13th.
The Court has ordered us to notify all distributors and customers who have
purchased the S-Series units of this latest order. The Court has ruled that the
product-line units do not conform to the prototypes in violation of the prototype–
approval order and the permanent injunction. The Court also ordered us to warn
the distributors and customers that any further use or sale by them is at their own
peril.
Last year we appealed the Court’s original December 2002 infringement
decision. The ruling of this main appeal is due any week now. We still expect
the Appeal’s Court to rule that we do not infringe, which would put an end to this
case. In addition to appealing the 1-26-04 order, our emergency appeal will
request that the main appeal be expedited and that the 1 -26-04 Order be stayed
pending the outcome of the main appeal.
As stated, we disagree with the 1-26-04 Order and in particular with its assertion
that we "secretly" changed the design. For the last year Animatics has had the
right to obtain servos from us or our customers to insure they were being
assembled correctly and their attorneys always had the right to review our
manufacturing procedures. We did nothing in secret and the above measures
insured nothing could be done in secret. We documented our procedure
knowing full well that it could be seen by the Court. We understood that the
Court approved the production units as long as they were as hard to disassemble
as the prototypes. We understood this to mean that the Court was relying on us
to make good engineering/manufacturing decisions that results in a unit that was
as hard to disassemble as the prototype. We believe their new technique is
unreasonable with respect to their patent. It requires hitting the electronics with a
chisel and the discharge of toxic fumes (See the Court's notice "Notice Re Future
Demonstrations 1-14-04").
We are still fighting this aggressively as well as investigating design solutions.
We will keep you up to date.