I had a friend once, who was a real physicist, that insisted that, because he was a physicist he was an expert in the law. I didn’t have the heart to tell him just how truly delusional this supposition was. I highly recommend that, if you are a physicist, you don’t make the same foolish mistake my friend did. But, hey; you wouldn’t be the first physicist that made a complete fool of himself/herself in court, and you certainly won’t be the last one, either.
Like my law professor was fond of saying; there aren’t going to be any rocket scientists on the jury.
I direct the presumption that Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, is valid against you and anyone else that chooses to challenge that patent for invalidity. The burden is on you to rebut that presumption but, as I previously proved, you can only do so in a US court of law.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Actions Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.
Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, because it is searchable and downloadable online with the USPTO, it is self authenticated. As such, that patent does not require any additional or outside (extrinsic) evidence of authenticity in order for it to be admitted into evidence or for the presumption of validity to be asserted.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902. Evidence That is Self-AuthenticatingThe following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
. . . .
(10) Presumptions Under a Federal Statute. A signature, document, or anything else that a federal statute declares to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.
Further;
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. Authenticating or Indentifying Evidence
(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
. . . .
(7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:
(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or
(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.
If you or anyone else wished (past tense) to object to Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, for being invalid, you had plenty of lawful opportunities to do so. Because you slept on your rights to so object, you can only object, challenge Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, for being invalid, now, by doing so in a US court of law, as I previously proved, here.
USPTOTrademark Process
Initial Steps
STEP 7:
File the application online through the Trademark Electronic Application System. View trademark fee informatio. REMINDERS:. . . (2) All information you submit to the USPTO at any point in the application and/or registration process will become public record, including your name, phone number, e-mail address, and street address.
STEP 11: USPTO Publishes Mark
If the examining attorney raises no objections to registration, or if the applicant overcomes all objections, the examining attorney will approve the mark for publication in the Official Gazette, a weekly publication of the USPTO. The USPTO will send a notice of publication to the applicant stating the date of publication. After the mark is published in the Official Gazette, any party who believes it may be damaged by registration of the mark has thirty (30) days from the publication date to file either an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose. An opposition is similar to a proceeding in a federal court, but is held before the TTAB. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the application enters the next stage of the registration process.
STEP 13: Notice of Allowance Issues for Marks Based on an Intent-to-Use the Mark
If the mark is published based upon the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and no party files either an opposition or request to extend the time to oppose, the USPTO will issue a notice of allowance about eight (8) weeks after the date the mark was published. The applicant then has six (6) months from the date of the notice of allowance to either: (1) Use the mark in commerce and submit a statement of use (SOU); or (2) Request a six-month extension of time to file a statement of use (extension request).
A notice of allowance is a written notification from the USPTO that a specific mark has survived the opposition period following publication in the Official Gazette, and has consequently been allowed; it does not mean that the mark has registered yet. Receiving a notice of allowance is another step on the way to registration. Notices of allowance are only issued for applications that have been filed based on an intent-to-use a mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b).
Until you do so challenge Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, in a US court of law, challenging it’s validity, and prevail on that challenge, Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, will be deemed valid, for all intents and purposes. No other additional evidence need be submitted to support that legal conclusion of validity.
Again, I proclaim Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, of his permanent magnet motors (four of them) legally valid, for all intents and purposes. See, top of page 19. The burden is on you or anyone else to prove otherwise and, you may only do so (credibly) in a US court of law. Any challenge to Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, for invalidity, outside of a US court of law, such as the ones you have made here, are legally deemed incredible and irrelevant. No response to such incredible and irrelevant challenges is required. In law, they are garbage (to be ignored) and that is how I am treating them.
I gladly await your proper legal challenge, in a US court of law, to the validity of Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001. Until then, no defense to Charles Flynn’s US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001, is required. Nor, shall one be given.
Dan
- - - Updated - - -
Merriam-Webster’s definition of "motor": a machine that produces motion or power for doing work
1: one that imparts motion; specifically: PRIME MOVER
2: any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion
This is a judicially noticeable definition of the word "motor". Because this definition is common knowledge, I will ask the court to take judicial notice it. As such, it is a fact that is indisputable. Indisputable facts are not for the jury to decide.
Dan
