Patent ownership and Legal

We are "The Innovators, not the Imitators" We created the Fireplace glass industry as it is known today.

For any alledged infringers if you would like to apply for licencing

 E mail to Ed@Moderustic.com You will be forwarded to our licencing attorneys

(909) 989-6129

Notice of EXCLUSION to the all dealers and the like in the United States for selling FIREGLASS.

Patent Piracy is not a victimless crime

5th Patent #US 11,254,609 and US patent numbers  #US 9,700,987 B1 and US 9,808,905 B2

5 Patents issued and 1 patent pending!

Visit www.USPTO.GOV for details on Patent infringement

Counterfeit sales by CRIMINALS, need to see this!

our 5th Patent is here now!

Criminal and Civil crimes! For selling Counterfeit products.

dear counsel, i am reaching out to explore a potential collaboration with an experienced patent litigation attorney or firm, particularly one with expertise in matters involving 35 u.s.c. §271. i represent a portfolio of issued patents that are currently subject to widespread infringement across the market. based on preliminary analysis, this may involve several thousand infringing entities (estimated at approximately 9,000). this presents a scalable enforcement opportunity with significant commercial potential. proposed structure: • this would be a self-funded, contingency modified-based litigation model • i will provide initial capital to establish a litigation fund • funds will be used to cover: o legal fees o litigation costs, filing and service o expert expenses if it goes to trial unlike traditional engagements, i am not seeking a retainer-based arrangement. instead, i prefer a performance-based structure, where compensation is derived from recoveries (settlements or judgments). to ensure transparency and alignment: • funds after collected may be placed in a third-party escrow account • all costs and expenses will be clearly defined in writing prior to engagement • a portion of proceeds may be retained to build a rolling litigation reserve strategic approach: we anticipate initiating with a single target defendant and expanding based on discovery, including identifying additional infringing parties through supply chain and distribution channels. what i am looking for: • a lawyer or firm with proven patent litigation experience for practicing entities • familiarity with §271 (g) infringement frameworks right to exclude • a practical, action-oriented mindset • experience representing operating entities (not npe-focused practices) this is not a typical single-defendant matter, but rather a multi-defendant enforcement opportunity with strong settlement probability (federal data indicates approximately 98.6% of cases resolve prior to trial). statistics from federal court. relevant patents (sample): application n

The statistical claim that 98.6% of patent cases resolve prior to trial is generally accurate, reflecting a broader trend where the vast majority of federal civil litigation terminates via settlement, dismissal, or summary judgment [1].

However, scaling a contingency-modified enforcement campaign against 9,000 potential infringers requires navigating specific legal, logistical, and structural hurdles.

Overcoming Joinder and Multi-Defendant Hurdles

Under the AIA (Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) joinder rules (35 U.S.C. § 299), you cannot sue multiple unrelated defendants in a single lawsuit simply because they are accused of infringing the same patent [1]. 

• The Rule: Defendants can only be joined if the infringement arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions [1]. 
• The Impact: You must file hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits, or distinct tranches of lawsuits.
• The Expense: Each separate complaint requires its own federal filing fee ($405+), administrative processing, and individualized service of process.

Evaluating the § 271(g) Framework and Supply Chain Discovery

Your strategy emphasizes 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which covers products made abroad by a patented process and subsequently imported into or sold in the United States [1]. 

[Foreign Manufacturer] ---> [Importer / Distributor] ---> [9,000 Retailers / End Users]

    (Process Patent)             (Importation Section)             (Safe Harbor Risks)

• The Limitation: Section 271(g) contains an explicit safe harbor [1]. A product is not considered infringing if it is "materially changed by subsequent processes" or becomes a "trivial and nonessential component of another product" [1]. 
• The Discovery Burden: Starting with a single target to map the supply chain is standard practice. However, establishing that a foreign manufacturer specifically utilized your patented process requires extensive, high-cost international discovery, letters rogatory, or expensive technical reverse-engineering.

Managing the Realities of Multi-Defendant Litigation Costs

While you are offering an initial litigation fund to cover costs, a campaign targeting thousands of entities will rapidly deplete standard capital reserves.

A hybrid contingency model works well for 5 to 10 major targets, but 9,000 targets resemble a mass-enforcement framework [1]. This volume typically requires high-automation law firms or specialized Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) providers to share the capital risk.

Structuring a Scalable Enforcement Pilot Program

To attract an experienced, practicing-entity litigation firm under a contingency-modified structure, you must compress your strategy into an actionable pilot phase:

1. Select Top Tier Targets: Identify 3 to 5 high-volume importers/distributors rather than downstream retailers. Securing a judgment or settlement at the neck of the supply chain inherently cuts off the infringement downstream.
2. Establish the Proof of Concept: Use your litigation fund to fully finance these initial suits. Proving infringement and surviving early motions to dismiss will demonstrate the portfolio's monetization viability to your firm.
3. Automate Downstream Resolution: If the initial actions succeed, work with your firm to create standard, structured settlement templates. This allows a lower-cost administrative team to scale the remaining thousands of targets via demand letters and streamlined rule-compliant filings.

To evaluate how to align this portfolio with an appropriate legal team, could you clarify:

• What specific technological field or industry vertical do these patents cover?
• Have these patents survived any prior litigation, IPRs, or reexaminations?
• What is the estimated size of your initial litigation fund relative to the projected filing costs? 

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses