Patented Electroluminescent paint?

In this business it is good to be solid informed and therefore I kindly recommend you to read the information in this post.
Originally we attributed to the BASF patent and obviously incorporated the newest nano technology.

Our intention is to provide financial low level entrance and our best offers are based on “package deals” and offered as such.

There is no electroluminescent paint as such, as it is a paint system. As such, the system consists of individual paints where each individual paint (layer) is providing a special function. The functionality, achieved with mixing additives within it (pigments or powders) is providing electro-luminescence. The pigments/powders do need mixing within a “carrier” paint/polymer/binder, primarily to provide the paint functionality within the paint system.

We (as many others) prefer “trade secret” for our electroluminescent paint system above a “patent. In general there is doubt that there is any legally enforceable valid patent right as it is all old school. There are of-course patent trolls but they are subject in court to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.

If someone declares, “I have the only electroluminescent paint patent” that is fine and lovely for them, there are zillions of patents. It means then :”I have a bridge to sell you”  – would you buy it and pay 400% more?

Let us take for example: patent “US8470388” this patent is based on the use of “ammonium hydroxide” this is a typical bogus charlatan refinement or patent swindle – This is a subtle refinement and the rest is plagiarized. If you look further it has been abandoned according to the US Public Pair site.  On US20130171903 which is an application, not a patent, the examiner had rendered a Final Rejection and the applicant failed to respond to that.

This flim-flam patent for example “US9642212” this patent is based on the use of “n-butyl acetatexylene –  methyl acetate” and is only recently filed in the United States with Publication date:May 2, 2017 – Filing date: Jul 28, 2016 and regardless – for sure litcoat.com or all those others mentioned in the “patent discussion” would be for sure “prior art” and easy to be invalidated with a 301 statement.
The 301 is free for everyone to do/file anonymously.

Unpatentable – Report Patent Office USA

EVERYONE can and may also use this prior abandoned and expired patent: 2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anyone can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)

It is self-explanatory, “an overpriced patented product…”, means it is not your product and they have patented THEIR product,  If they address your superior product or service (not their product) in specific and starting with harassment, then it would be your counter to go for “defamation”…

In addition, patent lawsuits are difficult, involving complicated legal and scientific issues, and can take many years. If a patent is determined by a court to be invalid, the patent holder loses all exclusive rights to the invention and you may place counter-claim.

Patent Trolls look for obvious ideas, patent them, and then start the harassment to sue anyone “they” claim is infringing on their patent. Regarding the electroluminescent paint patent trolling hoax, be aware that no one of the trolling parties did invent the electroluminescent system materials nor the methodology, nor the EL technology as such. What they did is simply called: Plagiarism. Often they sell less advanced and diluted materials at silly prices.
(We even did read about someone with a patent epiphany after having plenty of 6-packs of beer.)

In addition, if paint is different and as such not comparable to what they think “they” might have as an eventual claim, there is simply no validity in a claim, and that is why they are called patent trolls..

There is prior art all over the place. Some are selling paints that have physical and health hazards and require even special suits and cabins for handling.

There are individuals or companies whom plagiarized the novelty IP from other companies and added some “trolling” chemicals to it. If the patented refinement is subtle, it probably is not important enough to go on through the effort of invalidation since it is likely easy enough to avoid.

Often people go for IP patent to con investors (for R&D funding) and there is a huge industry just doing this and more about “patent scam” can be found here: The Patent Scam

If you like this page, we would appreciate you share it on social media. Thanks!

Thanks.