Stinger Systems Request Reexamination of Taser International's Intellectual Property

TAMPA , Fla., Jan. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY), a leader in electro-stun technology today announced that has submitted documents to the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting a reexamination of Taser International's intellectual property.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently evaluating whether to reexamine Taser International, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: TASR) United States Patent 7,234,262. The application for the '262 Patent was filed on December 2, 2005 . It is alleged that the application for the '262 Patent was erroneously designated as a continuation of an earlier Taser patent application, filed on September 17, 1999 , and that Taser failed to disclose to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that from at least the year 2000, Taser had manufactured an M-26 model Taser, embodying the inventions claimed in the '262 application. It is further alleged that, consequently, the inventions claimed in the '262 application are unpatentable as obvious pursuant to 35 United States Code 103(a). A copy of the complete request for reexamination appears at

In a pending law suit, that is Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: STIY), Stinger Systems, Inc. alleges that the erroneous designation of Taser's December 2, 2005 '262 application as a continuation of Taser's earlier September 17, 1999 application, and Taser's failure to disclose during the application proceedings that it had, for some years prior to 2005, manufactured an M-26 Taser, embodying inventions claimed in the '262 application, combine to constitute Taser's inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A federal court may not only invalidate a patent in the event of an applicant's inequitable conduct when prosecuting the application before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but inequitable conduct with respect to one patent in a family of patents can infect all related applications, Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc..(Fed. Cir. 2007) 504 F.3d 1223, 1230. Patents in the family include Taser's patents 6,636,412 and 7,075,770. Taser's patents 6,636,412, 7,075,770 and 7,234,262 may all be invalidated if Stinger's argument in the case prevails.

Attorney James McNulty, Jr., who undertook advanced studies in business with the late Peter Ferdinand Drucker and studied law under James E. Rogan, former United States Under Secretary of State for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, commented "It appears in my opinion that the financial markets are under the misimpression that Taser International has a patent monopoly on projectile stun guns. In my further opinion, this misimpression supports an unjustifiably speculative price for Taser international stock. I have reviewed Taser's portfolio of patents and in my considered professional opinion, the patents contained therein are extremely narrow (and in some cases even farcical) patents, that provide Taser little or no competitive advantage. However, Stinger believes that all Companies must follow the protocols of patent filings and believe that Taser has not done a proper job of filing these patents and must be challenged. In my further considered professional opinion, Stinger realizes the challenges of creating a state of the art stun gun that has the ability to not just shock but immobilize individuals. That is the key to entering into this market, to have technology that immobilizes. Stinger has that and has filed for patents for its new technology. Stinger also has an active research programs for multiple products. Stinger Systems, Inc. also sells patented electronic prisoner transport and riot shield devices and has developed patent pending technologies for reducing the size of disabling shock circuits for discharge from conventional firearms."


Stinger Systems, Inc., a leading provider of electro stun technologies, develops and sells a broad array of products utilizing advanced electro sparc- pulsed technology to police, corrections, and security sectors worldwide.


This announcement contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The forward-looking statements are based on Stinger Systems' current intent, belief and expectations. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements because of the risks described in Stinger Systems' filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Existing and prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of today's date. Stinger Systems undertakes no obligation to update or revise the information contained in this announcement whether as a result of new information, future events or circumstances, or otherwise.

SOURCE Stinger Systems, Inc.