Stinger to Move for Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Filed Against it by Taser. Taser Early in Suit Sought Technical Info

TAMPA, Fla. , June 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY), the leader in electro-stun technology, today announced that the "claims construction" or "Markman" bench trial in Taser v. Stinger (U.S. District Court...

TAMPA, Fla. , June 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY), the leader in electro-stun technology, today announced that the "claims construction" or "Markman" bench trial in Taser v. Stinger (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Case) (Nasdaq: TASR) had concluded, and that the federal judge in the case will now be rendering her rulings interpreting as a matter of law the meaning of the patent claims that Taser alleges Stinger has infringed. Absent the judge's ruling, Stinger has, as a practical matter, been unable to move under federal procedures for dismissal of Taser's allegations. Stinger will however now move for dismissal, as soon as reasonably possible after it receives the judge's rulings.

In pleadings, Stinger System's, Inc. has requested that Taser be ordered to pay Stinger fees for an egregious case, implying that Taser's suit is both specious and dubiously motivated. Taser moved early in the case to discover information on the technology used to produce the Stinger S-200's new less power TRU PULSE (TM) shock waveforms, and agreed to an unusually restrictive protective order to obtain the information. Taser is no longer even asserting any of the allegations of patent infringement that it originally filed against Stinger, though the patent case continues.

Nationally recognized authorities on stun weapon technology consider Stinger's new TRU PULSE (TM) waveform to be the first fundamental advance in stun weapon technology since John Cover's invention of the Taser over thirty years ago. The S-200's new patent pending TRUE PULSE (TM) waveform shocks more efficiently (less current) than the waveforms of prior art Tasers. Therefore, the S-200's shock violent assailants with less electrical power to achieve comparable disabling effects with less pain. H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. analyzed Stinger System, Inc.'s S-200 projectile stun gun and confirmed its take down abilities, yet studies conducted by Dr. Wayne McDaniel of the University of Missouri found that the peak current of the X-26 (Taser) shock was on average 75% greater than the peak current of the S-200 TRU PULSE (TM) shock.

Commenting on the $6M verdict against Taser International, delivered on June 6th , Ron Bellistri , C.E.O. of Stinger Systems, Inc., and James McNulty , acting in house counsel for Stinger System's, Inc., made the joint statement. "No one has ever died proximate to being shocked by Stinger System, Inc.'s S-200 or any other Stinger product. Stinger System's, Inc., has never been sued for product defect or wrongful death."

"Stinger Systems, Inc. will continue to protect itself and its shareholders investment with socially responsible sales and advertising practices and by continuing to lead in the research and development of stun product safety innovations.

Stinger Systems, Inc. responsibly produces and sells its S-200 projectile stun gun as a firearm and dangerous weapon only for use by trained and experienced law enforcement officers. Stinger makes no warranty that its projectile stun guns cannot kill, but only that they are less likely to kill than conventional firearms, and therefore can be of life saving benefit when used responsibly by trained and experienced officers. Furthermore, manufacturers of firearms, like the S-200 projectile stun gun, have the protections of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that is codified as 15 USC Section 7901 - 7903. The act prohibits the bringing of certain suits against firearms manufacturers for "damages, punitive damages" "in any Federal or State Court." Taser International, Inc.'s X26 and M26 weapons and its consumer weapons are not classified as firearms. Moreover, in pleadings filed in federal court as recently as last year, Taser International, Inc. has continued to argue that it is justified in having characterized its Taser weapons as "non-lethal." Stinger Systems, Inc. sees no reason for placing its shareholders investment at potential risk with such, in its opinion, totally unnecessary warranties and failures to warn.

This content continues onto the next page...