U.S. Patent Office denies TASER competitor filing

Taser International Inc. is no stranger to lawsuits. And as usual, the Scottsdale-based electronic control device maker has come out on top yet again.

Tampa-based Stinger Systems Inc. filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Taser in December 2007, asking the U.S. Patent Office to reexamine the patent on its older M-26 and current X-26 models. The infringement claim is based on internal circuitry from earlier work allegedly conducted by Stinger engineers.

The Patent Office declined to reexamine the issue earlier this month, putting the issue to bed.

Company founder and chief executive Tom Smith said Stinger has used the patent and judicial system in an attempt to discredit Taser while looking to take some of its enormous market share.

“These attempts by Stinger Systems, Inc. to confuse the market (are) coming from a desperate company with minimal sales of hand-held (electronic control device) products … (and) demonstrates the dire straits they face as they are not having success with their existing efforts to compete with our TASER(r) devices,” he said.

The decision takes Taser out of one of many legal disputes with Stinger. Taser, which has won more than 60 wrongful death suits since it was founded in 1991, filed a lawsuit against Stinger in 2005. According to the case, filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, Taser claims Stinger has engaged in false advertising and unlawful patent marketing.

Among the questions raised in the lawsuit is that Stinger has branded itself as the only certified ECD maker by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The ATF, however, does not certify less-lethal weapons – it regulates them.

In April, Stinger launched a lawsuit of its own in Arizona’s federal court, claiming Taser’s X-26 model infringes on early versions of the company’s S-200 projectile stun gun. Stinger also claims that Taser marketed its product to potential Stinger customers, using an unfinished report by the National Institutes of Justice, the research agency for the U.S. Department of Justice, that shows the Taser device in a favorable light to Stinger’s, which has since gone through major redevelopment.

“In my opinion, I believe that Taser appears to not want to compete on a head to head basis. Why else would they resort to this type of tactic? Stinger is happy to compete on the merits of its S-200 stun gun’s advanced technologies, quality and reliability alone,” said Robert Gruder, Stinger president.

The lawsuits amount to yet another dizzying array of legal issues that both publicly-traded companies have faced. Stinger recently settled an issue with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over how the use of the ATF “certification” may have led to quadrupled increased prices of company shares, pushing to as high as $48.55.

“I do not believe I committed securities fraud,” Gruder said.

Stinger recently settled its SEC complaint without admitting or denying guilt. There were no fines or sanctions levied against the company, although it remains to be seen if Gruder has been removed from power as part of the agreement.

Ty can be reached at ty@aztechnews.net.