Dear Sandy and Susan,
Thank you for your time in reviewing this. I hope it clarifies our thoughts on strategy regarding T-Mobile.
You can find the IP comparative that Susan had requested HERE. Embedded within this webpage as well is a support deck of an analogous, generic scenario (a baker named “JOE”) that may allow any other reviewer who is not schooled in IP or wireless innovations to understand that the issue is not simply IP related.
We feel our complaint is an issue of bad faith and intentional deception at our confidential meeting, which had preceded repeated correspondence with two heads of T-Mobile’s IP legal team and were relative to our products/assets presentation on the now-CEO’s referral.
Rather than infringement, their directly derivative filings, which omitted reference to us while citing remotely related IP, is the definitive fingerprint of a conscious and strategic theft. The singular issue and solution, I believe, is specific only to handling by CEO Mike Sievert. The impact of this mishandling is irreparable damage to a number of other partnership opportunities for our business and, notably, exposure of animals to euthanasia that any rightful business would have addressed.
Mike Sievert allowed his team to exploit our system, which was created from a desire of bringing communities together to benefit families and pets while providing priceless transparent access to up to two-thirds of deeply vested consumers. The T-Mobile team’s former employer, Amazon, has substantiated the multi-billion dollar value of our innovations and own claims, with their ‘Sidewalk” wireless system, which is also completely derivative.
Several of the most important aspects of the T-Mobile situation for us, are:
The safety, good faith and confidentiality of the CEO’s personal handling and arranged meeting;
The team of three having already been exploiting our 2016 published IP assets (filed 2014) and shielded us from knowing (at least) this conflict, could not reasonably have done this without strategy, planning and dialogue. It is not more logical why, unlike any other presentation to a major firm in my career, they never requested or required a drafted NDA. They left our confidential markings, written reminders of privacy, and Mike’s good faith handling as the basis.
The live meeting information was the product of the opportunity. The team elicited our most sensitive trade secrets and, twice, our deeply private partner-specific price of $62 million with its basis. This now provided them our “secret sauce” for ongoing leadership in this new free, wireless access market and insight to our private partnership intentions. They purchased through willful actions and inactions, leading to us feeling safe in handing them our product.
The T-Mobile team, then, continued to knowingly damage our assets and value in several critical ways. The meeting would never have occurred on our part had we not been lured into a meeting which they chose to schedule to their benefit.
The value of our innovations, as presented would be the case, has now been affirmed by industry, including the team’s previous employer, Amazon, and the product they helped to develop, Alexa. This value was already known to the team as were our 2013/14 assets.
They stated that they had autonomy to approve up to $300 million. The overt announcement of this was strange.
This team continued, and continues to this day, to claim and gain rights to our patentable 2014 innovations, still without reference of us. After a reminder of our growing assets, T-Mobile’s top IP lawyer taking possession of the entire file in Fall 2019, (prior to any of their derivative patent issuances), chose to continue to not reference/IDS our IP, (first claim issued as example, follows).
The meaningful action, beyond allowing the allowance without IDS, was in fact assigning their first derivative patent to Deutsche Bank, days after issuance. T-Mobile is a Deutsche Telecom co.
The team leader (Garg,) committed in writing to contact us if they chose to pursue any of our “directions”. Indeed, they had been doing this from at least 8 weeks prior to the live meeting.
To the events and as our only handler for T-Mobile, CEO, Mike Sievert, is solely responsible responsible for the basis of safety we sensed so deeply in accepting a meeting with us. He also chose to not correct the problem despite calling out in writing that he had been “unaware” of the situation which our mutual friend brought to his attention in 2021.
Once again, we were sent back to IP legal, by him. Melissa Hoge, made several comments that were clearly intimidating and strange. Though, the most important one was that the product team, which legal did not dialogue with, “was unaware of our IP”. This, following her statement that she had not reviewed the situation and needed information. Their first claim was sent.
She did not respond, as promised, after not receiving her new, retroactive, fully absolving and newly restricting NDA without logically being restricted to future business talks.
Three coincidences alone, unique to us and this team, represent and accidental DNA-match likelihood, albeit distinct claim steps-based:
A) the first fully derivative claim, much less claims, being filed weeks after our FedEx to Mike and weeks before our live meeting;
B) the only T-Mobile patents to have these team members as co-inventors being derivative patents from our public IP;
C) and the only firm and product to launch the first free wireless system, fully introduced in our public IP, being their previous employer and product focus (Amazon/Alexa).The typical tool of “citing prior art” is not an option for them, logically. First, it would need to be prior to March 2013. Second, any such digging on their part now would lead, if to anything, to discoveries that would “read” on them more than us. This, as they are indeed derivative, this search would prove it and the likelihood that our IP would be affected at such an early date of filing as theirs would be, is far less likely.
The victims of this damage are animals, first. Millions that would have already been save by our best version powering adoptions have died. Our firm and the potential of the intended aligned funding of our team’s focus on families, communities and teens, second.
A suggestion of a personal final note from me to him to resolve this with a talk, cc’d to our legal (as Hoge suggested we do) is a possible pathway to solution for this top CEO. Significant for T-Mobile remains undeniably there and solving the issue is my priority.
If not responsive, a draft complaint that suggests a public filing may point to something not worth him leaving unresolved.
Sandy/Susan: There is plenty of additional elaboration we can supply, should you require it in order to assess your interest and involvement. Please let us know if those surrounding issues, support and dialogue may be helpful. We really appreciate your time to review these events regarding the CEO’s involvement and handling that we feel serves as the basis of (undisclosed to us) a consummated transaction and damaging result.
Thanks Again,
Craig Mowry