Lambert Licensing Reviews (%countItem)
Lambert Licensing Rating
Address: 11180 Zealand Ave N, Champlin, Minnesota, United States, 55316-3594
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
www.lambertinvent.com
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Lambert Licensing
Add new contacts
It is not what you know, rather what you can prove. OK, I submitted all information and $199 dollar fee.They received mail, cashed money order and forgot about me. I waited nine days four days longer then what they advertised. I called and they said; oops we will send results out right away! They sent me a ten page link confusing and unrelated and forward email name was wrong guy completely. That was my first clue they were up to no good. Then in the denied review was related products like mine, BUT NOT MINE AT ALL!! and they lied and reused to go to the next step. They're a middle man company that supports others that charge a huge fee to continue you with your automated failed and denied score for them to collect more revenue protected in a Lawyers name. I can legally call them gray area workers. Not guilty for prison and not honest to help. I called and was furious I fall upon another scam type of hustle... I demanded my invention packet back and they can keep the dirty cash.... They sent automated name again being different to my own. Spend your money on this company and bet you will be in the 99.2 % group. OHHHH I almost forgot!! I sent this guy an email saying i'm leaving a complaint with Revdex.com. Well, at 8am in the morning and all official, Revdex.com woman calls me and says we heard you wanna file a complaint about our paying client that we represent and would you like to settle offline? Sooo sadly.... I give this Company and all involved, half star out of 5. I give you a half cause you got a great hustle, 1,000 people a week at $200 dollars and not counting weekends, is $ 10,000,000 in Mr. L's pocket a year...
I spent my grocery money and wife and kids were and are disgusted at me.
I believed in Lambert and Lambert.
We completed the evaluation for Mr. Derrick D's invention and in the process we found 3 existing products that are very similar if not identical to his invention along with 7 very closely related patents. Because of this we feel that a patent on Mr D's invention will be rejected or issued with narrow/non-useful claims. Therefore we declined to offer Mr. D representation.
Describe Your Experience With L&L.
An incredible team reviewed my product for consideration. The process was professional thorough and as accurate as one can make.
I appreciate the work they did. The information has provided me insight. I hope that we can work together in the near future.
How Could L&L's Services Be Improved?
The process was absolutely perfect. I am happy with the results, the careful consideration, and the recommendations that the team has provided me. Please call me if you change direction with the Mule. Thanks again. Alex ***. www.mulelift.com
Describe Your Experience With L&L.
An incredible team reviewed my product for consideration. The process was professional thorough and as accurate as one can make.
I appreciate the work they did. The information has provided me insight. I hope that we can work together in the near future.
How Could L&L's Services Be Improved?
The process was absolutely perfect. I am happy with the results, the careful consideration, and the recommendations that the team has provided me. Please call me if you change direction with the Mule. Thanks again. Alex ***. www.mulelift.com
I am new to Lambert & Lambert. I am on my 2nd Invention with them. They are true to their statements. Nice company to work with. I am pleased with this company.
We are looking forward to working with her in the future.
I am new to Lambert & Lambert. I am on my 2nd Invention with them. They are true to their statements. Nice company to work with. I am pleased with this company.
We are looking forward to working with her in the future.
Although I did not receive an examination percentage which would result in Lambert & Lambert's assistance in licensing my invention, I believe I was treated fairly, honestly and with respect. They are in business to make money. If a new product or technology doesn't meet their requirements, they won't invest their time and money in it. The evaluation I received was very thorough. I agreed with their assessment. I of course would rather have heard differently and became rich over night, but it didn't happen. I will continue to peruse my technology, because I believe it has merit. I will also submit future inventions to Lamber & Lambert, because the evaluation described what they are looking for. So I will send in inventions which meet these requirements and hope for the best. I don't believe this company is a fraud, because they have assisted someone here in, Canada to get a licensing agreement on an invention. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Take care.
Although I did not receive an examination percentage which would result in Lambert & Lambert's assistance in licensing my invention, I believe I was treated fairly, honestly and with respect. They are in business to make money. If a new product or technology doesn't meet their requirements, they won't invest their time and money in it. The evaluation I received was very thorough. I agreed with their assessment. I of course would rather have heard differently and became rich over night, but it didn't happen. I will continue to peruse my technology, because I believe it has merit. I will also submit future inventions to Lamber & Lambert, because the evaluation described what they are looking for. So I will send in inventions which meet these requirements and hope for the best. I don't believe this company is a fraud, because they have assisted someone here in, Canada to get a licensing agreement on an invention. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Take care.
Lambert & Lambert promised a through and complete research of similar and competing products and patents along with a comprehensive evaluation of the products submitted. The PDF report I received from Lambert & Lambert proved they did not even begin to understand the concept of the idea I submitted to them. Most of the report was explaining their extensive research methods complete with grafts and charts, but very little dealing with my particular product. I was told my product was not patentable citing several examples of what they called similar and competing patents, yet these products were not even close to the concept I presented to them. My idea was for a craft doll with more features with additional accessory kits available that went with the particular doll. The DIY muslin fabric doll with absolutely no features at all was the "similar and competing patent" they sent me. For the kits that I presented to go specifically with my craft doll they sent patents of general "doll kits" of animals and an "educational doll kit" with a flat doll with removable clothes with attachable hook and loop fasteners that in no way resembled my idea. I could give more examples, but I'm sure you're getting the point. The similar and competing examples they sent me made me realize this was not a through extensive research and they did not even take the time to understand what I sent them. The sad part is I did my research on this company. Their Revdex.com Rating was good and I read good reviews. I don't understand how that can be. I feel taken by this company. I am a retired elderly woman and the $199.00 they charged me was not chicken feed to me. I sincerely hope this will be a warning to the next person.
We normally refrain from making any public comments that disclose in any fashion what a customer’s invention/idea/product is (per signed NDA), but since Rita has made those details public in her complaint I’m going to include the response we sent to her email to us after she received her feasibility report. I appreciate that our fee (though we think the fairest in the industry and one that has not risen in a decade) is difficult for many inventors. However, we did the work for her that she requested by making an invention submission. Inventors have to realize that the basis of our work is utility patents. We simply don’t believe that Rita’s work is eligible for patenting which means there’s little we can really do with it or for her. Here is the email:
“Dear Rita Salyers, We have no doubt that your dolls are fine works of art and splendidly crafted. However the basis of our licensing work is inventions. The products we're seeking are patentable because they have unique utility or purpose -- discoveries of something new and useful. So, while we are impressed with the quality of your creations, we have difficulty seeing that any territory could be claimed within a patent application that would pass the new and nonobvious test at the patent office. I could tell you to try *___ or *___ as they would surely love your dolls as much as you do. And for that love you'd be charged in the neighborhood of ten thousand dollars. So, what we've provided is good cause for you not to pursue the licensing, patenting, or invention promoter route and have saved you a lot of money. For that you're welcome and we wish you the best with your craft pursuits. We agree that your dolls are superior but not so in a patentable way.
Best regards, Lambert & Lambert”
*Redacted company names
A Utility Patent is issued not only for new and unique products, but are also issued for new and useful improvements of current products. The more knowledgeable readers would already know that. As for the fact that "you did the work for me that I requested" I sorely disagree with you. You promised a comprehensive research of the marketplace and a detailed patent search in order to get a complete understanding of the marketability of my product. Your so called "detailed analysis of the results of relevant patents and competing products" left me cold with the realization of the fact that you did not even take the time to understand the product and improvements that I submitted to you. Your Similar/Competing Products proved that. Not only were these products not similar to my submission, but very much inferior to the products for which I was submitting improvements. The fact that there are much better products out there than what you cited in your report shows me you did not adequately survey the market with any kind of understanding of the products at all. Some of your examples were really in left field and totally unrelated! The thought came to me that you paid some unknowledgeable employee to simply type in a general search for craft doll and doll kits and listed the first thing that you found to insert into your fancy PDF form letter that for the most part only overly bragged about your company. I very much feel taken by your company. You did me no favors. I hope I can at least be a warning to others.
Let us know when you receive your utility patent and we'd be more than happy to have another look.
Lambert & Lambert promised a through and complete research of similar and competing products and patents along with a comprehensive evaluation of the products submitted. The PDF report I received from Lambert & Lambert proved they did not even begin to understand the concept of the idea I submitted to them. Most of the report was explaining their extensive research methods complete with grafts and charts, but very little dealing with my particular product. I was told my product was not patentable citing several examples of what they called similar and competing patents, yet these products were not even close to the concept I presented to them. My idea was for a craft doll with more features with additional accessory kits available that went with the particular doll. The DIY muslin fabric doll with absolutely no features at all was the "similar and competing patent" they sent me. For the kits that I presented to go specifically with my craft doll they sent patents of general "doll kits" of animals and an "educational doll kit" with a flat doll with removable clothes with attachable hook and loop fasteners that in no way resembled my idea. I could give more examples, but I'm sure you're getting the point. The similar and competing examples they sent me made me realize this was not a through extensive research and they did not even take the time to understand what I sent them. The sad part is I did my research on this company. Their Revdex.com Rating was good and I read good reviews. I don't understand how that can be. I feel taken by this company. I am a retired elderly woman and the $199.00 they charged me was not chicken feed to me. I sincerely hope this will be a warning to the next person.
We normally refrain from making any public comments that disclose in any fashion what a customer’s invention/idea/product is (per signed NDA), but since Rita has made those details public in her complaint I’m going to include the response we sent to her email to us after she received her feasibility report. I appreciate that our fee (though we think the fairest in the industry and one that has not risen in a decade) is difficult for many inventors. However, we did the work for her that she requested by making an invention submission. Inventors have to realize that the basis of our work is utility patents. We simply don’t believe that Rita’s work is eligible for patenting which means there’s little we can really do with it or for her. Here is the email:
“Dear Rita Salyers, We have no doubt that your dolls are fine works of art and splendidly crafted. However the basis of our licensing work is inventions. The products we're seeking are patentable because they have unique utility or purpose -- discoveries of something new and useful. So, while we are impressed with the quality of your creations, we have difficulty seeing that any territory could be claimed within a patent application that would pass the new and nonobvious test at the patent office. I could tell you to try *___ or *___ as they would surely love your dolls as much as you do. And for that love you'd be charged in the neighborhood of ten thousand dollars. So, what we've provided is good cause for you not to pursue the licensing, patenting, or invention promoter route and have saved you a lot of money. For that you're welcome and we wish you the best with your craft pursuits. We agree that your dolls are superior but not so in a patentable way.
Best regards, Lambert & Lambert”
*Redacted company names
A Utility Patent is issued not only for new and unique products, but are also issued for new and useful improvements of current products. The more knowledgeable readers would already know that. As for the fact that "you did the work for me that I requested" I sorely disagree with you. You promised a comprehensive research of the marketplace and a detailed patent search in order to get a complete understanding of the marketability of my product. Your so called "detailed analysis of the results of relevant patents and competing products" left me cold with the realization of the fact that you did not even take the time to understand the product and improvements that I submitted to you. Your Similar/Competing Products proved that. Not only were these products not similar to my submission, but very much inferior to the products for which I was submitting improvements. The fact that there are much better products out there than what you cited in your report shows me you did not adequately survey the market with any kind of understanding of the products at all. Some of your examples were really in left field and totally unrelated! The thought came to me that you paid some unknowledgeable employee to simply type in a general search for craft doll and doll kits and listed the first thing that you found to insert into your fancy PDF form letter that for the most part only overly bragged about your company. I very much feel taken by your company. You did me no favors. I hope I can at least be a warning to others.
Let us know when you receive your utility patent and we'd be more than happy to have another look.
I asked for a refund because I no longer wanted an evaluation through their service. They provided the refund no problem, and still sent me the evaluation out of interest for my idea, a purely great company.
Please change our response to:
I think the customer said it all.
Thank you. Terry Lambert