Paint Solutions

Ms [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA March 13, Re: [redacted] Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] ; This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 03/02/ Ms [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in 2008, and all services have been completedThose services were provided with her express written approval and authorization Further, the services met with her documented satisfactionUnfortunately, no corporation has been willing to license her product idea When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations Ms [redacted] entered into an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data related to her product idea Davison completed the Pre-Development services and the compiled research was provided Apparently satisfied with the service, she entered into a second contract for the design and construction of a physical product sample and presentation material A proposed design was provided for her review She approved the design and completed a questionnaire about the design - providing positive feedback Based upon that approval, the physical sample and presentation material were created An Executive Briefing, containing a photograph of the physical product sample, was provided to her She authorized the presentation of the product idea and completed a second questionnaire providing positive feedback The product idea was presentedUnfortunately, the corporation did not license her ideaShe contracted for presentation material for a second corporation; that corporation did not license the idea She declined any further services In her complaint, she makes numerous inaccurate statements First, she claims to have had a patent that expired after months That is not true Davison is not a law firm, and does not offer patent services or any other legal servicesDavison does provide a blank cover sheet for a provisional application and information about patents taken directly from the USPTO website Assuming she had patent, the term is significantly longer than year The filing that expires after months is a provisional application for patent, not a granted patent The information provided about patents includes this detail Second, she claims Davison has an obligation to continue to maintain contact with her, despite her decision to refuse any further services That is not reasonableOnce services are completed, and a client declines any further services, there is simply no ongoing obligation from DavisonDavison provides the client with a letter indicating their project is in a “reactive” status, where no presentations are pursued and no ongoing updates are provided Next, she claims the product sample was not consistent with what she approved, making specific reference to the material of construction As stated above, she was provided an Executive Summary which contained a photograph of the physical sample and information about its constructionThe information clearly states the material as “injection molded ABS” and aluminum A copy of the Executive Briefing is attached; note all details regarding the product idea have been redacted Finally, she alludes to other posted complaintsWhen a customer’s experience is good, it is not often that that customer takes the time to post their positive experiences The inevitable result is that review sites are filled with a seemingly overwhelming volume of negativityFurther, many individuals simply note the number of comments, rather than actually read the post and the business responseThat is a simple reality of on-line review sites In light of the detail above, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms*** If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations Sincerely, David ** D [redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

This letter is in response to the “additional concerns” that you provided in your letter dated January 3, 2017.MrK [redacted] raised nothing new or additional in his commentsThe facts are that Davison made a design that was in all materials respects exactly what he wanted, with one small exceptionWhen MrK [redacted] requested that the one small aspect be changed, the company agreed, if he provided one measurement that would be necessary to the changeMrK [redacted] never provided the measurement, twice changed his mind about what work he wanted the company to perform, and ultimately decided that he wanted the company to start from the beginning and permit him to participate in the workIt was only his last demand to start over that caused the company to offer to quote re-doing the project from the beginning.Davison has substantially performed the services, offered to make a change that he deemed necessary and has attempted to resolve the disputeMrK [redacted] would have the sample that he originally sought, if he cooperated and provided the one piece of information requested.Regards,George HC [redacted] General Counsel

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 05/27/Customerconcerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services andfees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the processThecontracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsUnfortunately, despite its bestefforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.As will be detailed below, Davison has performed its services with Mr [redacted] ’s approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfactionThere are no grounds for a refund.In his complaint, Mr [redacted] alleges he was not informed of existing products that weresimilar to his submitted ideaThis is falseDavison is not aware, and simply can not be aware,of every idea for a new product that any person, anywhere, may conceiveIt is not uncommonfor multiple people to conceive of the same or similar products independentlyIt is important tothe product development process, and in fact Davison believes it is necessary, that a client beaware of patents and similar products that constitute the “prior art” before deciding to furtherpursue the development of their product ideaThat is the purpose behind the Pre-DevelopmentservicesBecause of this fact, Davison requires all of our clients to undergo the initial predevelopment research so that some level of knowledge may be secured as to what is in the priorart.Mr [redacted] contacted Davison on with an idea for a productHe initiallycontracted for the Pre-Development services, which obligated Davison to compile researchinformation relevant to his product ideaThese services were completed and the researchmaterial, comprising eleven (11) U.SPatent documents and information on fourteen (14) similarproducts then on the market, was sent to Mr [redacted] He has acknowledged his receipt of theseitems.After having been provided with the research material, Mr [redacted] entered into anAgreement for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentationmaterialThis Agreement contains the following disclaimer; “4.MDavison cannot be aware of;and is not responsible for, the existence of every similar product or idea that may already be inthe global market, in development by others, or introduced by others at a later time.” Davisoncompleted the services with Mr [redacted] ’s express written approval, authorization and to hisdocumented satisfactionSpecifically he approved the design, completed a questionnaire aboutthe design providing positive feedback, authorized the presentation of his product idea andcompleted a second questionnaire about the presentation material again providing positivefeedbackCopies of theses documents are enclosed(Note the actual approved design has beenredacted for confidentiality purposes.) Mr [redacted] authorized a total of three presentations of hisproduct ideaUnfortunately, no corporation has chosen to license his product.As stated, Mr [redacted] was provided with information regarding U.Spatents and productson the market, which were similar to his submitted idea BEFORE entering into any developmentcontractThe design, construction, and presentation of Mr [redacted] ’s product idea have beenperformed with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfactionThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services renderedThe simple fact is; theproduct development process provides no guarantees of financial gainDavison’s contracts anddisclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is of little comfort to a client who has expendedconsiderable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project doesnot bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were providedHowever,in the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr[redacted] If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department whowill coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentationsSincerely [redacted] ***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

Ms [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA February 07, Re: [redacted] Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] ; This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr [redacted] regarding the above referenced matterWithout reiterating the details provided in the initial response his additional comments will be addressed Packaging: As part of the services, Davison designed a packaging solution for Mr [redacted] ’s product sample The questionnaire about the Integrated Product Rendering, a copy of which was provided with the initial response, clearly notes his agreement with statement; “The Integrated Product Rendering of the package was informative.” A packaging solution varies depending upon the type of product sample and the potential licensee to whom it is being presented It may take the form of a box or container; it may be a wrapper; or a label In Mr [redacted] ’s case, the packaging was an informational tag attached to the product sample Presentation: Mr [redacted] ’s product idea was presented, via e-mail on 06/17/ The actual documents are not kept in perpetuity, but a record of the presentation is preserved The recordation in his project file is as follows; EMAIL: 6-17-RO-EMAILED PRES (VR & EX SUM) TO [redacted] FURNITURE /NEIL MCKENZIE LL.10--2GETHER This is an automatically generated Delivery Status NotificationYour message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination As for his request for the response from the corporation, Davison can not provide what it is not given The contract which covers the presentation of his product idea explicitly states; “Unless a Licensee proposes a License Agreement or wants to discuss possible changes to the product, few Licensees provide written feedback or responses to a licensing presentation.” Breach of contract: The Confidentiality Agreement which Mr [redacted] entered explicitly states: “I, the undersigned, will not attempt to communicate in any manner (telephonic, written, electronic or other means) with any corporation that Davison discloses to me as a possible licensee of my ideaI agree that all materials provided to me by Davison are considered trade secrets and any attempt to contact any corporation disclosed by Davison without Davison's written permission will cause harm to Davison's attempt to license my idea or other ideas and to Davison's reputation with the corporation disclosed.” By his own admission he has violated this provision Accordingly, his project has been closed Sincerely, David [redacted] D [redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about02/12/Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing its clients’ ***rovaland authorization throughout the processThe contracts are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisionsA review of Mr [redacted] ’s file indicates that Davison has performedall services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.There is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr [redacted] contacted Davison in July At the time of hisinitial contact, he was provided with two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable formatMr [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he receivedand read the two disclosure statementsIt is important to note that the disclosures aremade BEFORE the client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seek morethan one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting the various services and related feesEnclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing the servicesMr [redacted] then entered into two service contacts.The first was for pre-development research which was provided to himThe second wasfor the creation of a rendering that depicted his product idea and presentation material.Mr [redacted] approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of his idea andcompleted a questionnaire about the rendering and presentation material, providingpositive feedbackHis product idea was presented to the targeted corporation on11/20/The corporation chose not to license his ideaCopies of his approvals,authorization, and completed questionnaires are enclosedNote the actual approveddesign has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.software applicationThis is inaccurateHe had entered an “Integrated ProductRendering” agreementThe language in the contract, from its title to the specific terms,is clear that a graphic representation of his product idea, i.ea rendering, depiction,design, was to be developedNo term refers to application developmentIn addition, thedisclosure statement that details the various services offered by Davison does not indicatethe offer of application developmentSimply stated, Davison did not offer applicationdevelopment, and the contract that Mr [redacted] entered does not include applicationdevelopment servicesDavison can only fully disclose its services and feesTo theextent Mr [redacted] was under the belief that he contracted for application developmentservices, such a misunderstanding is not due to a lack of disclosure by DavisonIn theinterest of full disclosure, it should be noted that Davison does currently offer applicationdevelopment services and this service is listed on the current version of the disclosurestatementHowever, that service was not a service offered at the time of Mr [redacted] ’sengagement, and was not included in his contract for serviceFollowing the completionof all services, Mr [redacted] did raise his concerns with DavisonThe Office of thePresident reached out to him to arrange a call to address his concernsMr [redacted] hasrefused to engage in any discussions.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr [redacted] ’s express writtenapproval and authorization, and to his documented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunatethat the targeted corporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does notnegate the provided servicesThe simple fact is that the product development processprovides no guarantees of financial gainThe contracts and disclosures are explicit inthis regardWhile this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerabletime, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does notbring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided.There is no basis to warrant a refundHowever, in the interest of customer satisfaction,Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr [redacted] If he choosesto accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinatethe necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.David [redacted] D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

Mr [redacted] *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA October 30, Re: [redacted] Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Mr***; This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 10/24/ Ms [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in August 2015, and all services have been completed by June Those services were provided with her express written approval and authorization Further, the services met with her documented satisfaction Her contention that she “didn’t get any results” simply disregards these services The reality is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardUnfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations Ms [redacted] submitted her idea to Davison through its website on 08/20/ The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison Among the disclosures is a detailed statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 08/20/at 21:16:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes Ms [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement The services were performed with her express written approval and authorization She approved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentation Copies of her signed approval and authorization are enclosed (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) She also completed two separate questionnaires, one about the design and the other about the Executive Briefing, in which she provided positive feedback Copies of the questionnaires are enclosed The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Ms [redacted] declined At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Ms [redacted] ’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided Her contention that she was “promised” her invention would sell is simply false Davison does not guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed, and goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients Ms [redacted] was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in; Disclosures: “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...” The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product;” New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.” “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.” In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Ms [redacted] , her signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaires, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms [redacted] If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations Sincerely, David ** D [redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 2016.Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperativewhen operating a successful businessCustomer concerns upset everyone and the staffworks very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of a newproduct idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, the staff tries to maintain an openchannel of communication, disclosing the services and fees upfront and securing theclients’ approval and authorization throughout the processAt the outset, please note thatDavison has been in contact with Ms [redacted] to address her concerns, and she iscontinuing to work with Davison in the continued development of her product ideaThatstated, her complaint raises a number of points that should be clarified.Initially, she states that the proposed design of her product sample did not meetwith her approvalThis directly contradicts the signed approval and completedquestionnaire she completed on or about 01/14/Enclosed, please find copies ofthese documentsNote the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.Next she indicates that she was informed her product sample “would bepatented”She is incorrectDavison is not a law firm and does not advertise that itprovides patent services or any other legal servicesThe contracts for services do notinclude patent filing services or any other legal servicesThe contracts are explicitly clearthat the Client is solely responsible for securing any and all intellectual propertyprotectionsTo the extent she believes Davison would secure a patent for her idea, she ismistaken.Thirdly, she makes numerous reverences to getting her product “on the market”.Davison does not “market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public; they designand develop product ideas for presentation to corporations who in turn may manufactureand market the productThe two service contracts which she entered contain thefollowing provisions:Pre-Development and Representation agreement, section HID.: “Client acknowledges that Davison hasmade no claim or waffanty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find aLicensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or designClient acknowledges thatDavison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client’s Product to be marketed,licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product;”New Product Sample Agreement, section 4.J.ii) “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will notevaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyoneThus,there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties forthe Idea once it has been developedClient acknowledges that Davison has made no representationsconcerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Finally, her complaint implies she has an expectation that her product idea wouldbe “on the market” by nowThis is an unreasonable expectationMs [redacted] firstcontacted Davison on July 07, It has been months since that initial contactTheproduct development process is a lengthy processFollowing her idea submission, shecontracted for research services to obtain some level of understating of similar patentsand productsFollowing completion of the research, she contracted for the design andconstruction of a product sample, packaging, and presentation materialA design wassubmitted to her and met with her approvalDavison is in the process of constructing thevarious items in reliance upon her approved designFollowing the construction stage, thepresentation material will be provided to her for her authorization to make thepresentation to the designated corporationOnce the presentation is made, thecorporation may, or may not, choose to license the product ideaIn the event thecorporation does decide to license the product idea, there is a significant time period forthe corporation to arrange for the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of theproduct before it is officially “on the market”Eight months is simply not a sufficientperiod of time for all of these events to occur.As stated, the services performed to date have been provided with Ms***’approvalDavison is continuing to provide the services pursuant to the terms of thecontractsMs [redacted] has been provided a status update and is continuing to work withDavison in the development of her product ideaThere is no factual basis to support hercomplaint.SincerlyDavid [redacted] D [redacted] Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

The enclosed files are photos I took after reading Davison's reply to my complaint & am submitting it to you to do with as you see fit i.eparagraph beginning with As part of my method,of my method So where do I get the application ? From Davison? Or do I have to obtain it myself? The wording I feel is misleading Regards, [redacted] Have additional information pertaining to Davison response to my first complaint: First of all; Know i'm not getting a refund & really wasn't asking for oneSecondly have more photos of letters from them about the provisional patent application materials (I misworded that part in my 1st complaint)3rdly MsM [redacted] didn't send me the receipt I requested until after I had filed a complaint against them My complaint is why do they wait until everything is paid before they contact a target company & is there always a need for an integrated product rendering ?An answer to my two questionRecently filed a complaint only to receive a reply from them stating I made a claim & did not MsM [redacted] did send me my receipt as stated in the replyReeived it on 06/14/after I had filed the complaint against the [redacted] Had requested it at least times beforeI admit I wrongly worded the part about the patent & meant to ask the question what is a provisional patent application coversheet? I don't knowWhen asking about the patent materials wasn't really given an answer as that isn't provided until after all fees are paid nor is the presentation to the target companyI happen to disagree with their choice of [redacted] ***Out of presentations to them & have secured licensing agreements Why not [redacted] ...etc.? Why the need for an integrated product rendering? What is Executive Summary? What is choice of law? Does it mean they can't be sued for damages in a class action suit & only by an individual? Who by the way doesn't have the money to hire an attorney anywayWhat documents are they referring to that one might find helpful for filing a provisional application for patent? What additional options not included in the paperwork is MsM [redacted] referring to & what structure that will make it easier for me to move forward with less of an up-front financial commitment to prepare the integrated product rendering & presentation materials? When asked about how much less of an up-front financial commitment & if she could give me a dollar amount,(she'll probably deny this) all she replied was $Doesn't seem to be less of an up-front financial commitment to meAnswers to these questions & didn't get some of them as I didnt ask until now Now I want answer to them because I have now asked them

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I have saved every email, video and paperworkThey are falsely advertising to gain clients$9,to “ get started” then later you’re shown a cheap compute image that is claimed to function as saidI have all the proof to show I have a valid claim Regards, [redacted] ***

Ms [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA March 30, Re: [redacted] Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] ; This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms [redacted] in regard to the above referenced complaint As stated in the original response of March 07, 2017, Davison performed its services at Ms [redacted] ’s direction, with her approval, and to her documented satisfaction The product sample that was created was precisely the product concept that she had submitted Despite having complied with the terms of the contract, Davison had agreed to consider reasonable modifications Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] has refused the suggested alternatives to the design of her product sample and has made demands inconsistent with scope of the contractFollowing the initial response, Davison contacted Ms [redacted] on March 22, to discuss alternatives to her product design Ms [redacted] refused these alternatives In the discussion, it became apparent that she misunderstood the initial design, not realizing the design did in fact incorporate suctions cups, consistent with her initial submission The engineering drawings were again submitted to her for review As yet, Davison has not heard back from herIn her additional comments, Ms [redacted] references a “base adaption system” and a “disk to present to companies” She provides no additional detail as to what these items may incorporate The “adaption system”, to the extent it implies a mechanical device, is well beyond the scope of her initial submission and the scope of the contract she entered Such a significant modification is not reasonable in light of the product concept that was submitted and quoted in the contract Similarly the “disk to present to companies”, regardless of what she believes would be included on such a disk, is not within the scope of the contract Her contract specifically details; “The items to be delivered for Client's possession pursuant to this Agreement are the Integrated Product Rendering and the Executive SummaryClient intends that Davison will retain possession of the product and packaging sample, unless Client requests otherwise in writing.” Davison remains willing to complete any remaining services with the original product design, which was approved by Ms [redacted] Also, Davison remains willing to consider reasonable modifications to the designHowever, such an agreement does not imply a wholesale re- design for a much more complex device Finally, Davison will provide to Ms [redacted] all materials which are consistent with the contract terms Sincerely, David *D [redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr [redacted] ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 09/07/Customerconcerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimumIn his complaint, Mr [redacted] fails to mention that the serviceswhich were provided were completed with his express written approval and authorization.Further, he does not mention that he completed questionnaires about the services, in which heprovided positive feedbackRather, he either is mistaken about the scope o f services, or haschosen to misrepresent the scope o f services to support his claim for a refundAs will bedetailed, Davison has provided its services with Mr***’s approval, authorization and to hissatisfactionUnfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensedThat appears to be the simple truth with Mr***.Mr [redacted] entered into two service contractsThe first was the Pre-DevelopmentAgreement which was for the compilation o f custom research relevant to his submitted ideaThisresearch was provided to him on or about 08/13/A copy o f the USPS Customs Declarationdocumenting this shipment is enclosedFollowing completion the pre-development services, on12/09/2014, Mr [redacted] into a contract for the design and creation o f an integrated productrendering and presentation material, illustrating his ideaContrary to his assertion, this contractwas not for the construction o f a physical product sampleIn January 2015, Davison submitted aproposed design which Mr [redacted] approved, and for which he completed a questionnaireproviding positive feedbackA copy o f his signed approval and completed questionnaire areenclosed; note the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposesIn reliance uponhis written approval, the presentation materials were createdThe presentation materials, in theform o f Executive Briefing, were provided to Mr***; he authorized the presentation o f hisproduct idea to the targeted corporation and completed a second questionnaire about theExecutive Briefing, again providing nothing but positive feedbackA copy o f his signedauthorization and completed questionnaire, dated 02/18/2015, are enclosedThe presentation ofhis product idea was made on 03/21/Unfortunately, the corporation chose not to license hisideaA copy o f the e-mail exchange documenting the presentation and rejection is enclosed.Note: the identity o f the specific contact individual has been redactedMr [redacted] was offeredadditional services to present his idea to a new corporation; he has declined this additionalserviceThere are no pending services to be performed.to the Integrated Product Rendering, states he did not receive a physical sample, thenquestions whether a product rendering was completedFurther, prior to his filing the complaint,he had raised concerns with Davison over the receipt o f manufacturing costs and specificationsfor his ideaAs stated above, he contracted for the creation o f a rendering depicting his idea, notfor the construction o f a physical product sampleThis was discussed with Mr [redacted] on orabout 09/08/and he acknowledged his understandingAlso, in his complaint he asserts thathe provided contact information for an “ investor” to whom he would like to have his ideapresentedFirst, Mr [redacted] has not contracted for any additional presentation servicesSecond,the “investor” information he provided was merely the name o f a British television celebrityassociated with an inventor funding programThis is simply not sufficient contact informationfor a potential licensee.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr***’s express written approvaland authorization and to his documented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunate that the targetedcorporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services.The simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees o f financial gain.Our contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is o f little comfort to a clientwho has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that aparticular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services thatwere providedHowever, in the interest o f customer satisfaction, Davison will offer twoadditional presentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need onlycontact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms[redacted] in regard to the above referenced complaintHer comments reference threeareas of concern; the disclosures required by the American Inventor’s Protection Act of(AIPA), the disclosure of the further development services and the completion ofservices under the Pre-Development AgreementsWithout an exhaustive restatement ofthe details provided in the response of 08/13/2015, the three areas will be addressed.Ms [redacted] is correct that when she first contacted Davison in 2008, she did notengage a service contractThe initial response of 08/13/does not claim she did.However, her contention that she was not provided the AIPA disclosure is falseAspreviously stated, Ms [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea throughDavison’s websiteThe system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes itimpossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures(the AIPA disclosure and the Affirmative Disclosure) displayed in a printable and savableformat, and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosuresOn 08/28/2008,Ms [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read thetwo disclosure statementsEnclosed, please find a copy of the electronic signatureconfirmation data, documenting her acknowledgment on 08/28/at 02:59:from IPaddress proxy-3243.bay.webtv.netNote: the specific idea submission has been redactedfor confidentiality purposesThe prior response provided a copy of the AIPA disclosureas it would have appeared at the time.The final two areas of dispute are interconnectedMs [redacted] alleges she was“not properly informed about the next stage of Development...” and alleges the servicesunder the Pre-Development Agreement were not completed, specifically the ProductPlanning SessionsShe claims she did not have any input into the creation of the ProductPortfolioThe Product Portfolio is merely the format in which the pre-developmentresearch is provided to the clientThere is no “input” from a client that would impact thisresearchThe Product Planning Sessions occur after the client has received the predevelopment research material, and the discussion involves the possible offer ofadditional development servicesAs previously stated, both the disclosures and the termsof the Pre-Development Agreement explicitly reference the offer of additionaldevelopment services under a separate contract for a separate feeThe researchmaterials were shipped to Ms [redacted] on 07/21/She terminated her relationshipwith Davison on or about 07/27/Accordingly, there was no detailed discussion, oroffer, of additional development servicesHer citation to the textbook definition of acontract, and of a breach of contract, ignores the application of the factual context.Within the facts, there is no breach of contract by Davison.Ms [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered byDavison, BEFORE she entered into any contractThe services for which there existed acontract have been performedNo additional contracts have been entered and noadditional payments have been receivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund forservices rendered.David [redacted] D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

Ms [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA March 14, Re: [redacted] Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] ; This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Mr [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint As stated in the prior two responses, Davison has performed all services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction Again, without a lengthy reiteration of matters covered in the prior responses, his comments will be addressed His additional comments note that he made partial payment toward the New Product Sample Agreement which he did not enter This has been confirmed and a full refund has been provided Enclosed, please find a copy of the e-mail sent to Mr [redacted] providing the refund receipt As to the remaining comments, they are a continuation of the previously addressed issues I spoke with Mr [redacted] in an effort to clarify matters, though he continues to be confused as to the nature and scope of the services provided Simply stated, he had two projects He entered the initial pre-development contract for both projects and received the research materials for both For one project he was offered a New Product Sample Agreement for the design and construction of a physical product sample, packaging and presentation materials He did not enter this agreement and the monies he paid have been refunded For the other project he entered an Integrated Product Rendering agreement for the creation of a visual depiction of his product idea and presentation material As stated in the prior responses, these services were performed with his express written approval and authorization Mr [redacted] also completed questionnaires about these services in which he provided positive feedback It bears noting that the Integrated Product Rendering agreement does not provide for the construction of a physical product sample Mr [redacted] also entered an agreement for the creation of a video of his product idea This was completed and provided to him on or about 01/14/ He confirmed his receipt of the video on 01/23/ A total of three presentations of his product idea were made, each with his express written authorization Unfortunately, no corporation chose to license his product idea As stated, all services have been performed with Mr***’ express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction While it is unfortunate that the targeted corporations chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services The simple fact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided There is no basis to warrant a refund Mr [redacted] has declined Davison’s offer of additional services which were offered at no cost to him He has requested to terminate his relationship with Davison Accordingly his file has been closed Sincerely, David MD [redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosure

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted] ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about06/09/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum.... From the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing the clients’ approvaland authorization throughout the process. The contracts are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisions. It is not possible to be more upftont with its clients about the servicesand fees. As will be detailed below, Ms. [redacted] was provided explicit, cleardisclosures of the scope of services and the relevant fees.In her statement, Ms. [redacted] alleges she was told that $795 would cover thecost of patenting and marketing her idea. She is mistaken. The fee was for theperformance of research related to her idea for a new product. Davison is not a law firmand does not advertise that it provides intellectual property services or any other legalservices. The contracts for services do not include patent filing services or any otherlegal services. Also, Davison does not “market” its clients’ products to the generalpublic, they design and develop product samples for presentation to corporations who inturn may manufacture and market the product.In June 2012, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product ideathrough Davison’s website. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissionsmakes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separatedisclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronicallyacknowledging the disclosures. Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronicsignature on 06/24/2012, that she received and read the two disclosure statements. It isimportant to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any servicecontract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that“It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and relatedfees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered intoan agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to her product idea. She finalized payment for this service in October 2014.Davison completed the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled researchto her on or about 11/10/2014.The Pre-Development Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaininga product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product ina professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services,under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is awarethat he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them atall...”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures thatMs. [redacted] acknowledged, Davison offered additional services for the developmentof her project. She had declined these additional services, which is her prerogative.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their relatedfees offered by Davison, BEFORE she entered into any contract. The services for whichthere existed a contract have been performed. No additional contracts have been enteredand no additional payments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices rendered.Enclosure

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. Samuel K***against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 06/13/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. From... the time o f an initial contact and throughout the developmentand presentation o f the idea, Davison maintains an open channel o f communication, disclosing, inadvance, its services and fees, the risks o f new product development, and providing contracts thatare simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.Mr. K [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website. Theelectronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit anidea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and theclient acknowledging that they have received and read the disclosures. It is important to note thatthe disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavison. The disclosures provide a listing o f the various services and related fees as well as thehistorical licensing data. Following his acknowledgement o f the disclosures, Mr. K [redacted] enteredthe initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patentsand products, which were similar to his idea. T his research was completed and provided to him.Subsequently, he entered an Integrated Product Rendering and Presentation (IPRP) agreement forthe design o f a rendering o f his product idea and creation o f presentation material. Davisonsubmitted a proposed design to Mr. K [redacted] for his approval. He did not approve the initial design.Based upon his input, the project was re-designed and a second rendering was submitted for hisapproval. Again, Mr. K [redacted] did not approve the design. Davison’s Office o f the President spokewith him to elicit further details in a continuing attempt to create an approved design. Mr. K***has ceased responding and has demanded a full refund. There is no basis to support his claim fora refund, nor support for his complaint. Based upon his expressed desire to terminate hisrelationship with Davison, further work on Mr. K***’s project has been suspended, pending anagreement to move forward.With regard to his specific complaints, Mr. K [redacted] initially alleges he was informed he“would make a lot o f money” and that his project would be “on the market in a short period oftime”. Such claims are directly contradicted by the disclosures and explicit contract terms. Thesimple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees o f financial gain.Davison does not make such guarantees. The express terms o f the contracts are explicit thatDavison make no representation about the likelihood o f financial gain. The contracts that Mr.K [redacted] entered contain the following provisions:“Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, orfind a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design. Client acknowledges thatDavison has not made any representations concerning the potential o f Client’s Product to be marketed,licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client.”“Please remember that we do not promise or guarantee any financial gain from the development o f any newproduct.”Next, Mr. K [redacted] alleges that Davison did not perform the initial pre-developmentresearch. This statement is not only false, but illogical. The first service contract obligatedDavison to compile research relevant to the submitted product idea. This research was conductedand the results provided to Mr. K [redacted] in a Product Portfolio in October 2014. After completion ofthe initial services he entered the IPRP contract in March 2015. Had the initial research not beencompleted, it is not logical to think Mr. K [redacted] would then enter the second service contract.Thirdly, Mr. K [redacted] complains he received only “two pictures”, implying he contracted forsomething different. As stated above, the IPRP contract that he entered was for a graphicrendering, i.e. a picture, illustrating his product idea and subsequent presentation material.Davison has submitted two separate renderings which have not met with his approval. Thecreation o f the subsequent presentation material is dependent upon the approval o f the designrendering.Finally, Mr. K [redacted] claims the inclusion o f the term “patent pending” on his renderingindicates Davison’s intention to claim ownership o f his idea. This is false. The contracts enteredexplicitly states that they do not change legal title to the product idea. Secondly, as he points outin his complaint, he has already secured a patent. The inclusion o f the term is appropriate when aclient has filed a provisional patent application covering their idea. If Mr. K [redacted] does not file anapplication covering any changes the final approved design may incorporate, that is hisprerogative and the rendering will not include the term.There is no factual basis to support Mr. K***’s complaint and no basis for a refund. Hisderogatory comments, allegation o f threats and exaggerated claims (ex. 500 hours on the phone)are pure vitriol, meant to inflame rather than inform. As stated above, he was fully informed o fthe services and fees BEFORE he entered any contract. The pre-development service has beenperformed. The IPRP agreement provided a seven day revocation period in which it could havebeen cancelled and a full refund provided. That provision was not invoked, and Davison hasmade multiple good faith efforts to complete the services under the contract terms. Davisonremains committed to Mr. K***’s project and will consider any suggestions submitted by him inwriting which are consistent with the contract terms.Sincerely, David *. D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Turning ideas into products

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 06/12/16.Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimum From the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simplywritten, with no “fine print” provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorizationItis not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development oftheir projectUnfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensedThat appears to be the simple truth with Ms[redacted] A review of her file indicates that all services were completed with her expressapproval and authorizationFurther, the services met with her documented satisfactionThere isno basis for a refund, nor support for her complaint.Ms [redacted] submitted an idea through Davison’s websiteThe electronic submissionsystem utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having twoseparate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable formatIt is important to note that thedisclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavisonAmong the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seekmore than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting of the various services and related fees, as well as the historical licensing dataEnclosed,please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented toMs [redacted] She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and readthese disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on07/13/at 14:58:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary followsShe entered theinitial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.SPatents andproducts, on the market at that time, which were similar to her ideaThis research was completedand provided to herIn November 2014, after completion of the initial service, she contracted forthe design and construction of a physical product sampleAn initial design was created andsubmitted for her approvalMs [redacted] provided her written approval of the design on orabout February 09, and completed a questionnaire about the design providing positiveTurning ideas into productsDavison RiDC Park Aipha Drive Pittsbu gh A w.v.v Davison corn • Tell Davison • Fax I 800,• iniernational • Fax 0794DAVISONfeedbackA copy of her signed approval and completed questionnaire is enclosedNote theactual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposesBased on her approval,the physical sample was constructed and presentation material createdAn Executive Briefing,which included a photograph of the constructed product sample, was provided to her for review.On or about June 08, 2015, Ms [redacted] authorized the presentation of her new product ideaand completed a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing in which she provided positivefeedbackCopies of her authorization and completed questionnaire are enclosedOn or aboutSeptember 16, 2015, her new product idea was presented to the designated corporation whodeclined to enter a licenseMs [redacted] declined the offer to make additional presentations,deciding to take a “reactive approach” in which Davison would wait for a corporation to approachthem seeking a product similar to her ideaNo additional services are due to be performed.In her complaint, Ms [redacted] makes numerous incorrect statementsFirst, she statesDavison was to “help me find a license agreement”To the extent she implies a guarantee ofsecuring a license, she is mistakenThe simple fact is; the product development process providesno guarantees of financial gain and Davison does not make such guaranteesThe express termsof the contracts are explicit that Davison make no representation about the likelihood of financialgainThe contract which Ms [redacted] entered contains the following provisions:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financialgain from the development of the Idea.”“Client acknowledges that..there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license,buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developedClient acknowledges that Davison has made norepresentations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Secondly, she alleges to have only received pieces of paper, implying Davison has notperformed its servicesThat is incorrectAs stated above, she received the initial researchmaterial in a Product PortfolioThe Executive Briefing included an actual photograph of theconstructed product sampleThe contract states that the client intends Davison to retainpossession of the product sample, unless requested by the clientMs [redacted] has not requestedthe sample.Next, she alleges she received no confirmation of the presentationThat is incorrectAsstated above, the presentation was made on September 16, Ms [redacted] was informed ofthis fact on September 18, Status calls with her were made on November 4, 2015,December 23, 2015, Januaiy 20, 2016, March 29, and May 02, Davison can notcompel another corporation to disclose the basis of its decision to pursue or not to pursue aparticular product ideaIf such information is made available, it is provided to the clientIf it isnot made available, Davison can not provide to the client information which is not provided fromthe targeted corporationWhile the lack of a substantive response from the targeted corporationis understandably frustrating, that does not support her claim that she was not informed of thepresentation.Finally, she states that Davison will not speak to her without her making additionalpaymentsThis is a mischaracterizationDavison has completed all of the services for which shecontractedThose services have been done with her approval, with her authorization, and to herdocumented satisfactionDavison has offered additional services which she has declinedTheseadditional services were fully disclosed to her BEFORE she entered any contract for service.Davison would welcome the opportunity to continue with her project, however if she declines theoffer of services, that is her decision.As stated, Ms [redacted] was fully informed of all services and related fees BEFORE sheentered any contractThe services have been performed with her express written approval andauthorization, and to her documented satisfactionThere is no basis for a refundHowever, inthe interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost toMs [redacted] If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the LicensingDepartment who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.sincerelyDavid [redacted] D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, Attention [redacted] :Yes, I received a call from MsB [redacted] but, she didn't say any thing except telling me that she didn't receive my email I sent her on November 27, I told her that I will forward it to herWhich I did on my last email contact with her.If she is a contact person for License Department then why didn't she say so We could have proceeded with what they are offering to solve the issueBest Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] I want my money at the least some of it back, this is a scam that's bin going on for a long time with Davison this is nothing new If this keeps going on I'll be seeing Davison In Court In Pittsburg and I'm going for a lot more and with other people that they scammedI didn't break contractDavison can't prove nothing they just talk a good lyi, Where is the proof you took my gether chair it to the manufacture, [redacted] FURNITURE? Davison have a nice day you low life lying thief

Thank-you very much for your time, PS please don't miss understand meDavison has lost my trustthere was nothing else I could do but to take some action, I will believe there words when I see my prototype in my handswe will go from there; again thank-youtrust me I will be in touch with davison to see what's going on