http://www.rfidnews.com/index.htmlHot News!enbmasin@eidltd.comCopyright 2009 me1999-08-16T15:48:38-07:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:05:58 -0700bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1999-08-16T15:48:38-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer2.html#unique-entry-id-45http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer2.html#unique-entry-id-45Case Has Potential To Be Largest Trademark Judgment With Damages Projected in Excess of $100 Million

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 16, 1999

Los Angeles, CA-- The Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc. Trial starts Wednesday, August 18 at 8:00 a.m., with voir dire beginning at 8:30 a.m., and will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes G. Baird at the Roybal Federal Building, Room 770, 255 East Temple Street in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs Trovan, Ltd. and Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. allege that Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE: PFE) wrongfully misappropriated their Trovan® trademark name and used it in the labeling of a new antibiotic introduced in 1998. A trial of 4-5 weeks is expected, and the case has the potential to be the largest trademark judgment ever, with damages projected in excess of $100 million.

Trovan, Ltd. has used the TROVAN® trademark since 1989 to globally market its system of biomedical electronic identification devices; holds federal trademark registration No. 164328 issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1991; and since 1996 has owned the Internet domain name “www.trovan.com.” TROVAN® products are used worldwide by governments, universities and research facilities for human and veterinary applications, ranging from tracking blood supplies to animal control.

“We were shocked to learn that Pfizer had allegedly applied for an identical mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to introduce its new antibiotic,” said Joseph Masin, President of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. “Even though we protested and had already filed suit, they launched the product with utter disregard for our established rights in the TROVAN® brand. This suit is our only recourse to prevent any further “Goliath” tactics, and we are confident that we will prevail.

“It’s likely, explained Masin, “that Pfizer invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its campaign to market “Trovan,” enabling it to become one of the most prescribed antibiotics in the United States, but at the terrible expense of our hard earned name. Damage to our reputation continues to grow, especially with recent negative publicity linking this drug to multiple possible deaths, along with talk of potential restrictions by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and product bans by the European Union.”

In 1997, Trovan, Ltd. learned that Pfizer, Inc. Intended to introduce a new antibiotic under the identical Trovan name in 1998. Pfizer ignored their objections, and Plaintiffs filed suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition on December 8, 1997 in Santa Barbara Superior Court [Case No. 222191]. The matter was removed to the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, on January 7, 1998 [Case No. CV 98-0094 LGB (Mcx)].

Trovan, Ltd. Is a British corporation and owns the trademark TROVAN® at issue; Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. Is a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and is the exclusive North American distributor and a licensee of TROVAN® products. Plaintiffs are represented by William E. Levin with the Laguna Beach, CA law firm of Levin & Hawes.

Press Contact: Kathy Pinckert
Dial: 310-836-8355
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1999-08-16T15:47:29-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer2.html#unique-entry-id-44http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer2.html#unique-entry-id-44MEDIA ALERT***MEDIA ALERT***MEDIA ALERT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 16, 1999

Los Angeles, CA-- Trial begins Wednesday, August 18, 1999 at 8:00 a.m. in the matter of Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc. Before the Hon. Lourdes G. Baird in U.S. District Court, Roybal Federal Building, Room 770, 255 East Temple Street, in Los Angeles, CA, with voir dire expected to start at 8:30 a.m. Followed by opening arguments. The trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit has the potential to be the largest trademark judgment ever, with damages projected in excess of $100 million. A 4-5 week trial is expected. Trovan, Ltd. And Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. allege that Pfizer, Inc. Wrongfully misappropriated their Trovan® trademark name to label a new antibiotic introduced in 1998. Trovan, Ltd. has used the Trovan¨ trademark since 1989 to globally market its system of electronic identification devices for biomedical and veterinary applications; holds federal trademark registration No. 1649328 issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 1991; and has owned the Internet domain name "www.trovan.com" since 1996. In 1997, Trovan, Ltd. Learned that Pfizer, Inc. Intended to introduce a new antibiotic in 1998 and had falsely applied for an identical mark with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Over Trovan's objections and after this suit was filed, Pfizer launched a campaign to market the Trovan drug allegedly costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars; it became one of the most prescribed antibiotics in the United States, but recently has received negative publicity linking it to multiple possible deaths, along with talk of potential restrictions by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and product bans by the European Union. Suit was filed December 8, 1997 in Santa Barbara Superior Court and removed to U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, on January 7, 1998 [Case No. CV 98-0094 LGB (Mcx)]. Trovan, Ltd. is a British corporation and owns the trademark Trovan® at issue; Joseph Masin is president of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd., a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and the exclusive North American distributor and licensee of Trovan® products. William E. Levin with the Laguna Beach, CA law firm of Levin & Hawes represents the plaintiffs. The first day of trial starts at 8:00 a.m. Thereafter, the trial schedule is Tuesday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., lunch Noon - 1:30 p.m.

Press Contact: Kathy Pinckert
Dial: 310-836-8355 or Pager (310) 724-9554]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2000-02-14T15:44:12-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Destron-vs-Trovan-ZIPQUILL.html#unique-entry-id-43http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Destron-vs-Trovan-ZIPQUILL.html#unique-entry-id-43FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 14, 2000

Santa Barbara, CA -- Trovan, Ltd., Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. and InfoPet Identification Systems prevailed against the appeal by Destron Fearing [NASDAQ: DFCO] of Destron/IDI Inc. v. InfoPet Identification et al., Case No. 99-1373, to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which sought to hold Trovan, EID and InfoPet in contempt for marketing the TROVAN ZIPQUILL implantation technology.

"We are pleased that the courts vindicated our position that the TROVAN ZIPQUILL device is sufficiently different from Destron's U.S. patent no. 5,211,129, that any claim of infringement must be decided in a separate lawsuit," said Joseph Masin, president of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. "Destron's attempt to withhold the benefits of a superior animal identification technology from the U.S. market has been thwarted."

U.S. patent no. 5,211,129 held by Destron describes a glass encapsulated transponder that is implanted into animals by means of a syringe.

The TROVAN ZIPQUILL consists of a tiny tubular container which tapers to a sharp point. Inside is space for a small dose of antibiotic paste and/or for an identification transponder. The TROVAN device can be inserted very easily simply by pressing it, sharp point first, into skin with the thumb. No tools are necessary.

"The TROVAN device does not make an incision, or cut, in the skin as a syringe would. Rather it pierces the skin, allowing for rapid closure of the opening after penetration, thereby minimising tissue damage and trauma," said Joseph Masin.
"The TROVAN device is a biologically neutral starch capsule that is water soluble. It dissolves completely and is absorbed by the body within three hours of insertion. The TROVAN ZIPQUILL provides for unprecedented speed of application and eliminates medical waste. There is no transmission of infectious diseases, as can occur in reusable syringes, and no extensive personnel training is required." The TROVAN ZIPQUILL is protected by U.S. patent no. 5,549,560.

The US District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Zita L. Weinshenk presiding, determined that the question of whether the TROVAN ZIPQUILL infringes Patent No. 5,211,129 is not appropriate in a contempt proceeding. When Destron appealed the court's ruling, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Denver court. The Judgment of the appellate court issued on February 10, 2000, one day after oral argument of the appeal.

TROVAN® products are used worldwide by governments, universities, and research facilities for animal identification applications, among others, ranging from the identification of salmon breeding stock to pet-recovery systems to livestock tracking.

Trovan, Ltd. is a British Corporation: Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. is a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and is the North American distributor and a licensee of TROVAN® products, as is InfoPet Identification Systems, a Minnesota-based corporation.

Contact: Barbara Masin
Dial: 805-565-1288
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2000-02-25T15:43:20-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/pfizer4.html#unique-entry-id-42http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/pfizer4.html#unique-entry-id-42Final Judgment of $143 Million entered against Pfizer, Inc.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 25, 2000

Los Angeles, CA. -- US District Court Judge Lourdes G. Baird yesterday issued a permanent injunction against Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE:PFE), ordering the company to stop using the Trovan® mark as of October 16, 2000 and, until then, to "take immediate steps to...destroy all written marketing and promotional materials...and to stop making use of the word "TROVAN." The court canceled Pfizer's registration of the TROVAN mark with the US Patent Office, effective immediately. Final judgment in the amount of $143 million was entered against Pfizer, and the case sets an internationally important benchmark for trademark infringement and unfair competition cases [Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 98-0094 LGB (Mcx)].

Among other rulings issued yesterday, the Court declined Trovan's motion for treble damages or Pfizer's profits, finding that Trovan has already been "amply" compensated by the $143 million jury verdict, which was sufficient to "ensure that the guilty party will not return to its former ways and once again pollute the marketplace." The Court ordered Pfizer to pay prejudgment interest on that amount since the date of the October 12,1999 verdict. The case was tried by William E. Levin and Donald L. Abrams with the Laguna Beach, CA. law firm of Levin & Hawes. Percy Anderson and Robert F. Scoular from the Los Angeles office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal based in Chicago, IL. and Edward J. Horowitz of Los Angeles, CA. recently joined the litigation team.

"We have waited patiently for this day to come," said Joseph Masin, president of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd., a co-plaintiff in the case, "and are pleased at the outcome. Now, our hope is that Pfizer and its management will be accountable for their wrongdoing and pay this judgment."

"In anticipation of an inevitable appeal and post-judgment motions," explained William E. Levin, "we have assembled an impressive appellate team that is committed every step of the way to protect and defend Trovanís rights. Pfizer may continue to use its vast financial resources to try and defeat justice, but we are confident that Trovan will prevail on appeal, upholding the jury's decision based on overwhelming evidence of blatant and egregious trademark infringement by Pfizer."

The trial began August 18, 1999, and, on September 22, the jury unanimously found Pfizer, Inc. liable for willful, bad faith trademark infringement and unfair competition, awarding Trovan, Ltd. $143 million in general and punitive damages on October 12, 1999. Trovan, Ltd. has used the Trovan® trademark since 1989 to globally market its system of biomedical electronic identification devices, and holds federal trademark registration No. 1649328 issued by the US Patent & Trademark Office in 1991, which became "incontestable" before the suit was filed. Trovan also has several US Food & Drug Administration approvals for its products.

Trovan, Ltd. is a British corporation based in Douglas, Isle of Man and owns the Trovan® trademark; Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. is a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and is the exclusive North American distributor and a licensee of Trovan® products. Trovan, Ltd. globally markets a system of biomedical devices and also controls a portfolio of valuable patents for technology products such as radio identification systems, and it has recently expanded into pharmaceutical delivery systems.

Press Contact: Kathy Pinckert
Dial: 310-836-8355]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2000-09-11T15:42:40-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat4.html#unique-entry-id-41http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat4.html#unique-entry-id-41FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 11, 2000

Santa Barbara -- The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has confirmed the validity of U.S. Patent no. 5,281,855, and has confirmed that infringement of said patent has been conceded by Sokymat S.A. This ruling was in response to an appeal filed by Sokymat suggesting that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling in Trovan's favour.

The second argument by Sokymat concerned the issue of inventorship of U.S. Patent no. 5,281,855. This issue has been remanded by the Appeals Court for resolution by the District Court.

The cross appeal by Trovan et al. concerning the ownership of Ake Gustafson's U.S. Patent No. 5,572,410, which the District Court determined was owned by Mr. Gustafson, has been denied.

In unrelated legal action by Metget of Sweden, claims 12 - 24 of the European counterpart to the above-mentioned Gustafson U.S. patent no. 5,572,410, the EP 0573 469, have been ruled unenforceable by the German court, due to the existence of prior art. The value of this patent remains questionable.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2002-03-18T15:41:59-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat5.html#unique-entry-id-40http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat5.html#unique-entry-id-40FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 18, 2002

Santa Barbara-- On February 20, 2001, the United States District Court, Central District of California, has rejected Sokymat S.A.'s appeal of its earlier ruling dated June 9, 1999, in which the Court has affirmed the validity, enforceability and inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 5,281,855. The Court has determined that the Patent issued to Trovan, Ltd. and owned by Algernon Promotions Ltd (the Plaintiffs) has been infringed upon by Sokymat S.A. and others.

Sokymat S.A., which has its main offices in Granges, Switzerland, manufactures ignition immobilizer systems for the automotive industry, as well as industrial and animal RFID products sourced to and resold by other vendors under a variety of brand names. The patented technology in question in this litigation has been broadly used by Sokymat S.A. across its product range.

Mr. Joseph Masin, President of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. the North American distributors of the Trovan, Ltd. products said "We are pleased to have our position vindicated by the Court. The Courtís decision unequivocally confirms the enforceability of the Patent describing this important direct bonding technology by Algernon and Trovan, which has been disputed previously by Sokymat. The patent owners intend to continue to enforce their intellectual property rights and seek recovery for past damages from all manufacturers of infringing products and of infringing components as well as from users who have previously been notified."

Trovan, Ltd. is an RFID industry leader controlling a comprehensive portfolio of patented technologies. Algernon and Trovan consider their patented technologies to be an important strategic and competitive asset.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2002-03-18T15:41:35-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/NTRU.html#unique-entry-id-39http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/NTRU.html#unique-entry-id-39
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 18, 2002

Burlington, Mass. -- NTRU's Small, Fast, Strong Security Technology Enables Robust Public Key Security on Space-Constrained RFID Devices and Contactless Cards

NTRU, the only provider of strong security that fits everywhere, today announced the release of NTRU GenûID?, the first practical public key security solution designed for securing RFID (radio frequency identification) and contactless applications of all types. Based on the most fundamental breakthrough in cryptography in 20 years, NTRU GenûID operates hundreds of times faster than legacy systems while requiring only a fraction of the footprint. As a result, RFID and contactless application vendors and developers finally have the option to add powerful security to their solutions without compromising cost or performance.

"RFID and contactless technologies are already proven in many industries. One of the barriers to widespread application adoption has been a lack of affordable, efficient and powerful security," said Deepak Shetty, RFID industry analyst at Frost and Sullivan. "Products like NTRU's GenûID will open up new markets and opportunities for RF and contactless application developers, vendors and RF device users."

Until NTRU GenûID, no practical security solution existed for RFID and contactless applications. Legacy public key technology was too slow, too expensive and too power-hungry, while symmetric key systems have too many security vulnerabilities and scalability problems. The size and speed advantages of GenûID‚s next-generation public key security allow it to operate under the very constrained size and power consumption requirements demanded by RFID and contactless devices. NTRU GenûID enables manufacturers to tap new markets, customers and revenue opportunities.

"NTRU's GenûID cryptosystem enables manufacturers and developers to create RFID products that are high-performing, cost-effective and secure," said Bruce Del Porte, RFID Marketing Manager at Atmel. "Atmel Corporation is a leading supplier of sophisticated semiconductors and GenûID will create a host of new opportunities, allowing us to strengthen our position in the RFID market."

The addition of robust, scalable and inexpensive security to RFID and contactless devices and platforms offers increased performance and substantially reduced fraud risk to high-value applications such as payment, ticketing and transit. It also enables contactless applications that securely transmit personal data, like personal ID cards and biometrics. In transit applications, for instance, NTRU GenûID enables a passenger to quickly pay for admission and other services with a card or key fob, without fishing through pockets and wallets for cash. For contactless applications, GenûID enables identification, authentication and physical access control, providing strong security without inconveniencing the consumer. GenûID protects an individual‚s personal information stored on a card or other contactless device, preventing unauthorized access or alteration. Typical usage examples are airline security checkpoints and border crossings.

"NTRU GenûID is the only product line that meets the unique security requirements of constrained RFID and contactless environments. NTRU GenûID eliminates the traditional trade-offs between security, cost and performance," said Scott Crenshaw, NTRU CEO. „NTRU GenûID allows strong security to be implemented in the smallest RFID devices, even tokens or tags that cost as little as $0.50. This opens up markets for RFID and contactless applications, bringing the technology to high-value and sensitive transactions that were previously impossible to secure.

NTRU GenûID Unique Features and Benefits

NTRU GenûID offers RFID and contactless application vendors and OEMs powerful encryption and digital signature functionality that is easy to implement and tailor to specific application needs. It is a complete end-to-end solution, supporting all functions and components along the entire RF and contactless value chain. NTRU GenûID consists of the NTRU GenûID Hardware Core, a VHDL core enabling incorporation of public key security into the most cost- and space-constrained semiconductors, the NTRU GenûID Software for Chip Cards, enabling public key security to run on low-cost microcontrollers without the added cost, size and power consumption of cryptographic co-processors, and GenûID toolkits for readers and backend servers. NTRU‚s GenûID family makes it fast and easy for semiconductor vendors, application developers and systems integrators to include strong security in their products.

Higher security--For the first time, GenûID brings strong, affordable public key security to the RFID and contactless markets. Public key security delivers numerous benefits. It is substantially more secure than alternatives, delivering enhanced fraud protection. For example, with systems not using public key security, the compromise of just one reader compromises the security of the entire system. NTRU GenûID eliminates this threat. GenûID also makes key management much simpler and less expensive, while increasing system scalability.

Multi-function applications--With new levels of security now possible, RFID and contactless vendors have new opportunities to develop multi-function applications, like ticketing and point of sales transaction, with higher revenue and profit potential.

Faster performance--GenûID eliminates the wait users can experience, for example, when completing credit card transactions or gaining access to border crossings or other secure areas. GenûID is actually faster in software than competitive systems are with hardware acceleration. Convenience and speed are the keys to end user satisfaction; GenûID brings performance to new levels without compromising security.

Longer operational range--GenûID consumes significantly less power than other public key security technologies, dramatically expanding the range of RFID and contactless tokens. For example, this allows a rider to enter a transit system without removing the ticket from his wallet. Traditionally, the physical, engineering and regulatory hurdles made increasing read range impractical; now, it can be accomplished simply by switching to NTRU GenûID.

Lower cost--GenûID‚s efficiency means smaller footprint and significantly less expensive manufacturing. This enables wider deployment of secure RFID applications, increasing revenues and profits, while providing end users greater convenience and security. These are cost-driven markets, where NTRU GenûID can make the difference between success and failure.

Fast time to market/Easy to integrate--NTRU GenûID integrates quickly and easily into semiconductors (whether fixed logic or microcontroller-based), readers and back-end servers, enabling vendors to rapidly bring much needed functionality to market. This functionality differentiates products and changes the competitive profile of RFID and contactless offerings. NTRU GenûID simplifies the process of providing secure RFID and contactless applications, and allows vendors to increase market share and gain significant competitive advantages.

Availability NTRU GenûID products are available immediately.

About NTRU

NTRU is the only provider of strong security that fits everywhere. Based on the most fundamental innovation in cryptography in more than 20 years, NTRU eliminates historic price, performance and usability tradeoffs in security. NTRU delivers strong, fast security that operates with minimal power consumption and fits into a tiny footprint, making it easy for customers to build devices that people trust. NTRU security is gaining widespread adoption in the radio frequency identification (RFID), mobile communications, multimedia and embedded markets. Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., NTRU is backed by Texas Instruments, Sony Corporation, Macrovision, Lehman Brothers Venture Capital, Investor AB, Granite Ventures, Greylock, CTT and 3i. For more information, visit www.ntru. com .

###

Note: NTRU security products are protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,081,597; other U.S. and foreign patents pending.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Heather A. Baker
Schwartz Communications, Inc.
telephone: (781) 684-0770
fax: (617) 684-6500]]>bmasin@eidltd.comNone2002-03-06T15:40:57-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat6.html#unique-entry-id-38http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat6.html#unique-entry-id-38FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 6, 2002

Munich, Germany -- The State Court (Landgericht) in Munich, Germany, has ruled in favour of Trovan, Ltd. on February 21, 2002 in Case No. 7-0-17743/97, Sokymat S.A. of Granges (Veveyse), Switzerland v. Algernon Promotions, Inc. and Trovan, Ltd.

This ruling constitutes Sokymat’s fourth defeat in law suits relating to U.S. Patent no. 5,281,855 and its foreign counterpart, pending in the European Patent Office.

In both U.S. and German litigations, Sokymat initially asserted that the patent was invalid, due to the existence of prior art. “Sokymat tried a variety of defenses,” said Dieter Salomon, Trovan’s representative. “They claimed initially that the patent was invalid. Their fall-back claim was that Ake Gustafson was co-inventor of the patent. We are pleased that the German Court has dismissed both claims and has affirmed the truth in the matter: that the direct bonding technology was developed by Trovan’s team of engineers and belongs to Trovan, Ltd.”

In separate litigation, United States courts previously confirmed the validity of U.S. Patent no. 5,281,855. This ruling of the Federal District Court was subsequently confirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In that litigation, the courts concurrently ruled that Sokymat S.A. infringes on Trovan’s intellectual property rights.

U.S. Patent no. 5,281,855 and its foreign counterparts describe direct bonding technology used in micro-assembly for RFID transponders. This technology has been used by Sokymat in animal and industrial applications. “The technology represents significant breakthroughs in manufacturing automation for microtransponders and tiny electronic assemblies,” Dieter Salomon explained. “We are pleased that the Court has affirmed Trovan’s control of this direct bonding technology. Trovan will vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights against all infringing companies.”

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2003-01-03T15:40:15-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/skibinding.html#unique-entry-id-37http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/skibinding.html#unique-entry-id-37FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 3, 2003

London -- Trovan Ltd. has reached agreement with Implementors Inc., which is soon to launch the manufacture of a ground-breaking electronic ski binding, to insert Trovan microchips in the ski bindings. The purpose is to track ski bindings in rental shops and to provide anti-theft protection, as a value-added service to customers.

In future, Implementors envisions that the inserted Trovan microchip can be used as a skipass.

For information on the Implementors electronic ski binding, please see: http://www.electronic-ski-binding.com

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Barbara Masin
Electronic ID Devices Ltd.
telephone: (805) 565-1288
bmasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2003-02-24T15:39:30-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/trovan-patent-issues.html#unique-entry-id-36http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/trovan-patent-issues.html#unique-entry-id-36FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 24, 2003

Munich, Germany -- Trovan, Ltd. is pleased to announce that on January 2, 2003 the European Patent Office granted patent EP 0588 944, entitled “An Improved Miniature Transponder Device,” to Algernon Promotions Ltd. Trovan, Ltd. holds the exclusive license for this patent from Algernon.

Sokymat SA has attempted to prevent the issuance of this patent for several years through the German courts. Sokymat argued that Ake Gustafson was the inventor of the technology described in the patent, and subsequently back-pedalled to claim that he was at least co-inventor of the technology in question. Upon examination of the evidence, the Court has rejected Sokymat’s claims.

Separately, Sokymat has lost multiple appeals in U.S. courts relating to the U.S. counterpart of patent EP 0588 944.

Sokymat SA has marketed infringing products based on Trovan’s technology for a number of years. Patent EP 0588 944 describes the so-called “direct bonding” technology that has been used in a number of core Sokymat products including ignition immobilizers sold to the automotive industry and miniature glass-encapsulated animal implantable transponders. These products have been sold by Sokymat customers under their own brand names as well as by Sokymat directly.

Trovan and its partners will vigorously enforce their rights to the technology against infringers.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2003-07-17T15:38:52-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat-norwegian.html#unique-entry-id-35http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat-norwegian.html#unique-entry-id-35FOR UMIDDELBAR FRIGIVELSE

17. juli 2003

München, Tyskland -- Den 7. juli 2003 har Delstatshøyesterett i München, Tyskland avsagt en kjennelse som går imot Sokymat SA og Åke Gustafson i saken som gjelder oppfinnerrettigheter og eierskap til det europeiske patentet Nr. 0588944 (sak nr. 6 U 2535/02). Dommen medfører at de krav som er dekket av europeisk patent nr. 0588944, som ble utstedt til Algernon Promotions Ltd. 23.12.2002 kan håndheves uten begrensninger av patentets eiere og deres lisenspartnere, Algernon Promotions Ltd. og Trovan. Patent nr. 0588944 beskriver krav som relaterer til en ”direct bonding” teknologi som er utviklet av ingeniører fra Trovan.

Sokymat var opprinnelig underleverandør for Trovan og ble da gjort kjent med Trovans teknologi under en avtale om hemmeligholdelse av informasjoner utvekslet mellom firmaene. Uten Trovans vitende startet Sokymat å utvikle produksjonskapasitet for produkter basert på Trovans patenterte ”direct bonding”-teknologi samt annen konfidensiell informasjon Sokymat hadde fått under vtalen om hemmeligholdelse av informasjoner mottatt. Sokymat solgte produktene som deres egne produkter.

Noen av de primære bruksområdene hvor Sokymat har solgt produkter basert på ”direct bonding”-teknologi omfatter: produkter for bilindustrien, spesielt elektroniske tenningslås, anti-tyveri sikkerhetsanordninger, elektronisk merking av sykler, motorsykler, båter, elektronisk utstyr osv., elektronisk adgangskontroll samt individmerking innen fiskeri, husdyrbruk og merking av selskapsdyr.

Det pågår en tilsvarende rettslig prøving av krav fra Algernon/ Trovan mot Sokymat SA i USA angående et patent som bare dekker USA. ”Vi beklager situasjonen for Sokymats kunder som i en årrekke kan ha brukt produkter som er i konflikt med våre patentrettigheter. Vi vil imidlertid anstrenge oss for å finne løsningen med de ulike firmaene på en individuell basis” sa Mr. Salomon på vegne av Trovan Ltd. da den endelige domsslutningen ble gjort kjent.

Algernon/ Trovan har en rekke europeiske patenter som dekker virkemåte og produksjon, med ytterligere patentsøknader som er sendt inn.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2003-07-17T15:38:02-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat-final-appeal-denied.html#unique-entry-id-34http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/sokymat-final-appeal-denied.html#unique-entry-id-34FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 17, 2003

Munich, Germany-- The Oberlandesgericht (Superior District Court) in Munich, Germany has ruled against Sokymat SA and Ake Gustafson, on July 17, 2003, with respect to the inventorship and ownership of European Patent No. 0588944 (case no. 6 U 2535/02). The ruling renders the claims of European Patent No. 0588944, which issued to Algernon Promotions Ltd. on 23.12.02, fully enforceable by its owners and licensees, Algernon Promotions Ltd., and Trovan, Ltd. Patent No. 0588944 lists claims relating to the direct bonding technology developed by Trovan engineers.

Sokymat was initially retained as a subcontractor to Trovan and learned about the Trovan technology under the terms of a Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties. Unbeknownst to Trovan, Sokymat proceeded to develop manufacturing capability for products based on Trovan’s patented direct bonding technology and other confidential information revealed under the Non-Disclosure Agreement and to sell products on its own account.

Some of the primary applications Sokymat is supplying with product utilizing the direct-bonding technology are: automotive applications, specifically ignition immobilizers; anti-theft security applications, involving the chipping of items such as bicycles, motorcycles, boats, electronics etc.; access control applications as well as fisheries, livestock and companion animal applications.

There is a parallel, ongoing litigation by Algernon/Trovan against Sokymat SA in the United States concerning a patent covering the U.S. market only. “We are sorry for Sokymat customers who might have been using infringing products over the years. However, we will make an effort to reach accommodations with interested parties on an individual basis,” Mr. Salomon said, on behalf of Trovan, Ltd., upon publication of the final verdict.

The Algernon/Trovan European patent portfolio consists of a number of manufacturing and operational patents, with additional patents pending.

For additional information in the United States please contact:

Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
e-mail: bmasin@eidltd.com
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2004-05-31T15:37:17-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/accusort.html#unique-entry-id-33http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/accusort.html#unique-entry-id-33FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May, 2004

Telford, PA -- Accu-Sort Systems, an EPC global member, has released its FAST Tag™ RFID tagging system for placing, tracking and verifying RFID tags on cartons and pallets. Part of Accu-Sort’s suite of Flexible Automation Solution Tools, FAST Tag is a turnkey automated solution that integrates seamlessly into existing material and data handling systems, providing a low-risk upgrade path from conventional bar code labeling systems.

The system can be tailored to meet specific user needs. The base system includes an inbound bar code scanner, RF tag applicator, tag verifier and outbound box-tag RFID verifier. Also included are controls for infeed, tracking, verify-reject outputs and additional configurable I/O features. FAST Tag software runs on a PC platform, which can be housed in an industrial enclosure or placed remotely in an office environment. The Windows®-based software controls all devices, system I/O, diagnostics, communications and reporting functions through an intuitive user interface.

Initiatives from major retailers require the use of Class 0 or Class 1 RFID technologies in the UHF band. These requirements will change when UHF Generation 2 standards are written. All FAST Tag RFID readers are compliant with Class 0 or Class1 and will be upgradeable to the Generation 2 standard. As an EPCglobal member, Accu-Sort is committed to adopting and promoting current and future standards.

Key value-enhancing features of the FAST Tag system include on-the-fly tag validation and invalid tag skipping. These processes read and validate tag data before it is applied to a carton; invalid tags are wound immediately to the waste reel, ensuring no bad tags enter the supply chain. FAST Tag also provides 100% item tracking and tracing, ensuring that the right tag gets on the right box every time. For more than 35 years, Accu-Sort has been an automatic identification pioneer, with large retailers and manufacturing companies among its core constituencies.

“Retailers have used Accu-Sort products and solutions to gain efficiencies in their distribution centers since the 1980s,” said Bob Joyce, president of Accu-Sort. “Accu-Sort has always been a leading supplier of bar code and labeling systems to leading manufacturers, who also happen to be the companies subject to the RFID labeling mandates,” he added. “Our experience makes us uniquely qualified to leverage existing systems and provide compliant RFID labeling systems very efficiently.”

For further information, contact John Thomas, Accu-Sort Systems, Inc., 2800 Crystal Drive, Hatfield, PA 19440. Phone: 1-800-BARCODE or 215-723-0981; fax: 215-996-8249; e-mail: info@accusort.com; www.accusort.com.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2004-05-13T15:36:32-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AVID-sues-banfield.html#unique-entry-id-32http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AVID-sues-banfield.html#unique-entry-id-32FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 13, 2004

On May 3, California-based microchip vendor AVID initiated legal action in Marshall, Texas against several defendants for infringing U.S. Pat Nos. 5,214,409 and 5,499,017. Case #2:04-cv-00183-TJW, Hon. T. John Ward, presiding, lists as defendants:
Phillips Electronics North America Corp.
Koniklijke Phillips Electronics NV
The Crystal Import Corp.
Medical Management International Inc.
Datamars Inc./Datamars SA.

Medical Management International Inc., does business as Banfield the Pet Hospital.
Crystal Import Corp. markets Datamars products in the United States and lists the same Pelham, Alabama contact address as Datamars USA.

The legal action alleges that Datamars ISO transponders (whose 15-digit ID code begins with the digits 981...) incorporate the allegedly infringing “Hitag S” integrated circuit manufactured by Phillips.

Furthermore the complaint in Texas also alleges infringement of AVID's U.S. Patent No. 5,235,326 . This claim affects ISO-compatible readers marketed by Datamars. In the event AVID prevails in its litigation, AVID would be entitled to demand that use of infringing product cease, meaning that readers capable of reading the Banfield/Crystal Import/Datamars product could bew removed from shelters.

AVID has also started separate legal action against Allflex USA Inc. and its
distributor, PetHealth Services in the US District Court of Wisconsin
(Madison), in Case 04-C-0067-S, Filed Feb. 11, 2004,the Hon. John C. Shabas presiding.
This case alleges infringement of US Pat. Nos. 5,266,926 and 5,559,507 with respect to the design and construction of the reader antenna. In the event AVID prevails in its litigation, AVID would be entitled to demand that use of infringing product cease, meaning that readers capable of reading the Allflex product could be removed from shelters.

The litigation by AVID could have repercussions beyond U.S. borders since the patents in question have foreign counterparts in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, meaning that similar litigation could impact the availability of these ISO FDX-B microchips and readers in those countries.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID NewsIntellectual Property News2004-05-14T15:35:36-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/banfield_stops_using_FDXB.html#unique-entry-id-31http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/banfield_stops_using_FDXB.html#unique-entry-id-31FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 14, 2004

A spokesperson for Banfield The Pet Hospital, which has locations in PetSmart stores throughout the United States, has confirmed that the company has stopped marketing their ISO FDX-B microchips.

On April 21, a pit bull was euthanized in a Virginia shelter, because the animal’s Banfield-supplied chip was not compatible with the shelter’s reader. Inquiries by journalists confirmed that none of the area’s shelters was using compatible readers.

Mark Kumpf, President of the Virginia AnimalControl Association, said: “HSUS, ASPCA, NACA, and other national animal care and control organizations have issued a warning to pet owners that new ISO microchips offered by Banfield and other pet hospitals may place your pets at risk.” Rick Collord, Former Chairman, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators, Microchip Committee, explained that “With the use of this incompatible technology, and without scanners in widespread use that can read all three chips accurately, thoroughly and precisely, the new ISO chip is a detriment."

Dr. Jamie Rees of Banfield stated that “Banfield has chosen the new ISO chip and scanner because it is the new technology that is what the rest of the world is using.”

Although ISO FDX-B microchips are being used in some European countries and parts of Australia, acceptance of ISO FDX-B microchips is not universal and the standard on which they are based continues to generate controversy, in part due to concerns about ID code duplication.
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2004-07-03T15:34:46-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/European_pet_passport.html#unique-entry-id-30http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/European_pet_passport.html#unique-entry-id-30FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 3, 2004

Brussels -- The European Union has implemented new legislation governing the import of pet animals into member nations.
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of 26 May 2003, entitled “On animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC,” entered into force on 3 July 2004. It stipulates that pet animals entering member nations be provided with a “pet passport” to clearly determine its identity, proof of vaccination and positive ID.
For an eight year transitional period, this positive ID may be either a tattoo or electronic ID (transponder.) Article 4 of the law stipulates that transponders must “comply with ISO Standard 11784 or Annex A to ISO Standard 11785.”
In other words, complying transponders are those commonly known as:
FDX-B
HDX-B (not suitable for use in cats and dogs)
Trovan 128 Khz
Destron 125 Khz, or ‘FECAVA” or “FDX-A”
Datamars 125 Khz
Of these, only Trovan 128 Khz and Destron 125 Khz have significant installed bases in countries affected by the law (non-member nations).
Other transponders may be used, but in that case the pet owner must furnish a compatible reader at his own cost.
After the transitional period, only the transponder specified in Article 4.1 may be used. ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2004-10-14T15:33:48-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AVID-wins-pethealth-suit.html#unique-entry-id-29http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AVID-wins-pethealth-suit.html#unique-entry-id-29FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 14 , 2004

NORCO, California -- The federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin recently ruled in a suit brought by AVID Identification Systems, Inc., that certain products used and distributed by Pethealth Services (USA) Inc. infringe a patent owned by AVID. AVID and Pethealth settled the remaining portions of the case.
Judge John C. Shabaz Order ruled: “IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is GRANTED…”, and “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is DENIED.”
“We anticipate that this ruling will help validate the 125 kHz based microchip technology widely and commonly used in the U.S. for pet identification.” said AVID founder Hannis L. Stoddard III, D.V.M., “AVID believes that the U.S. pet microchipping and recovery systems were jeopardized recently by several reckless attempts to introduce an incompatible 134.2 kHz based microchip technology.”
AVID, a pioneer in radio frequency identification (“RFID”) technology since 1985, is seeking to prevent Pethealth from making, using, selling, or inducing the wrongful use of infringing products. AVID has eighteen U.S. patents and corresponding foreign patents that cover its advances in RFID scanner and microchip transponder technology.
The AVID RFID system uses a scanner to read the identification code in a microchip transponder. Microchips are used to identify and trace animals and inanimate objects around the world. RFID is the emerging technology for many enhanced applications including; security access control, supply chain management, car immobilizers, automotive speed passes, counterfeit protection, asset management and inventory control.
Chadd Taylor of Kirkland & Ellis and lead litigation counsel for AVID in this case said, “This is a strong step towards validating the hard work that AVID has put into developing this technology. AVID will continue to aggressively protect its valuable intellectual property.”
The Wisconsin ruling is not the first to vindicate AVID’s intellectual property rights. On June 4, 2004, United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of AVID, against infringers Global ID Systems, Inc. and Douglas Hull. The defendants had been found liable for unfair competition, trademark infringement and patent infringement. The infringement was ruled to be willful and unexcused, which doubled the damages awarded to AVID. David B. Abel of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey was the successful lead litigator in the Global ID case.
In a separate patent infringement case, in May of this year, AVID filed suit in East Texas against Philips Electronics North America Corp., Medical Management International, Inc. dba Banfield the Pet Hospital, Datamars, Inc. and others, related to AVID’s scanning and microchipping technology. AVID is represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. in this matter.
Advising AVID is Professor Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, of counsel Keker & Van Nest LLP.

For further information, please contact:
Dr. Dan Knox , Director Companion Animal Field Operations, 314.487.5842, Avidsaveslives@AvidID.com
Loran Hickton, Salmon Creek Public Relations Inc., 360.571.5560, lhickton@salmoncreek.com

For more info about AVID, visit www.avidid.com
For more info about Fish & Richardson, visit www.fr.com
For more information about Kirkland & Ellis, visit www.kirkland.com
For more information about Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, visit www.ssd.com
For more information about Keker & Van Nest, visit www.kvn.com
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2004-11-04T15:32:57-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/court-halts-sale-of-FDXB.html#unique-entry-id-28http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/court-halts-sale-of-FDXB.html#unique-entry-id-28FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 4, 2004

San Diego, California-- The San Diego Superior Court yesterday issued a preliminary injunction blocking Medical Management Interational, dba Banfield, ThePet Hospital, from selling or advertising ISO FDX-B microchips for pet ID. Banfield Pet Hospitals are located in PETsMART stores throughout the United States.

If Banfield wants to resume selling or promoting its RecoveryChip, its written promotional materials and advertisements must first be submitted to the court, in order to ensure that they disclose that "134.2 kHz electronic identification tags . . . cannot be read by the vast majority of scanners in U.S. shelters." Judge William C. Pate noted that "the potential for serious, irreparable harm warrants the issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction . . . specifically the increased potential for pets to be euthanized while their owners believe them to be safe."

The order is the result of a consumer protection lawsuit filed in May 2004, after Banfield's distribution of its chips triggered a strong response by the pet shelter community.

Pet microchipping systems use a scanner (or reader) to read a small microchip that is injected under the skin of a pet. The 134.2 kHz microchip, used in several foreign countries, cannot be read by scanners used by most American veterinarians and shelters.

The court also ordered Banfield "to notify all purchasers of its RecoveryChip, or any other 134.2 kHz electronic identification tags it has sold, as well as all veterinarians to whom it has recommended these products" of the chip's limitations.

The injunction requires Banfield's notification to be approved by the Court, and to state that only certain, specifically listed shelters are equipped with scanners that can read Banfield's chip. The notification also must disclose that the mere fact that shelters have such scanners "does not guarantee that the shelters will actually use those scanners on lost pets." Finally the notification must further disclose "that the majority of shelters presently use a scanner that will not detect or read [Banfield's] implanted chip."

"Judge Pate's order may very well save pet's lives," said Hannis L. Stoddard III, DVM and president of AVID, one of the parties that brought the lawsuit. AVID manufactures Friend Chips, a microchip pet ID tag that has been used successfully throughout the country to reunite pets with their families for years.

"Today's decision . . . is an important step in stopping and remedying an advertising campaign that the court recognized was likely to deceive consumers and create a risk of unnecessarily euthanized pets," states Daniel Pascucci of Fish & Richardson, counsel for AVID and veterinarian Robert Stonebreaker, D.V.M., who filed the consumer protection lawsuit against Banfield.

For further information, please contact:
Dr. Dan Knox , Director Companion Animal Field Operations, 314.487.5842, Avidsaveslives@AvidID.com
Teresa Y. Warren, TW2 Marketing, 619.582.5750, twarren@tw2marketing.com

For more info about AVID, visit www.avidid.com
For more info about Fish & Richardson, visit www.fr.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2004-10-20T15:31:38-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Destron_sues_Allflex_and_Datamars.html#unique-entry-id-27http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Destron_sues_Allflex_and_Datamars.html#unique-entry-id-27FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20 , 2004

Minneapolis, USA -- Digital Angel Corporation, today filed a Complaint against Allflex USA, Inc. and its distributor Pet Health Services (USA) Inc. alleging infringement of its U.S. Pat. No. 5,211,129 entitled “Syringe Implantable Identification Transponder. ”

Digital Angel alleges that both the FDX-A and FDX-B transponders offered by Allflex infringe the ë129 patent and that the transponders currently being sold by Allflex, manufactured by Sokymat, are not covered by the licensing agreement previously entered into between Allflex and Digital Angelís predecessor Destron Fearing.

Separately, Digital Angel Corporation filed a Complaint against Datamars Inc., Datamars SA, The Crystal Import Corporation and Medical Management International, Inc., which does business as Banfield The Pet Hospital alleging infringement of the same U.S. Pat. No. 5,211,129.

The Complaint states that Datamars approached Digital Angel on several occasions seeking a license. Digital Angel offered Datamars a worldwide license. Datamars rejected the offer. The 5,211,129 patent is valid only in the United States. ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2004-12-27T15:30:45-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/new_microchip_registry.html#unique-entry-id-26http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/new_microchip_registry.html#unique-entry-id-26FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 27, 2004

As of the beginning of 2005, Schering Plough’s Home Again will operate its own companion animal registry. Home Again has until recently been closely associated with the AKC CAR (America Kennel Club Companion Animal Registry), which in the past received most of their new income-producing registrations from Home Again customers. In future Home Again customers will be supported by Schering Plough’s own database.

The United States are home to some 120 million companion animals. Major suppliers of microchips in the United States are: AVID, Schering Plough/Home Again and Trovan.

A recent effort to introduce the so-called ISO standard identification chip to the United States failed on several well-publicized legal and practical hurdles.

1. The ISO-type microchips cannot be detected by the installed reader base in the United States, which will detect only Home Again 125-KHz, AVID “encrypted” and Trovan 128-KHz chips. In at least one documented instance, pets identified with ISO chips have been euthanized because they were not detected by the readers in use in U.S. animal shelters, which were in many instances placed there by manufacturers at no cost to the shelter.

2. The ISO microchips and some compatible readers have been determined to be in conflict with intellectual property rights of third parties by U.S. courts, or are still being litigated.

3. The ISO 11784/85 standard is an open standard and does not assure unique ID codes (see The Controversial ISO 11784 / ISO 11785 Standard here).

The four microchip registries operating in the United States are:
1. AKC CAR 1-800-252-7894
2. InfoPet Identification Systems 1-800-463-0738
3. AVID PETTRAC 1-800-652-9977
4. Schering Plough 1-800-521-5767

]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2006-06-07T15:29:17-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Jury_finds_against_datamars.html#unique-entry-id-25http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Jury_finds_against_datamars.html#unique-entry-id-25FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 7, 2006

St. Louis, MO-- Avid Identification Systems, Inc. has won a significant litigation victory in the United States. A jury found that two competitors have infringed on Avid’s technology and had made false advertising claims that harmed consumers. The jury concluded that there was in excess of $6 million in damages caused by European based Datamars SA and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Crystal Import Corporation.

The jury unanimously found that Datamars SA and Crystal Import Corporation not only infringed, but willfully infringed three patents held by Avid for its core RFID technology, predominantly used today by Avid for identifying pets and re-uniting lost pets with their families. The infringing products include ISO 134.2 kHz pet identification microchips and readers manufactured by Datamars and reported in DVM Magazine as being distributed in the United States by Bayer Health Care, Animal Health Division.

Banfield, the Pet Hospital had previously been enjoined from selling the same ISO products last year by the Superior Court in San Diego, California due to " the risk of great, irreparable harm for which legal remedies are inadequate, specifically the increased potential for pets to be euthanized while their owners believe them to be safe. "

The jury also found Datamars SA and Crystal Import Corporation liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act for making false claims about the effectiveness of their ISO products in locating and returning lost pets with their owners.

During the second day of trial, two other defendants in the lawsuit, Philips Semiconductors Inc. and Philips Semiconductors Manufacturing Inc., settled their case and licensed Avid’s patents in suit for restricted applications (non companion animal).

The trial, which was held in U.S District Court, Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, Texas, lasted six days. The jury of unbiased citizens from varied backgrounds deliberating for less than five hours before delivering their unanimous decisions.

The microchip sold by Datamars SA and Crystal Import Corporation operate on the European ISO technology based on 134.2 kHz, which is not compatible with the American installed base of readers and microchips. In February 2004, when the products were introduced into the U.S., there were only 600 ISO microchip readers at shelters nationwide capable of reading the 65,000 pet microchips sold at the ISO 134.2 frequency. In contrast, Avid and other manufacturers have supplied U.S. shelters and vets with approximately 100,000 readers that can read America’s the installed base of microchips in more than 12 million pets, including dogs, cats, birds and horses.

"The infrastructure to read pet microchips and ultimately return pets to their owners must be in place before a different product is introduced," stated Dr. Hannis L. Stoddard III, president and founder of Avid as well as a practicing veterinarian and hospital owner. "Consumers trust that microchips will improve the probability of a safe return of lost animals and if a product doesn’t do that, pets are put at risk. ... The jury’s verdict also sends a cautionary message to microchip system users to carefully evaluate claims made about the 134.2 kHz RFID systems."

Several issues are still pending before the court, including a decision regarding an injunction against Datamars SA and Crystal Import Corporation that would prevent the companies from selling their infringing products in the U.S. A decision is expected no later than mid-July. Avid was represented by Fish & Richardson, with Juanita Brooks as lead counsel. "A company’s patents are an asset of great value and must be protected, especially when another company willfully infringes them," says Ms. Brooks. "Pets are an important part of most American families, and pet owners must be protected against false advertising, particularly when their pet’s lives are put at risk. The jury understood the significance of both of these issues and came to a fair and equitable decision," concludes Ms. Brooks, who has more than 25 years litigating high profile complex technology cases and more recently animal wellbeing issues.

For more info about AVID, visit www.avidid.com
For more info about Fish & Richardson, visit www.fr.com]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2006-09-01T15:28:06-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Opposition_to_Microchip_Rule.html#unique-entry-id-24http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Opposition_to_Microchip_Rule.html#unique-entry-id-24FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 1, 2006

Nashville, TN-- The American Microchip Advisory Council for Animals (AMACA), composed of professional animal care givers, veterinarians and microchip user groups has voiced opposition to a proposed rule by the USDA, which would require the use of a microchip that is incompatible with the system used in the United States.

"This could adversely affect millions of American pets that have been microchipped or will be microchipped in the future", says AMACA member veterinarian, Dr. Philip Wagenknecht.

The Council represents the interests of companion animal and horse owners by offering an electronic forum at AmacaUSA.org for user groups who depend upon the extensive microchip recovery system in the United States. The tiny rice-sized microchip is used in millions of pets and horses and can save the life of an animal lost or displaced after a disaster or one who simply wanders from home.

Many shelters and rescue organizations microchip 100% of pets adopted, and thousands of veterinarians offer the service to their clients. More than 1200 calls each day are placed by veterinary hospitals, humane societies, rescues, animal control and other AMACA members who are using the microchip number to reunite pets with their owners.

Microchip numbers are maintained in pet recovery databases that work together to provide the information necessary for animal care providers to quickly reunite lost or displaced pets with their families, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

The identification system has grown rapidly since 1996 when microchip manufacturers complied with compatibility requests from veterinary and shelter organizations. Since that time, scanners used in recovery efforts have been able to read all chips used in America, regardless of manufacturer.

In the wake of numerous disasters such as Katrina, the California wildfires, east coast floods, and heartland tornadoes, AMACA has become the 'Voice for Microchip Users' who want to safeguard and enhance the system so many now depend upon.

AMACA members form the infrastructure of the current practice of microchipping pets and horses in this country. The organization has voiced opposition to a proposed rule that is being considered by USDA, set out in APHIS Docket 2006-0012. This proposed rule would require an incompatible change in the microchip frequency in America.

For more info about AMACA, visit www.AmacaUSA.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News2008-04-11T18:14:57-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/3fbd40e9a0c7221fc0898b38d524c5ac-23.html#unique-entry-id-23http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/3fbd40e9a0c7221fc0898b38d524c5ac-23.html#unique-entry-id-23FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 24, 2008

San Diego, CA-- The lengthy intellectual property litigation between AVID Identification Systems, Inc. and Datamars et al., taking place in the U.S. Federal Court, at Marshall, Texas, has been settled by the litigants.

Meanwhile, a trial date has been set by the court in substantially similar litigation taking place in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case #5:06-cv-01109-SGL-OP, AVID Identification Systems Inc. vs. Allflex et al. That trial is scheduled to begin on August 10, 2010.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News1996-07-12T18:00:19-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/LA-city.html#unique-entry-id-22http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/LA-city.html#unique-entry-id-22FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 1996

SANTA BARBARA, CA-- The Los Angeles Animal Regulation Commission voted unanimously July 8 to begin a microchip identification program with InfoPet Identification Systems, using the Trovan® microchip. The selection was made upon conclusion of an exhaustive evaluation of qualifying proposals submitted to the City.

In its "Evaluation of Microchip Proposals," the City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation stated that "The Trovan® scanners offered by InfoPet were superior in all ways [...]. The Trovan® scanners detected the presence of microchips at a higher percentage [...and...] at a significantly greater distance [...]. The greater read distance of the Trovan® scanners is sufficient justification alone to award a contract to InfoPet."

Under the program the city will automatically implant the chips in all companion animals picked up as strays and adopted out. Animal Regulation director Gary Olsen is confident that the technology would be "a way of identifying animals more effectively." Olsen will also ask Mayor Richard Riordan to approve a charge of $15.00 for pet owners to bring in their pets for implanting.

The Animal Control Department estimates that up to 70% of the nearly 100,000 pets lost each year in Los Angeles currently have no form of identification. Los Angeles Animal Regulation Commissioner Camille Robins said she supports the measure as a way to reduce the high number of unclaimed strays that have to be put to death by the city, stating "I think it will save a lot of animals." Alexander L. Russell, InfoPet President and CEO, said "The InfoPet program will provide L.A. residents permanent identification for their pets while enabling the animal control department to save time and expense by quickly returning animals to their homes."

The Trovan® system offered by InfoPet has been endorsed by the A.S.P.C.A. and has been selected as the global standard for zoos and aquariums by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the I.U.C.N. Hundreds of zoos worldwide, as well as government agencies and municipalities in 21 countries are using the Trovan system for animal identification applications.

InfoPet Identification Systems is a division of TraceNET Technologies Inc., and a distributor for the Trovan® system for companion animals.

For more information please contact:
Keith Myhre, at InfoPet Identification Systems
phone: (612) 890-2080
or
Barbara Masin, at Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
phone: (805) 565-1288
email: BMasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1999-05-11T17:55:24-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/12025a9a4fea0e044d01ab093a2f9b62-21.html#unique-entry-id-21http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/12025a9a4fea0e044d01ab093a2f9b62-21.html#unique-entry-id-21Case has potential to be the largest trademark judgment ever, with projected damages alone in excess of $100 million

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 11, 1999

Los Angeles, CA-- Trovan, Ltd. And Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. allege fraudulent misappropriation and use of their TROVAN® trademark by Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE: PFE) in a proposed amended complaint filed late Monday in Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc. They also seek to globally enjoin Pfizer from unlicensed use of the TROVAN® name in marketing a new antibiotic introduced in 1998. This antibiotic has the most indications (14) approved of by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a product of this type, and has already become the ninth most prescribed branded antibiotic in the United States. The case has the potential to be the largest trademark judgment ever, with projected damages alone in excess of $100 million.

"Typically, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to introduce such a product into the marketplace", said Joseph Masin, president of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. "Yet, knowing that for almost seven years we had held the federal trademark registration for 'TROVAN', Pfizer went ahead and launched a major campaign to promote its new antibiotic, using our name. Then, with utter disregard for our name or international reputation. Pfizer fraudulently obtained and identical mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."

"We filed suit", explained Masin, "and since then have been in a 'David vs. Goliath' battle with Pfizer, recently defeating their Motion for Summary Judgment [under seal]. With this proposed amended complaint, we want to move forward and prevent Pfizer from further capitalizing on the TROVAN® mark worldwide or from garnering any other financial windfall through the illusion that there is any connection between our two companies, including confusion over the Internet."

Since 1989, Trovan, Ltd. Has used the TROVAN® name to market its system of electronic identification devices, and since 1991 has held federal registration No. 1649328 for the TROVAN® mark issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. TROVAN® products are used worldwide by governments, universities, and research facilities for human and veterinary applications, ranging from tracking blood supplies to animal control. Since 1996, the company's internet domain address has been: www.trovan.com.

In 1997, Trovan, Ltd. learned that Pfizer, Inc. intended to introduce a new antibiotic under the identical Trovan name in 1998. After Pfizer ignored Trovan's objections, Plaintiffs filed suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition on December 8, 1997 in Santa Barbara Superior Court [Case No. 222191]. The case was removed to the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, on January 7, 1998 before the Honorable Lourdes G. Baird [Case No. 98-0094 LGB (Mcx)].

Trovan, Ltd. Is a British Corporation and owns the trademark TROVAN® at issue: Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. Is a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and is the exclusive North American distributor and a licensee of TROVAN® products. Plaintiffs are represented by William E. Levin, with the Laguna Beach, CA law firm of Levin & Hawes.

Press Contact: Kathy Pinckert
Dial: 310-836-8355
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News1999-06-21T17:55:25-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/b6cb9f06d2dad57822fc47c739c7f377-20.html#unique-entry-id-20http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/b6cb9f06d2dad57822fc47c739c7f377-20.html#unique-entry-id-20FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 1999

Santa Barbara, CA-- Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. confirmed today that its TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM Implantable Delivery Device is approved for implantation of a transponder in food animals. In his letter dated 8 May, 1998, George Graber PhD, Director Division of Animal Feeds, Center for Veterinary Medicine, confirmed that "We have reviewed your submission and find there are no human food safety concerns."

The ID-100 TROVAN implantable transponder was previously approved on February 15, 1996.

"We are very pleased that our TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM has been approved for use in animals. We are now actively seeking marketing partners for this exciting new product in the areas of animal and human pharmaceutical applications," Mr. Joseph Masin, President of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. said.

The TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM is a unique transponder delivery device which consists of a tiny container shaped like a bullet, which tapers to a sharp point. Inside is an ID-100A transponder. The TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM can also be used to deliver antibiotics and other pharmaceutical compounds. The TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM can be inserted very easily simply by pressing it, sharp point first, into the animal's skin with the thumb. No tools are necessary.

The TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM does not make an incision, or cut, in the skin as a syringe would. Rather it pierces the skin, allowing for rapid closure of the opening after penetration of the TROVAN ZIPQUILL^TM, thereby minimising tissue damage and trauma.

For additional information in the United States please contact:
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: BMasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1998-02-12T17:54:36-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer01.html#unique-entry-id-19http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Pfizer01.html#unique-entry-id-19FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 12, 1998

Santa Barbara, CA-- Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd., the North American distributor for Trovan, Ltd., and Trovan, Ltd., a UK corporation, have initiated legal action against Pfizer Inc. for trademark infringement.

Trovan, Ltd., which owns the TROVAN trademark, is a worldwide supplier of products to electronic and pharmaceutical applications marketed under its registered trademark TROVAN since 1989.

Pfizer Inc. has obtained FDA approval in December of 1997 and has begun marketing its new oral and intravenous broad-spectrum quinolone antibiotic trovafloxacin under the TROVAN trademark. According to Pfizer, the U.S. New Drug Application filed for this antibiotic was the largest ever filed by Pfizer with the FDA. Trovan, Ltd. has taken legal action to prevent unlicensed use of the TROVAN trademark by Pfizer.

Trovan, Ltd. has obtained marketing rights for a new technology which enables delivery of antibiotics and other pharmaceutica into animals or human bodies without the use of a syringe. The TROVAN delivery device, which consists of a tiny container shaped like a bullet, can be used for implanting electronic transponders for remote animal identification. The space inside the device contains a small dose of antibiotic paste, in addition to the transponder, to ward off any possible infection of the implantation site. The TROVAN delivery device can be inserted very easily simply by pressing it, sharp point first, into the animal's skin with the thumb. No tools are necessary. The implanted container will dissolve completely in the animal's tissue within three hours of insertion.

"To the uninitiated," said Mr. Dieter Salomon of Trovan, Ltd., "this device may look like it is made of a very hard, clear plastic, but the "plastic" is actually a soluble material made of a molecular compound contained in the muscle tissue of humans and animals."

The TROVAN delivery device does not make an incision, or cut, in the skin as a syringe would. Rather it pierces the skin, allowing for rapid closure of the opening after penetration, thereby minimising tissue damage and trauma.

TROVAN passive transponders are FDA approved, and have been in use for animal identification and medical tracking applications for years. The Captive Breeding Specialist Group (C.B.S.G.), an umbrella organisation for zoos and wildlife parks worldwide, has endorsed the TROVAN product in 1991 based on its unmatched performance, its small size and its low cost to the end-user. As a consequence, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (C.I.T.E.S.) has voted to align itself with the C.B.S.G. recommendations in 1992, specifying that endangered fauna crossing national boundaries be identified "in accordance with the advice received from the IUCN/SCC Captive Breeding Specialist Group." Use of the TROVAN passive transponder is mandated by government agencies in a number of countries.

For additional information in the United States please contact:
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: BMasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2007-02-20T17:49:03-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AKC-EID.html#unique-entry-id-18http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/AKC-EID.html#unique-entry-id-18FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 20, 2007

Las Vegas, NV-- AKC, Companion Animal Recovery (AKC CAR) and Electronic ID Devices, Ltd. (EID), distributors of TROVAN® microchips in the United States, have announced their decision to form a partnership to serve American pet owners and their pets with complete identification and recovery services. AKC CAR, located in Raleigh, NC, was founded in 1995 as a not-for-profit organization managing a 24/7 recovery service for companion animals. It is the largest not-for-profit recovery service provider, storing over 3.5 million enrollment records and reuniting over 315,000 lost pets with their owners.

Through its distribution agreement with EID, AKC CAR has become the exclusive distributor of TROVAN® microchips in the United States companion animal market. The decision to partner with Trovan adds the distribution of TROVAN® transponders (microchips) to AKC CAR's services.

TROVAN® transponders were selected by AKC CAR because of their advanced technology and unmatched performance in this product category, in this application today. TROVAN® transponders have been in production since 1991, using the most modern operational and manufacturing technologies available. Trovan developed the direct bonding "must have" technology for the manufacture of transponders, eliminating superfluous components and increasing product reliability, and was first to offer a functioning single panel "walk by" reader for high traffic animal shelters.

TROVAN® transponders, together with Home Again and AVID, are part of the American standard, complying with the installed reader base used for identifying lost microchipped animals in animal shelters throughout the United States.

"We are pleased to announce the decision by American Kennel Club Companion Animal Registry to partner with our company and AKC CAR's decision to expand their activities beyond the operation of their registry and database," said Mr. Joseph Masin, President of EID. "AKC CAR has been sucessfully providing a public service since 1995, helping to reunite lost pets with their owners. Together with AKC CAR, we are dedicated to providing the best combination of hardware and service to the pubic available anywhere."

AKC CAR and EID are dedicated to responsible pet ownership and believe that by partnering they can reduce the cost of microchipping in the U.S. and increase the number of lost pets that are recovered. The American RFID standard is supported by multi-system readers distributed by HomeAgain® /Schering Plough, Avid® and TROVAN®.

For more information, please visit www.akccar.org/microchip.
Press contacts: AKC CAR -- Brett Mock 919-816-3565
EID -- Barbara Masin 805-565-1288]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2007-10-15T17:43:49-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/avid-misleads.html#unique-entry-id-17http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/avid-misleads.html#unique-entry-id-17FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 15, 2007

Los Angeles, CA. --

This letter is to address certain statements made by Dr. Hannis Stoddard, President of AVID, in his continuing efforts to protect his microchip business. (see NACA NEWS, September/October 2007)

Recent comments made by Dr. Stoddard regarding the TROVAN microchip being sold by AKC Companion Animal Recovery are misleading and in certain cases factually not true.

For instance, he states that there is a permanent injunction in place in the US …..against any person for ……. selling any TROVAN microchip (TROVAN ID -100 transponder). What he fails to tell you is that the TROVAN product being sold and marketed by AKC CAR and manufactured by TROVAN is the TROVAN ID 100US transponder with lancet which has no such injunction and is non-infringing. Dr. Stoddard is well aware of this.

This is no accident. In a recent court ruling in Texas dated September 28, 2007 where AVID and another chip manufacturer (not TROVAN) have been in dispute the Judge made the following comments regarding AVID and Dr. Stoddard. “The court finds Dr. Hannis Stoddard’s trial and deposition testimony is simply not credible on key issues. This finding flows from Stoddard’s conspicuous inability to recall facts while testifying, combined with his refusal to acknowledge incontrovertible events.” The court goes on to say “that AVID intentionally withheld information from the PTO in an effort to deceive the PTO and obtain allowance of the ‘326’ patent.” Click here.

Dr. Stoddard presents a genuine problem that exists with the microchip scanning network in the U.S. today. That problem is that any veterinary practice, animal shelter, or law enforcement agency that depends on the AVID MiniTracker Scanner to protect the hundreds of thousands of pets that have been identified with the Trovan microchip since 1991, and an undetermined number of ISO microchip implanted pets, is putting the safety and well being of those pets in real jeopardy.

Scanners can excite and read chips that operate at125kHz, 128kHz and 134kHz. The idea that 128 kHz is incompatible with125kHz is a result of AVID manufacturing scanners to NOT read other chips apart from their own and Home Again. And this despite the fact that TROVAN microchips have been identifying American pets since the early 1990s. The example Mr. Stoddard used as an argument against TROVAN/AKC microchips in the market is actually not even a Trovan microchip, but an Allflex clone of the HomeAgain microchip. This year 20,000 scanners have been issued by Bayer, plus 30,000 Home Again Scanners will be retrofitted and provided in the US market announced by Home Again at the AVMA conference in Washington DC and all these scanners can and will read chips that operate at 125kHz, 128kHz and 134kHz.

There is growing recognition by most US entities that the US needs and deserves a microchip and recovery system that is truly universal and not captive to the business interests of one manufacturer, consequently putting some microchipped pets at risk.

Trovan strongly recommends that any entity in the current pet microchip scanning network that is relying on the AVID MiniTracker reader to immediately contact the AKC for an upgrade so they can adequately protect all microchipped pets.

Trovan recognized in the early nineties the need for readers that provided true universality in reading, with performance that does not arbitrarily discriminate for “business” purposes. Subsequently, AVID refused to make its encryption scheme available to other companies. Trovan has independently developed a capacity to read and correctly display AVID encrypted microchips in the readers it distributes, and has continued its devotion of resources toward this universal reader goal, expanding the microchip types detected to include ISO types of microchips. It has embodied this capability into its AKC CAR pocket reader (LID-560) and its shelter reader (GR-251).

If anyone has any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Joseph V. Masin
President,
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.

Contact:

EID, Ltd.

telephone: (805) 565-1288
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2007-12-14T17:40:19-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/open-letter-avid.html#unique-entry-id-16http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/open-letter-avid.html#unique-entry-id-16FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2007

Los Angeles, CA. --

AVID Identification Systems, Inc.
Hannis Stoddard, President

Dear Hannis,

This is to renew our standing offer which we have made in March 1992 to Avid to license the Trovan patented communication protocol between Trovan transponders and readers to Avid for the price of $1.00 (one dollar).

As you know, the owners of companion animals and U.S. animal welfare organizations require all readers used in the market to correctly display the code number and the manufacturer of the animal for the purpose of reuniting pets with their owners and saving lives of animals.

This requirement has been stated in the AIM Companion Animal Electronic ID User Requirements document dated 12/6/1994 in the creation of which AVID participated. The document lays the ground work for the "American Standard", specifying the three transponder protocols present in the market (Avid, Destron, and Trovan, currently distributed by AKC/CAR).

The implementation of the Trovan communication protocol in all your readers would benefit the public in general and allow you to demonstrate Avid's dedication to animal welfare, preventing unnecessary euthanasia of countless animals.

Sincerely,
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Joseph V, Masin
President

cc/ John Mays, NACA News
AMACA USA.org
Tony Bacci, AKC CAR
Dr. Janis H. Audin, AVMA
American Animal Hospital Association
Nancy Lawson, Humane Society of the United States
Becky Turner Chapman, DVM Magazine
Somyr Perry, Veterinary Practice News
Karen Wernette, AVPMCA

Contact:

EID, Ltd.

telephone: (805) 565-1288 ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News1997-10-21T17:36:53-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/zipquill.html#unique-entry-id-15http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/zipquill.html#unique-entry-id-15FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 21, 1997

Santa Barbara, CA-- Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd., the North American distributor for TROVAN, LTD. is pleased to announce the introduction of the new TROVAN ID-100ZIP animal identification transponder. The ID-100ZIP features the patented TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM.

The TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM is a unique transponder delivery device which consists of a tiny container shaped like a bullet, which tapers to a sharp point. Inside is an ID-100 transponder. The TROVAN ZIP QuillTM can be inserted very easily simply by pressing it, sharp point first, into the animal's skin with the thumb. No tools are necessary.

The TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM does not make an incision, or cut, in the skin as a syringe would. Rather it pierces the skin, allowing for rapid closure of the opening after penetration of the TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM thereby minimising tissue damage and trauma.

"To the uninitiated," said Mr. Dieter Salomon of Trovan, Ltd., "the TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM may look like it is made of a very hard, clear plastic, but the "plastic" is actually a soluble material made of a molecular compound contained in the muscle tissue of humans and animals." The TROVAN ZIP QuillTMdissolves completely and is absorbed within three hours of insertion.

"This scientific breakthrough helps do away with unnecessary syringes and other implantation devices" stated Mr. Salomon. "It provides for unprecedented speed of application and eliminates medical waste. The TROVAN ZIP Quill^TM comes individually packaged, presterilized in tear-off packages.

There is no transmission of infectious diseases, as can occur in reusable syringes, and no extensive personnel training is required. There are no transponder failures due to metal applicators or metal needles which can crack the glass capsule of the transponder as it is being extruded."

The TROVAN ID-100 transponder is one of the smallest animal implantable devices in the business, at only 11 - 11.5 mm length and 2.2 mm diameter.

It is made using a patented direct bonding technique which eliminates numerous structural components, thereby reducing the likelihood of component failure. The TROVAN ID-100 transponder has been endorsed by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN and by the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) based on its small size, great reliability and unmatched reading performance.

"Numerous trials and research projects have shown that the size of the transponder plays a major role in preventing transponder migration and breakage. The small transponder is not prone to migration within the muscle tissue, as are large transponders," said Mr. Salomon.

"In the future," said Dieter Salomon, "the TROVAN delivery device can also be used for delivery of pharmaceutical products, such as vaccines and antibiotica, in animals and humans. Trovan, Ltd. is actively seeking strategic partners and invites inquiries from interested parties regarding potential use of the TROVAN delivery device."

The TROVAN system is protected by eight patents with additional patents pending, and is marketed worldwide by Trovan, Ltd.

For additional information in the United States please contact:
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: BMasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1999-06-11T17:33:06-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat_1.html#unique-entry-id-14http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Sokymat_1.html#unique-entry-id-14FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 11, 1999

Santa Barbara, CA -- Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. reported today that the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, has found that defendants Sokymat S.A. and Irori infringed on U.S. Patent No. 5,281,855, issued to Trovan, Ltd., and a judgment in the amount of $1,000,000 was issued against them.

The Los Angeles Court also issued a final judgment and permanent injunction against the defendants, which prevents them from making, selling, offering for sale or using any product that infringes on U.S. Patent No. 5,281,855 in the United States. The patent describes direct bonding technology used primarily to connect antenna coils inside the transponders directly to the integrated circuit, eliminating components, and thereby lowering production costs and prices to customers and enhancing the reliability of the product. This technology is the technology of choice in automotive applications such as ignition control systems for vehicles and microtransponders used to identify animals.

The court affirmed that Sokymat S.A. et al. have no rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,281,855.

"The court's decision entitles the Plaintiffs to a comprehensive interpretation of the patent's claims" said Joseph Masin, President of Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. "The plaintiffs will vigorously protect their intellectual property rights in all markets covered by this patent and its foreign counterparts." Trovan, Ltd. has applied for foreign counterparts in the European Patent Office, among others, including Switzerland, which is the location of Sokymat's manufacturing facility.

"We believe that the court's decision not to consider Trovan's claims of misappropriation of confidential information and title to U.S. Patent No. 5,572,410 was incorrect." said Joseph Masin. U.S. Patent No. 5,572,410, filed by Ake Gustafson, describes a machine used for coil winding and manufacture of transponders. "Based on an Agreement signed between Trovan, Ltd. and Sokymat SA, we continue to maintain that we have certain rights in U.S. Patent No. 5,572,410."

"It appears that there are presently several versions of the directly bonded product on the market," said Joseph Masin. "All versions are currently under review."

Mr. Masin has also announced that Trovan's obligations under the Agreement between Sokymat and plaintiffs dated October 20, 1998, identifying certain products, have been suspended.

For additional information in the United States please contact:
Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
Barbara Masin
telephone: 805-565-1288
fax: 805-565-1127
e-mail: BMasin@EIDLtd.com ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comGeneral RFID News2007-12-15T17:26:26-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Evaluation_Scanners.html#unique-entry-id-13http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Evaluation_Scanners.html#unique-entry-id-13FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2007

Los Angeles, CA. -- For the past twenty years, TROVAN, AVID and Destron (aka DigitalAngel/HomeAgain) microchips have been used to identify pets and companion animals in the U.S. By 1993, animal control agencies, humane organizations and other pet welfare organizations recognized that a microchip incompatibility problem existed: the different microchips could not be "cross read" by the readers being provided. AIM USA took the lead in establishing and coordinating a forum of manufacturers, animal shelter organizations, humane societies and veterinary professional organizations to establish requirements for a reader standard to ensure cross compatibility in the reading of the various microchip types. The requirements were published in December 1994 and were to become the basis of the so-called "American standard."

The need for a true universal reader that works well on all the microchips in the installed base is as compelling now as it has ever been. A new comparative reader evaluation demonstrates the reason for the alarming number of reports of deficiencies in the pet microchip scanning network in the U.S. The problem has been further aggravated by the recent introduction and growing dependence of shelters on the Black Label Reader.Click here.

The first chart, entitled "U.S. Pet Scanners--Performance Evaluation," summarizes the results of the reader evaluation. Subsequent pages provide a brief description of the readers examined and a detailed reading performance evaluation of each reader on each microchip type. The AVID PowerTracker Reader (which reads all the microchip types in the U.S. installed base) is not included in the evaluation because of unavailabilty and because it has been made available by AVID only selectively to some animal control agencies.
Two of these readers are targeted specifically at vets or breeders (LID-560 and Destron Pocket Reader). The others are being marketed to vets, but also aggressively distributed to shelters, as readers "of last resort" for use in life and death situations to determine whether a recovered animal has a chip and therefore an owner. One of these has been restricted to read only certain transponder protocols for business purposes. And one (Black Label), which is being marketed as a multi-system reader, has an unacceptably short read range for several chips in the U.S. installed base and will almost certainly result in false no-reads in critical life and death situations.

Field experience with the Black Label reader, which the attached study does not show, is that the Black Label reader will on occasion mismatch the code number detected with an incorrect manufacturer or display an incorrect code number.

The LID-560 reader displays the text “CHIP DETECTED” rather than the full code number when an FDX-B transponder is present. This is being done for legal reasons. The legality of use, marketing and sales of the FDX-B (ISO) transponders which operate on 134.2 kHz is currently being litigated in the United States federal court system in three jurisdictions [Marshall, TX, Case #2:04-cv 183(TJW), Riverside, CA, Case #5:06-cv-01109-SGL-OP, New York, NY Case #06-cv-4476(VM)] by patent owners claiming that certain multi-system readers and FDX-B transponders infringe on total of five patents.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1997-03-19T19:09:00-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/US_user_groups.html#unique-entry-id-12http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/US_user_groups.html#unique-entry-id-12

• User Demand. User groups in the United States requested and obtained multi-system readers for use in animal shelters. The goal was to assure full coverage of all microchipped animals, irrespective of the source of the transponder. User groups had stated in surveys conducted by AIM (the Automatic ID Manufacturers' association) that their main objective in standardisation was a reader capable of reading all transponders in the U.S. market, in order to protect the installed base of companion animals.
• Backward compatibility. Only a reader-based standard ensures backward compatibility for all animals already microchipped, whereas a transponder-based standard introduces an entirely new and incompatible transponder into the market. A reader-based standard ensures 100% coverage for all participating systems. Trovan, Ltd. has recognised and supported the requirements of veterinaries and animal shelters for a multi-system reader.
• Accordingly, Trovan, Ltd. went on record as early as 1992 with its offer to cross-license its reader interface to qualified and interested manufacturers for $1. In February, Trovan's U.S. distributors EID, Ltd. and Infopet Identification Systems have achieved an agreement with Avid for cross-licensing of reader interfaces, which will make available a multi-system reader capable of reading Trovan, Avid and Destron microchips.
• Multiple sources of product. The multi-system reader supports a number of manufacturer's product lines, allowing users to select the system which best suits their requirements while choosing from a range of vendors.
• Technological evolution is supported. New innovations in transponder and/or reader technology are accommodated, because readers need only be equipped with the new read protocol, if needed.
• Data integrity is assured. In a reader-based standard, individual numbering schemes cannot be compromised, since each manufacturer continues to manufacture their own transponders and control their own numbering scheme to ensure unique ID numbers. A reader-based standard precludes fraudulent duplication of code numbers and overlapping number series provided by different manufacturers.
• Does not require costly, bureaucratic, nationalised administration and distribution schemes by individual countries.

User response has been overwhelmingly positive to the announcement by InfoPet Identification Systems, EID Ltd. and AVID regarding the agreement to provide multi-system readers to shelters.

Mr. Ed Sayres, Director of Animal Protection Division, American Humane Association:

"We applaud the U.S. manufacturers of microchip technology and their collaborative efforts. Through their generous offer to provide universal scanners to all animal shelters, a monumental step has been achieved for returning lost animals to their owners."

Mr. Coy Willis, President of the National Animal Control Association:

"The National Animal Control Association and animal shelters across the nation are very excited about the agreement for common readers between the microchip companies., We will be happy to be able to recommend a technology that will greatly enhance animal identification."

Mr. Sherbyn W. Ostrich, V.M.D., President of the American Veterinary Medical Association:

"The American Veterinary Medical Association is extremely pleased that the North American manufacturers of identification chips have agreed to have a universal scanner that will be distributed to animal shelters across North America. With this technology now being uniform, the benefits to the animal owners will be enhanced, and the likelihood of finding a stray or stolen animal will be very much increased. The American Veterinary Medical Association applauds the manufacturers for their spirit of cooperation in order to benefit animals, and stands ready to help in any way possible."

The implementation of multi-system readers in animal shelters will create a standard which will serve the needs of the veterinary profession and which is in keeping with its professional standards and its interests. The reader-based standard precludes duplication of code numbers, protects the installed base of microchipped companion animals, while allowing users access to multiple suppliers who compete solely on the merits of their products. A reader-based standard is the preferred solution, favoured over a transponder- based standard, for markets where integrity of ID codes is essential (companion animal ID, identification of endangered species etc.), and where compatibility with an installed base is desirable.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1997-07-30T19:07:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/standard_withdrawal.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/standard_withdrawal.html#unique-entry-id-11
The ISO11784/85 standard has been beset with major problems even preceding its publication in August 15, 1996 and October 15, 1996 respectively. In particular, user groups have criticized the lack of unique identification codes, which, because of the potential for intentional misuse, makes ISO-conforming electronic identification devices (transponders) unsuitable for use with national livestock or companion animal registries, one of the major proposed application areas.

The ISO 11784/85 standard in its present form violates the International Standards Organisation's patent policy, as well as antitrust laws in several countries. The patent conflicts affecting ISO/DIS 11785 have not been resolved. However, even recall of ISO11784 and ISO11785 at this time may not absolve the International Standard Organisation from potential liability resulting from the standard's existence from the date of publication to the date of recall.

ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 do not stipulate minimum transponder performance requirements for the types of transponders used in most applications. ISO compliance is therefore no guarantee to the user of suitability of a given RFID product for the intended application.

The standard's 134.2 Khz operational frequency is incompatible with German regulatory requirements.

ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 embody two fundamentally incompatible approaches: the so-called full-duplex approach (FDX) and half-duplex approach (HDX), resulting in costly readers and compromised performance for both the FDX and the HDX elements of the standard.

Recall of ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 will give standard setting organisations an opportunity to address the problems concerning unique codes of transponders and performance guidelines, solution of which is indispensable to the user community, as well as developing standards suitable to the specific requirements of different user communities.
]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1997-09-25T19:06:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/standard_to_working_group.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/standard_to_working_group.html#unique-entry-id-10
Based on the problems with ISO 11784 and 11785, it appears certain that the new standards which would emerge from WG3 will embody fundamental changes and major revisions of the present standard.

The ISO11784/85 standard has been beset with major problems even preceding its publication in August 15, 1996 and October 15, 1996 respectively. In particular, user groups have criticized the lack of unique identification codes. Because of the potential for intentional misuse, electronic identification devices (transponders) conforming to the above standard are unsuitable for use with national livestock tracking registries or companion animal registries. Registries of these types are a major proposed application for the standard.

The ISO 11784/85 standard also violates the International Standards Organisation's patent policy, as well as antitrust laws in several countries, due to the existence of three conflicting patents affecting ISO 11785. The revised standard must exclude technology claimed by patent holders as being subject to their patents.

There are also a number of other technical problems and conflicts.

Use of ISO 11784/85 compliant transponders, which operate at 134.2 Khz, would be subject to severe restrictions in Germany, due to a conflict with prior frequency assignations made by the German post office. It has been asserted that compliant equipment operating on this frequency may also interfere with the operation of life-supporting medical equipment (heart pacemakers). It will be necessary to change the frequency.

ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 embody two fundamentally incompatible approaches: the so-called full-duplex approach (FDX) and half-duplex approach (HDX), resulting in costly readers and compromised performance for both the FDX and the HDX elements of the standard. HDX is used exclusively in livestock applications, and has proven unsuitable for use in other applications. A number of national delegations have suggested that separate standards should be published for different applications.

ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 do not stipulate minimum transponder performance requirements for the types of transponders used in most applications. ISO compliance was therefore no guarantee to the user of suitability of a given RFID product for the intended application.

Recall of ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 will give the standard setting organisation an opportunity to address the problems concerning duplicate codes of transponders and specific performance guidelines, solution of which is indispensable to the user community. The requirements of different user groups cannot be accommodated within one standard, as it is today. The working group will also have the opportunity of developing separate standards for livestock and for companion animals, suitable to the specific requirements of the very different user communities. A reader-based standard solution will be proposed.

It is expected that systems built to the present standard's specifications will be incompatible with the revised standards specifications.

ISO 11784/85 compatible products have been primarily promoted in Europe by FECAVA, and by RFID distributors Rhone Merieux and Virbac, as well as manufacturers U.S.-based Destron-Fearing (Nasdaq: DFCO) and Datamars of Switzerland.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1997-09-29T19:05:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Stockholm.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Stockholm.html#unique-entry-id-9
Mr. Wim Wissmans, the current Chairman, has taken it upon himself to declare the standard to be a success and fully accepted by all user communities.

The representative of Gosstandart, the Russian Standards Institut, Mr. Anisimov has stated in brief the problems facing Russian agriculture, and the need for RFID technology to track livestock that will be imported to upgrade the indigenous stock. According to the Russian representative, unique ID numbers are of paramount concern, in order to preclude fraud.

Gosstandart fully supports the idea of an international standard for RFID. However, the representative stated that the present ISO 11784/85 standard falls short of their national requirements, as ISO 11784/85 is a transponder-based, open standard. He stated that the country and manufacturer codes stipulated in the standard are of no use in ensuring unique ID codes and that ISO 11784/85 must be modified to ensure that ID codes are unique. He also stated that the presence of duplicate ID numbers in the market would jeopardize the integrity of any national database. He also expressed concern with the complexity of the standard, which encompasses the mutually incompatible FDX and HDX technologies, as this makes the readers unnecessarily expensive and limits their performance. He recommended that the standard stipulate either HDX or FDX, but not both. Similarly, he indicated that separate standards for livestock and companion animals would be appropriate.

The Russian delegate referred to a demonstration of ISO 11784/85 standard compliant transponders where duplicate code numbers had been programmed, which he termed "shocking."

Gosstandart registered a strong plea that ISO 11784/85 be returned to WG3 for speedy modification.

An offer was made by the Trovan representative to demonstrate the re-programming of ISO 11784/85-compatible transponders to WG3 members, either during or after the meeting. This offer was declined by the chairman, who stated that he had seen the technology demonstrated before. The transponders in question could be reprogrammed on the fly to different country code numbers and to any of the manufacturers' code numbers currently assigned by ICAR. This technology, which was not available at the inception of the standardisation process, is now commercially available.

Standards New Zealand representative Mr. Gary Burch, supported by a member of the Standards Australia working group IT28, questioned the ability of the standard to provide unique identification, which was deemed essential by both countries, especially in applications involving the international movement of animals, meat and animal products. The chairman responded that the ISO standard was never intended to deliver a guarantee of code uniqueness. A recent shipment of rams, which were previously embargoed, to Russia (also mentioned by the Russian delegate) was mentioned as a typical application. The country and/or manufacturer's codes stipulated in ISO 11784 were described as useless with respect to ensuring unique ID codes. Other top-priority issues for both countries' livestock industries were the reading speed and reading range of ISO 11784/85-compliant equipment; as well as backward compatibility.

Australia and New Zealand combined represent some 240,000,000 heads of livestock, approximately the same number as the EEC.

New Zealand moved to vote to have ISO 11784/85 returned to WG3 for modifications.

The chairman declared that he was not prepared to allow this motion by New Zealand, since WG3 has not been authorised by SC19 to review the standard.

The representative of Swedish Standards has repeatedly requested the group to deal with the request by Standards New Zealand to modify ISO 11784/85, referring to a communication by Mr. Abrams, Technical Director of ISO, advising that WG3 was to deal with this specific issue and to report back to SC19 on the outcome.

Mr. George Tucker, of the U.S. delegation, and Mr. Wissmans, the chairman, were of the opinion that the standard, once published, cannot be modified by WG3 without specific authorisation by SC19.

Nevertheless, the chairman decreed that he will not accept a verbal request from New Zealand and Russia to review the standard. However, he has agreed, upon the insistence of New Zealand and Russia, to accept written motions the next day, February 10. It was stated that such a motion, even if accepted, would not have any effect, since, according to the background presented by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Wissmans, a formal written request must be made by the organisation seeking a review of the standard prior to the meeting. Supposedly, the request by New Zealand was not expected by WG3, in spite of the letter by Mr. Abrams and the ISO Council ruling.

Accordingly, the next day on February 10, two motions were made, one each by New Zealand and Russia, and were rejected.

A poll of WG3 participants, some of which were not official national representatives, was taken to provide feedback on the success of ISO 11784/85 in these countries. The U.S. representative declared that there is no interest in the standard in the United States. The representative of the Spanish veterinary association, which by law represents all Spanish veterinarians, has submitted a letter to WG3 declaring that it has no desire to implement the standard in Spain. A visitor (private observer) from Brasil has mentioned a trial with 5,000 ea. ISO ear tags taking place in Brasil at this time. No activities were reported in Japan. Mr. Wissmans, for the Netherlands, has declared that the Dutch government has adopted the standard for all agricultural animals. Mr. Archie Sains, for the U.K., has informed the group that some other technologies may replace ISO 11784/85 if the issues of contention affecting the standard are not resolved promptly, and that the government's decision is expected shortly. Several other participants have declared that in their countries (Switzerland, Germany, Finland) the intention is to go with the standard. Nevertheless, 100 per cent, worldwide acceptance of ISO 11784/85 has been declared by the chairman.

Australia, New Zealand are reviewing ISO 11784/85 with respect to required modifications. When those modifications are clearly defined it is the intention to advise SC 19 of those changes. Russia has stated that it will submit its list of required modifications to ISO 11784/85 to SC 19, along with a request that the standard be adjusted accordingly.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1998-03-19T19:04:00-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Berlin_reflections.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Berlin_reflections.html#unique-entry-id-8by Joseph V. Masin, delegate to WG3, on behalf of Trovan, Ltd.

It became very apparent that a number of nations will be submitting requests for major revisions of ISO 11784/85 in the near future. It is apparent that the standard in its present form is not acceptable to a large portion of the livestock producing nations. A significant number of WG3 members, including manufacturers, have in private conversations with myself admitted the deficiencies and major flaws of the standard, which largely coincide with the points made in the document entitled "A discussion of the ISO standard for RFID: its provenance, feasibility and limitations." They have however requested not to be quoted by name.

(1) The standard cannot ensure unique ID codes
(2) The standard is needlessly complex, combining two incompatible technologies: FDX and HDX.
(3) Legal issues continue to impact the standard
(4) Livestock and small animal identification have different requirements and require separate standards.

(1) The standard cannot ensure unique ID codes
ISO 11785 claims that ID codes of conforming transponders will be unique. In section 2, entitled "conformance," the standard states: "The unique individual identification codes transmitted by a transponder are in conformance with this International Standard provided they meet the requirements of clause 5." (emphasis added). The assumption of uniqueness is dangerous.

The idea has been put forward that manufacturers will police their own transponders. However, this would assume that every manufacturer will bother to apply for a manufacturers' code and that every manufacturer will program his transponders with only his manufacturers' code and nobody else's. Today, there is a great deal of confusion as to how the term "manufacturer" should even be defined (and consequently how "manufacturer responsibility for code uniqueness" should be assigned). Is it the manufacturer of the integrated circuit? Or is it the no-name manufacturer of transponder assemblies? Or is it the private label reseller of the transponder who is putting the transponder in the market under his brand name? Who bears the responsibility for ensuring manufacturer codes are used only by the designated manufacturer? (particularly in an environment where noone can be restrained from programming any code they want, or even reprogramming it, if they so choose). Companies may not restrict traffic in their goods between different geographical areas. (This principle has recently been reaffirmed by EEC court rulings and also impacts trade in transponders with pre-designated country codes).

Initially when the standard was first conceptualised in 1991, OTP (one-time-programmable) and WMRM (reprogrammable) transponders were not available. The standard is written in such a way that it makes no allowance for the introduction of these technologies. The standard actively misleads consumers into believing that the transponders provided under its aegis will be unique.

In fact, as stated by organisations that are operating registration databases, inclusion of ISO-standard compliant transponders in databases will make such databases unusable. The logical progression would be that, after an installed base of ISO-compatible readers were put into place, ISO-compatible transponders will be marketed as unprogrammed "blank" chips, with the number to be programmed once the transponder is implemented. The veterinarian or even the owner of the animal could add pertinent information such as the owner's telephone number. This approach, although a natural outgrowth of today's technological reality, would essentially make databases obsolete.

(2) The standard is needlessly complex, combining two incompatible technologies: FDX and HDX.
It is a fact that no commercially available reader today reads both FDX and HDX ISO-compliant transponders. Such a reader would be more complex to manufacture, inordinately costly to users and would compromise the performance of both the FDX and HDX systems, resulting in slower read speeds and potentially shorter read ranges.

To date, twelve companies (self-designated manufacturers) have announced their intent to sell ISO compliant transponders. Only one of these companies is manufacturing HDX transponders, which would be suitable for livestock ID. A tally of manufacturers clearly shows that the preferred technology, by an overwhelming margin, is FDX, for technical and operational reasons. There is no possibility, with the current state of the technology, to produce these HDX transponders in miniaturised form due to the need for a larger number of components. It is axiomatic in electronics that a larger number of components and connections results in a greater likelihood of system failure.

(3) Legal issues continue to impact the standard
At least one manufacturer alleges that it has patents impacting ISO 11784/85. For instance, AVID has clearly stated that it does not intend to comply with the ISO Patent Policy as stated in "Patents, N15".

The problems with the standard have become apparent over time. Many of the issues that concern user groups today were initially not recognised because no user input was formally solicited in the early stages of the process. The patent conflicts likewise arose at a fairly late date. A user requirements study, along the lines of what was done by AIM USA preliminary to beginning work on the U.S. companion animal identification standard, has never been conducted by WG3. Such a user requirements study would definitely show the need for a divided standard, guaranteed unique ID codes, for affordable readers and transponders that perform well enough that they can actually be read in their desired applications. It is incumbent upon us all, as responsible manufacturers, to address these issues before users discard the standard as being useless, thereby discrediting the industry that helped create the standard. ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1998-03-12T19:04:00-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Berlin.html#unique-entry-id-7http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Berlin.html#unique-entry-id-7The SC19 meeting in Berlin, which took place on March 12, 1998, dealt with a number of issues, including ISO 11784 and ISO 11785. Item no. 6 on the agenda was a report by the Chairman of WG3, Mr. Wim Wismans, on the current status of the standard. Mr. Wismans was also reporting on the next generation of the animal ID standard, giving a short overview of the recent work of WG3 and of future projects.

Several documents submitted by WG3 participants to SC19 were made available to attendees of the SC19 meeting. They included letters by AFNOR, Standard Australia, Standards New Zealand and Gosstandart of Russia, as well as ISO document N125 concerning the request for suspension of ISO 11784 and 11785.
After Mr. Wismans finished his report, the Chairman of SC19 stated that Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia had not submitted the previously announced request for suspension of the standards and return of the same to WG3 for review, for which reason no action was required for the time being. At this point, the representative from Gosstandart of Russia requested permission to address the meeting. The Gosstandart representative stated that, although New Zealand had not yet submitted its formal request, Russia had, and that Russia's request should be reviewed by SC19 at this time. Then the representative from Standards New Zealand stated that Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia had created a joint working group (IT28) to address the concerns previously announced by these two organisations to SC19 and the ISO. He stated that the topics were still under discussion and that, because of the short time between the WG3 meeting in Stockholm and the SC19 meeting in Berlin, the document could not be prepared for submission to SC19. He stated that nevertheless, the issues are still being formulated by IT28 and definitely will be provided to SC19 and the ISO.

At this point, Dr. Josef Schuermann of Texas Instruments intervened to question the credentials of the official representative of Standards New Zealand, and to question whether the latter was entitled to make any representations on behalf of Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia.
The representative of Standards New Zealand stated that he at no time has presumed to speak on behalf of Standards Australia. The Chairman of SC19 has called Dr. Schuermann to order.

The documents made available to members of SC19 were discussed at this point. Among these was

• a document by AFNOR, the French standards organisation, which stated "[...] we can only but renew our total support for these 2 ISO standards 11784 and 11785 [...]"
• Gosstandart of Russia's request that the standard be suspended and returned to WG3 for review and modification.
• A letter entitled "Joint Statements of the Manufacturers of Transponders and Readers complying with ISO 11784 and 11785."

The Chairman of SC19 stated that the "Joint Statement" letter was submitted out of context. Nevertheless, he has allowed Dr. Schuermann to read aloud the document, in which the signing manufacturers (some of whom are currently selling ISO 11784/85 compliant transponders, and some of whom, while not yet doing so, are on record as intending to do so in the future) are announcing that they are not willing to work on improvement of the standard, as demanded by some national standard setting organisations and major user groups.
The representative of Standards New Zealand thereafter, in his capacity as participant in IT 28, expressed his grave concerns regarding ISO 11784/85 on behalf of IT28 (which includes representatives of numerous user groups in New Zealand and Australia which together represent some 220 to 240 million head of livestock). He forcefully expressed that these organisations had stated a desire to have a truly international standard that will work on a global basis, not merely a regional basis. He emphasized that even if a few national standards organisations state that they are entirely satisfied with the standards, the concerns of the other countries must be accommodated.

The representative of Polish Standards stated that his organisation's perception was that there were serious difficulties with the standard. He pointed out that major objections were the complexity of the standard (inclusion of both HDX and FDX in the standard); the uniqueness of code; the standard does not allow for backward compatibility with transponders presently being used in Poland in the target applications.

Thereafter, the representative of Swedish Standards has suggested that it may be appropriate to return the standard to WG3 for review, which idea was declined by the Chairman of SC19. The reason stated was that an official requirement to do so had not been submitted by Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand. The representative for Standards New Zealand announced that it was his understanding that the official request was to be submitted upon conclusion of deliberations by IT28, in which Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand are participating, and that, however, an official request had in fact been submitted by Gosstandart of Russia. He stated that IT28's meeting was scheduled for mid April.

The response to this was that the request has not been presented on the special ISO form for such requests and that the process for such submissions is known to the national standards organisations. At this point, after a spirited debate, the group could not determine if such a form could be made available during the meeting. The form was in fact produced later in the meeting.

After the ensuing break, the representatives of Standards New Zealand and Gosstandart each announced that they had made inquiries as to whether the form could be completed and submitted for a vote during the present SC19 meeting in Berlin. Mr. Francois Abram, Technical Programme Manager, Standards Department, ISO, apparently did not make a binding statement concerning the applicable voting procedure - whether only SC19 member nations would participate in the vote or whether all ISO member nations would be voting. However, it was determined that ISO, upon receipt of the request for the suspension of the standards on the correct form, will circulate a request for vote on the subject among its (members).]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1998-10-05T19:02:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Edinburgh.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Edinburgh.html#unique-entry-id-6
The Gosstandart motion listed several major problems affecting the standard, all of which are generally recognized by most of the SC19 members as well as a great number of RF/ID user groups.

The SC19 Secretariat tallied the votes received on October 5, 1998, and released the results to coincide with the meeting of WG3 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The results of the vote announced by SC19 stated that 12 countries had voted in favour of the Gosstandart proposal and 7 countries voted against it, with two countries abstaining.

This tally did not however take into account the updated count of Permanent (P) SC19 member nations, Consequently the votes of some new SC19 members and of some former "O" members who had converted to "P" membership status were not counted.

Furthermore, several member nations have submitted a qualified vote recognizing the need for review of the standard, apparently incorrectly assuming that the request for "suspension" of the standard would cause immediate, automatic suspension of the standard, while the standard is being reviewed. Unfortunately, the proper procedural sequence, allaying the above concern, was identified by the SC19 Secretariat only in its German language cover letter.
Two member nations have requested a delay in vote tabulation for administrative reasons.

Based on the document submitted by SC19 to WG3 Edinburgh meeting, an announcement was developed by WG3 in acceptance of the ISO 11784/85 standard.
During the WG3 meeting, one of the major problems, lack of code security, has been discussed under the heading New Work Item Proposal, Advanced Transponder.

Among the participating manufacturers there was no dissent that the present standard does not provide any ID code security (i.e. no assurance can be given that the ID codes provided by the manufacturers are in fact unique). Recognition of this short-coming was well formulated by Mr. David Clemons of Destron/Fearing.
A solution currently under discussion in the working group proposes three levels of security to be implemented in years to come.

The proposal would introduce technological barriers to code duplication. This approach utilizes more complex technologies and therefore requires the use of larger ICs in complying transponders. These large ICs cannot be used in miniature implantable transponders, because of their large size, effectively precluding this strategy for "code security" in animal implantable transponders.

However, the degree of "security" this solution can offer is again only perceived, because there is in fact no way to legally enforce code uniqueness. One hypothetical solution discussed was to be limit access to ISO-compliant readers only to authorised personnel, and limit the number of readers in the field, on the grounds that anyone who has access to a reader would be a potential code cracker. This approach was immediately recognised as not workable. This "advanced transponder"-based standard would still have to be an open standard, allowing anybody to manufacture compliant product without any restrictions. Adding technical complexity does not provide legal protection. Patents, if any, must be made available to all comers on a nondiscriminatory basis under ISO patent policy rules . Consequently, there is once again no possibility to enforce the uniqueness of ID codes.

This proposed solution faces not only technical obstacles to implementation, but also would result in significantly higher costs which would make the product unappealing to the proposed target markets, which are highly cost sensitive. The product cost would increase commensurate to the degree of "security" to be implemented, with the third and highest security level being the most costly.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Kostas Aslanidis of Texas Instruments, expressed an opinion that one can expect that shortly there will be some manufacturers providing blank read/write ISO-compliant transponders to the market.

As a matter of fact, this type of technology may prove very useful in close-loop operations, for example, in dairy applications or in applications calling for the recycling of the transponders or where direct owner access without passing through an intermediary database is required (via a telephone number programmed into the transponder, for example).

Even the interim voting results publicized on 5 October show that substantial dissent exists and that "patch-on" solutions are perceived as being inadequate. The standard will at some point need to be returned to WG3 to be reworked. Regarding the Gosstandart motion to that end, the tally of votes needs to be adjusted for the reasons cited above. We expect that over the next few weeks, this issue will be addressed. Interested parties should keep themselves apprised of future developments.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1999-04-26T15:45:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Lugano.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Lugano.html#unique-entry-id-5
Mr. Eradus stated that he would arrange to have the copies made by the following day. An objection waas made that this would not provide sufficient time for working group members to review the documentation and for the group to develop an appropriate response. (When the copies of Mr. Zens' communication were distributed the following day, it was actually dated the 14th of April , 10 days prior.)

Mr Eradus paraphrased the letter by Mr. Zens aloud. WG3 was being asked to elaborate solutions according to the proposal of the ISO Central Secretariat, taking into account the items stated in the proposal submitted by the Russian Federation and the comments contained in document N137 and N137 rev.1

It was then stated for the record that it would be necessary for WG3 to accept the mandate to revise the standard, in compliance with the wishes of the 14 "P" member nations who had expressed concerns about the flaws in ISO 11784/85.

On the second day, Mr Eradus distributed Mr. Zens' communication to the members of WG3.

The communication included several documents:

• Letter by Mr. Zens, Chairman SC19, Mr Eradus, Chairman WG3 dated 14 April 1999.
• Letter by Dr. Abram, ISO, to Mr. Zens, Chairman SC19, dated 20 November 1998.
• Result of Vote on New Work Item Proposal (N137 Rev. 1 dated 16 November 1998).
• Ballot of Standards Council of Canada with cover letter and nomination of Canadian expert to participate in the modification of ISO 11784/85
• Ballot of Brazil with cover letter stating that Brazil had "not received any instructions on how to proceed."
• Letter from the Swedish Standards Association pointing out that Sweden's vote has been incorrectly assigned in the first two voting tallies.
• Letter from Chilean Standards Association dated 28 January 1998.
• Letter from Chilean Standards Association dated 16 September 1998.
• Fax Message from Standards New Zealand dated 11 September 1998.

Mr Zens subsequently announced that a subcommittee to study changes in ISO 11784/85 would be formed and that the committee members would be: Mr. Cees vant Klooster (Holland), Mr. Wim Eradus (Holland), Mr. Ronny Geers (Holland), Mr. Rudolf Artman (Germany), Mr. Torben Almedal (Denmark), Mr. George Tucker (U.S.A.) and Mr. John Volijk (Canada). The composition of the committee was determined upon unilaterally by the leadership of WG3. There was no vote and no deliberation permitted on the composition of the committee.

National delegates attending the session were asked about progress in implementing ISO 11784/85 in their various countries. The delegate for the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation had ISO 11784/85 in suspended condition because of the problems with ISO 11784/85. The Canadian delegate stated that there are serious issues with ISO 11784/85 that need to be discussed and resolved, and that there is a problem with duplicate ID codes, and that Canada believes these issues must be addressed by WG3. Fred Nind stated that the UK was proposing to eliminate quarantine requirements for imported animals with micro chips. Lionel Sheridan, an observer from New Zealand, stated that a joint committee from New Zealand and Australia had been formed, and that the vote approving ISO 11784/85 as the national standard in both New Zealand and Australia would close on Friday 30 April and that both countries would subsequently implement ISO 11784/85 as national standards for livestock and for pet identification. **

Manufacturers present in WG3 continued to insist that there were no problems with ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 and refused to recognise that ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 in their present form are in need of revision. The minutes of the meeting, as resolved upon by WG3 members in attendance, stated that WG3 maintains the "suitability of the standard for intended applications." However, it was requested that a dissent be put on the record, stating that it was apparent that the standard was not suitable for the intended applications, and that a majority of the "P" member nations had registered their objections to the standard and that the fact that the standard was back in WG3 for revision spoke for itself.

The minutes resolved upon by the WG3 members in attendance also specified that a committee was being formed to study proposals to improve the standard.

“Proposal
(a) can be for further research
(b) proposal for update.

Proposal

• clear description of the problem
• written text in two columns: today's text / proposed text

To be reviewed by:

• Cees vant Klooster, Wim Eradus, Rudolf Artman, Ronny Geers, Torben Almedal, George Tucker, Mr. John Volijk
• WG3."

**This was not quite correct. In fact, when the vote in IT28 closed Friday 30 April, ISO 11784/85 did not reach the requisite majority approval and, per the regulations of Standards Australia, will be returned to committee.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard2001-06-25T15:43:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Exemptions_to_ISO11784_11785.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Exemptions_to_ISO11784_11785.html#unique-entry-id-4Suggestions involve explicitly permiting code duplication and to permit ISO 11784-incompatible coding

June 25, 2001 -- Two documents are being circulated by WG3 on the matter of proposed 'exemptions' to the ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 standards. Both involve a UK request to modify the standard to accommodate current visual tag standards within the scope of ISO 11784 and ISO 11785. The proposals will compound the problems with the standard that have been objected to by P-member nations in the past:

(1) incompatibility among various elements of the standard HDX, FDX-B and now "UK-coding" (for lack of a better term). Readers must be specially modified to read each of the three classes of transponders. (see "Recommendations for using the UK ending system for farm animals within the 11784 code structure," dated 18 June, 2001)

(2) official endorsement by WG3 for use of OTP technology (field-programmable transponders which can be coded with any ID number desired in the field) (see document ISO/TC23/SC19/WG3/TWG/193, dated 31 May, 2001 entitled "Recommendations for replacing lost animal transponders by specimen containing an identical national ID code." )

About the document "Recommendations for using the UK ending system for farm animals within the 11784 code structure."
Entities in the UK are advising WG3 that they want to use ISO 11784/85, but require a 'special' form of coding that doesn't fit within ISO 11784 as written. Instead of using ISO 11784 coding, they want to carry over their existing visual tag ID numbering scheme into electronic eartags. The author of the referenced paper "Recommendations for using the UK ending system for farm animals within the 11784 code structure," is proposing that WG3 bend over backward to accommodate this request.

As far as the technical aspect of the proposal is concerned, the UK's proposal is seriously incompatible with ISO 11784. Note the author's reference to making the check digit an 'information bit' in order to accommodate the UK's requirements - see point 4 under "Possible Solution." This means that transponders programmed in this way will be incompatible with the standard. The ID numbers of these transponders will not display correctly on ISO 11784- compliant readers already in use.

In other words, in addition to the FDX-B/HDX incompatibility that is already known, and that IDEA has pointed out, (see the warning issued by IDEA) we now have another incompatibility in the offing: a proposed 'accommodation' for a particular country. This sets a very bad precedent: When will the next incompatible special request be accommodated?

Note also the requirement for special species coding, location coding etc. Logistically, implementation of this proposal places a tremendous burden on the distribution systems to get the right transponder to the right end user, with no screw-ups anywhere along the line. It also presupposes that everyone is going to play by the rules and nobody will try to manipulate the system. (How likely will that be, human nature being what it is?) How will it be assured that the correct species code ends up in the correct animal? That transponders with a given regional ID code end up only in the designated counties? Mix-ups are inevitable, even assuming that there is no bad-faith attempt to manipulate the system.

Furthermore, the requesting entity has explained they would like ID codes for tags reported 'lost' to be duplicated. (see ). The author of the referenced document explains that it is logistically impossible to accommodate this request in a transponder production. (In other words, the requirement for custom code duplication precludes the use of factory pre-programmed transponders). As a solution he recommends use of OTP (one-time field-programmable) transponders, which would allow ID codes to be duplicated in the field.
It is becoming very apparent that this standard

(1) cannot ensure unique ID codes (contrary to what is claimed in ISO 11784)

(2) cannot ensure a single standard transmission protocol and a single standard programming scheme for transponders (i.e. Displays of a given transponder's ID number will differ depending upon the reader being used).

Transponder manufacturers promoting the standard (even those issued manufacturer codes by ICAR) have themselves contributed to the corruption of the standard by issuing transponders with custom codes in the country code field that have not been endorsed by ICAR (to Arowana fish breeders in Singapore), (Australian pet market), etc. and have volunteered to provide non-ISO compliant coding to entities issuing tenders for livestock ID. The proposed accommodation for the UK entity, as laid out in the enclosed two official WG3 documents, takes the corruption of the standard to a new and higher level. If even the supporters of the standard will not exercise the discipline required to conform to the rules they themselves have laid down for standards compliance, the ‘standard’ will quickly degenerate into a situation where ‘ISO 11784/85 transponders’ issued for various customers are not mutually readable, where customers buying cattle in a given market cannot be assured that the transponders in those cattle can be read by his or her reader... And we are back to where we started: various, mutually incompatible systems. However, there will be one key difference: the ID codes can be freely duplicated, in the field, by the end user, and, depending upon the situation, can even be changed and reprogrammed by the user, according to the requirements of the moment.]]>bmasin@eidltd.comIntellectual Property News1999-10-12T20:07:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/pfizer3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/pfizer3.html#unique-entry-id-3Pfizer, Inc. must cease using "Trovan" name to market its antibiotic

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 12, 1999

Los Angeles, CA -- A 7-panel jury awarded $143 million to Trovan, Ltd. today after 7 hours of deliberation in its trademark infringement suit against Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE:PFE), making it the largest judgment of its kind awarded in the United States. The trial started August 18 and the liability phase ended September 22 in a unanimous verdict for Trovan, Ltd., with the jury finding Pfizer, Inc. liable for willful, bad faith trademark infringement and unfair competition. US District Court Judge Lourdes G. Baird presided over the case. Trovan, Ltd. vs. Pfizer, Inc. [CV 98-0094 LGB (Mcx)]. Judge Baird will rule on Plaintiffsí claim that they are entitled to the profits Pfizer, Inc. earned from sales of the "Trovan" antibiotic as early as Friday.

"We are pleased with the outcome," said Joseph Masin, President of Electronic Identification Devices, "because it proves that we Davids of this world can prevail over the ëGoliathsí of this world. By finding for us, the jury sent Pfizer a clear message that they would not tolerate or excuse bad faith conduct on any level."

"Regardless of size," explained Masin, "a companyís reputation is everything. We worked hard to build Trovan® into a respectable name long before Pfizer began infringing on our trademark: and protecting that reputation was the impetus behind this lawsuit, it was never about money. With this victory, we can continue to grow our company knowing, once and for all, that Trovan® is indisputably ours."

Since 1989, Plaintiff has used the Trovan® trademark to globally market its system of biomedical electronic identification devices, and holds federal trademark registration No. 1649328 issued in 1991 by the US Patent & Trademark Office. In 1997, Trovan, Ltd. learned that Pfizer, Inc. was going to introduce and market a new antibiotic under the Trovan name, which it did in 1998, even though Plaintiff had already filed this lawsuit. In 1999, the "Trovan" antibiotic was linked to multiple possible deaths and is currently under investigation by the US Food & Drug Administration, the European Union and Ralph Naderís Public Citizen.

Trovan, Ltd. is a British corporation based in Douglas, Isle of Man, and owns the Trovan® trademark. Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd. is a California corporation based in Santa Barbara and is the exclusive North American distributor and a licensee of Trovan® products. Trovan, Ltd. also controls a portfolio of valuable patents for technology products such as RFIDs (radio frequency identification) systems, which it has most recently defended against Swiss RFID manufacturer Sokymat. In that litigation, Trovan won a judgment against Sokymat.

Press Contact: Kathy Pinckert, 310-836-8355 ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard1999-09-13T20:06:00-07:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Wageningen.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/Wageningen.html#unique-entry-id-2
Subsequently, the Canadian delegate, Mr. John Vrolijk requested clarification of whether parliamentary proceedings would be used in the meeting, with items to be moved, seconded and voted on (as per Henderson's Parliamentary Guide) and made a motion to the effect that Henderson's Parliamentary procedure be used. The motion was not accepted by the Chairman. The Chairman questioned the need for parliamentary procedure, and after consultation with Mr. Zens (who was in attendance) and who indicated that there was no set procedure stating that some working groups were conducted according to parliamentary procedure while others were conducted on the basis of consensus. At that point, the Chair decided that WG3 works "on the basis of consensus." He stated that there would however be votes on issues if it was found that consensus was not possible. Throughout the meeting various issues were raised, some from the Chair, others from the floor. At no time was consensus sought or were any items voted on.

There was no democratic process regarding discussion of items on the agenda or new items brought forward from the floor. Motions from the floor were called out of order.When the Chairman tabled the agenda item "Approval of the draft agenda", the representative from Sweden requested that the discussion regarding the modification of ISO 11784/85 be dealt with right after approval of the minutes and before the TWG items because the TWG proposal is dependent on what modifications are made to ISO 11784/85. The Swedish delegate's request was accepted. When the Chairman tabled the agenda item "Approval of the minutes of the last meeting in Lugano" (doc. N219), the Russian delegate stated that the minutes of the Lugano meeting had to be corrected, specifically the item concerning implementation of ISO 11784 and 11785 around the world. Russia's report that ISO 11784'85 is not being implemented due to serious flaws was not recorded in the minutes.

Mr. Gary Burch of New Zealand stated that the outcome of the TC28 vote (joint Australian and New Zealand committe for animal RFID) was incorrectly recorded. The Australia-New Zealand joint committee had in fact rejected ISO 11784/85 in their May vote.

Mr. John Vrolijk of Canada stated that the deliberation that took place in Lugano regarding the suggestion that ISO 14223 be rolled into ISO 11784/85 in order to prevent confusion and to simplify implementation, a point raised by Ms. Emmeninger of Datamars, was not recorded in the minutes. Subsequently, Mr. Ingo Grotewahl, the Swedish delegate, requested that the count of nations on N139 (tally of votes on Gosstandard Motion) be revised. Sweden has previously advised Mr. Zens in writing that the Swedish vote is to be recorded as "Favouring revision of ISO 11784/85", and that consequently the tally should be 13:12 in favour of revision.

Mr. Burch of New Zealand pointed out that the New Zealand vote was fraught with difficulties because of the wording of Mr. Zens' request accompanying the ballot. New Zealand had previously advised Mr. Zens several times to correct the allocation of the New Zeland vote as "supporting the addition of the new item of work" and "prepared to participate in the development of the project." Mr. Burch requested that the New Zealand vote be deleted from the column of nations opposing the work item and counted as favouring the revision and willing to work on the standard. He stated that the resulting tally of nations is in fact 14 to 11 in favour of revision of ISO 11784/85 rather than 12:12.

Neither statement was challenged in the meeting. Mr. Zens, who was present, stated that he was unaware of the complaints and that he will not change the ballot.

Attendees from Slovakia, Czech Republic, Russia, Chile, Austria and Iceland were present, some for the first time; it appears that these nations are not adequately informed as to the workings of WG3 and therefore were not able to contribute as they may otherwise have done. Nor did they receive information relating to how WG3 worked nor were they ever advised of where minutes of past meetings would be available. The Czech delegate stated that he was concerned that delegates and national institutes from the Eastern European countries (i.e. Russia, Slovak Republic etc.) did not receive invitations and documentation for this meeting in time, or in fact at all.

When the document entitled "Draft report of the ad hoc committee" was presented by Mr. Mans Jansen, head of TWG, his treatment of Mr. Anisimov (the Russian delegate) during his presentation was acusatory and intimidating. Mr. Jansen intentionally distorted the proposal put forward by Gosstandard in its submission to WG3, particularly those concerning the requirement for code uniqueness in the standard in order to embarrass the delegate. Without requesting permission, he got up, walked across the room and positioned himself inches away from the Russian delegate thrusting papers in his face while speaking in a heated, accusatory tone. The chairman allowed this to continue at length and did not call Mr. Jansen to order.

Mr. Vrolijk, a member of the 7-member ad hoc committee, asked why the ad hoc committee was not consulted in the creation of the TWG document, as the proposal entitled "draft report of the ad hoc committee" was in fact prepared in its entirety by TWG. The chairman did not at any time have the ad hoc committee evalute and discuss the work item. The ad hoc committee was never convened and no discussion happened telephonically or by fax or by any other means of communication. The ad hoc committee was merely requested to "approve" (i.e. rubber stamp) the conclusions set out in the TWG report.

Mr. Vrolijk also pointed out that the report dismissed out of hand the proposals made by three countries that sent contributions, and did not reflect the concerns of those nations that were not given the opportunity to participate.

Mr. Burch of New Zealand made the point that TWG consists of manufacturers who have explicitly stated in writing that they are "not willing to continue to discuss" modification of ISO 11784 and ISO 11785. Mr. Burch referenced these companies' "Joint Statement of the Manufacturers" which was submitted to SC19 in March of 1998, and by which they have effectively disqualified themselves from further work on the standard.

The chairman stated that there were only two responses: from Italy and from Russia. John Vrolijk stated that there were actually three, since Brazil had also submitted a report. He also stated that insufficient time was given for a response by interested SC19 member nations. The time for submission of proposals was only one month from the date of the Lugano meeting, which is not enough time to develop a comprehensive response at the national level. The document entitled "Procedure to update ISO 11784 and 11785" was in fact only circulated by the chairman after the deadline for contributions had passed.

Mr. Vrolijk was chastised by the Chairman for taking it upon himself to invite participation of SC19 member nations who had stated on their ballots that they were prepared to participate in the work process. When it was pointed out that Mr. Vrolijk's invitations were in fact the only invitations ever sent out by anyone on the ad hoc committee, and when asked why he had not issued a formal invitation himself, as Chairman of the ad hoc committee, the Chairman stated that he didn't get around to it because of his father's illness.

The WG3 press release regarding ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 was presented in both a long and short version. It was pointed out that the long version of the press release clearly states that the standard ISO 11784/85 cannot guarantee ID code uniqueness. However, the proposed short version of the press release omits this crucial information. In fact, the word "unique" is prominent in the first sentence, thereby communicating that the uniqueness of coding is assured under ISO 11784/85. This incorrect short version was defended by its framers against objections made by a number of delegates, to the effect that it is O.K. not to tell the truth because it would help the industry, irrespective of the fact that it might be detrimental to users.

There was a brief discussion of ISO readers. The Chairman stated that only readers capable of reading FDX and HDX transponders (both types) are ISO-conforming. Only one reader was shown which could read both FDX and HDX transponders (a Destron product). However, the reader read a range of glass encapsulated transponders at a rather limited range, which is insufficient for most livestock applications.

Conclusions

The meeting was conducted in an undemocratic manner. The chairman
1 Would not allow any motions to be put forward
2 Would not allow voting of any kind
3 Never asked for or received a consensus on any of the issues presented at the meeting
4 Allowed very little discussion on any of the issues presented at the meeting.
5 Dissent on any issue was not allowed.

In fact, the individual agenda items were summarised on transparencies that were shown at the conclusion of each agenda item. These colour, computer-generated transparencies had been prepared in advance of the meeting, prior to the deliberation of said agenda items. It was clear that whoever prepared the transparencies already "knew" what the conclusions were to be prior to the meeting even taking place. At the end of the meeting several participants of the meeting have stated their objections to the way the meeting was conducted on the record and also objected on the record to the press release and the "Conclusion" on ISO 11784/85 which the Chairman proposes to forward to SC19.
• WG3 published a statement flatly contradicting the stated wishes of the majority of SC19 P-member nations, who had expressed their concerns with the unsuitability of the standard by voting to have it revised. The statement of purpose reads: "The approved ISO standards 11784 and 11785 as published are suitable for their intended applications and are the basis for additional standards for advanced transponders as they are in consideration in the new work item." The chairman proposed that an ad hoc committee be appointed to examine the proposals for revision that were to be submitted.
• The ad hoc committee was never convened and no discussion happened on the mandate to revise ISO 11784/85.
• The ad-hoc committee appointed by the chairman had 7 members: 6 were from nations that had voted against revision of the standard; only 1 member was from a nation in favour of revision.
• SC19 member nations were never advised by the chairman of WG3 that their input was desired.
• No action was ever taken by the chairman to advise anyone that proposals for revision of ISO 11784/85 were being solicited.
• The time for submission of proposals was one month from the date of the Lugano meeting: too short for any nation to develop a comprehensive response at the national level.
• The document "Procedure to Update ISO 11784/85" was circulated only after the deadline for submissions had passed. The only action taken by the chairman was to e-mail the TWG report to ad hoc committee members and asking ad hoc committee members to "approve" (ie.. rubber stamp) them.
• The TWG report dismissed all suggestions the three SC19 P-member nations submitted out of hand and recommended that ISO 11784 and 11785 be retained in their present form.
• There have been three counts of the P-member votes by SC19 and still there are discrepancies, as pointed out by the Swedish and New Zealand delegates. The vote in favour of revising ISO 11784 and 11785 is 14 to 11, and not 12 to 12, as stated in the back-dated document N139 rev.1.Some of the delegates travelled for over 36 hours to attend this meeting. They were made to listen to a minority group and a group of manufacturers dictate what the conclusions of WG3 were to be with no chance for input into the meeting. It is clear that interested parties are attempting to manipulate the meeting, and that the people controlling the proceedings are not concerned with having a standard that will work, only having a standard that can be used to market products under false pretences.
In order to ensure the integrity of the process on the revision of ISO 11784 and 11785, and to respect the expressed wishes of the majority of SC19 P-member nations, (1) The ad hoc committee must consist of delegates from nations that have stated they are in favour of revising ISO 11784/85 OR that they are prepared to participate in development of the project. (2) TWG must be excluded from the process. TWG has no legitimate role in the process as TWG's sole mandate is to discuss a new draft standard: ISO 14223. Furthermore, most TWG members are employees of manufacturers who have gone on the record to state that they do not want to discuss revising ISO 11784/85 See Manufacturers' Letter to SC19 There is a conflict of interest between TWG members are therefore contrary to those of the majority of SC19 P-member nations, and TWG has to be excluded on the basis of conflict of interest. (3) All those SC19 P-member nations stating that they are prepared to participate in development of the project must be given an opportunity to do so: sufficient time must be allowed for the nations to develop their responses; and formal invitations must be sent to all SC19 P-member nations that returned their ballots stating they "support the addition of the new work item to the programme of work" OR "are prepared to participate in the development of the project." (4) The responses of SC19 P-member participants should be reviewed by the ad hoc committee that was appointed to do the job. The responses should be given serious consideration and not be dismissed out of hand.

Errata

Mr. Hassan Sade stated his concern that in a discussion of the problems affecting ISO 11784/85, persons might conclude that the ID codes in Datamars transponders can be changed. Mr. Masin responded that, Datamars transponders conforming to ISO 11784/85, as long as they are read-only transponders, are not reprogrammable. The problem with ISO 11784/85 is that read-only, one-time-programmable (OTP) and write-many/read-many transponders (WMRM) are all encompassed by the standard. As a result, the code numbers of ISO 11784/85-compatible read-only transponders can be duplicated by other read-only, OTP and WMRM transponders. Also, the numbers in WMRM transponders can be changed at will. Databases allowing registration of ISO 11784/85 transponders are compromised, because there can be an unlimited number of transponders in the field "pointing" to a particular registration in the database. As far as the database is concerned, transponder number 762098100132313 is the ID number of a 3-year old German shepherd called "Hasso." The database can provide no assurance that a given German shepherd with that ID number is in fact the original "Hasso." Please click here for more information.

Source Documents to be referenced:
Manufacturers' Letter to SC19
Procedure to update ISO 11784 and 11785]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard2000-03-18T20:04:00-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/reflections_voting.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/reflections_voting.html#unique-entry-id-1by Joseph V. Masin, long-time delegate to WG3, on behalf of Trovan, Ltd.

March 2000 -- In these last few months we have witnessed the amazing spectacle of 27 nations voting in the forum of ISO/TC23/SC19, those votes being counted three times, and a different tally resulting each time.

Furthermore, some votes that were returned to SC19 in a timely fashion could not be found for inclusion in the vote. (It is perhaps interesting to note that all of the missing votes favoured withdrawal of ISO 11784/85).

It may be instructive to briefly summarize the history of this vote: On 5 March, 1998, Russia submitted a formal petition for vote by member nations of SC19. The request called for revision and/or suspension of the ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 standards, and provided an explanation itemising five major flaws in the standard. When the voting ballots were sent out by the SC19 secretariat, it was three months later, 15 June. The final response date was given as 15 September. In many countries of the northern hemisphere, this period happens to coincide with annual summer holidays, meaning that regular meetings of working groups and regular business activity are suspended or put on hold. Coincidence?

When the votes were counted by the SC19 secretariat, the initial tally of 5 October showed an overwhelming majority rejecting Russia's request. According to the tally, twelve nations favoured retention of the standard, seven favoured suspension and three abstained. [Click here to see the official result of the first tally ]

There were problems, however. Brazil, Chile and New Zealand, all P-member nations of SC19 and entitled to vote, were not even mentioned anywhere on the page. As it turned out, two P-member nations were incorrectly listed as O-members. O-members have observer status only, and their votes are not counted. Interestingly, both affected nations had voted in favour of suspension of the standard.

After a number of SC19 member nations contacted the SC19 Secretariat to complain, the Secretary consented to count the votes again. Now the tally was 9 to 12, still rejecting Russia's request, but the majority favouring retention of the standard as-is had narrowed somewhat. The P-member nations New Zealand, Brazil and Chile were now listed as 'not replying.' [Click here to see the official result of the second tally. ]

More official complaints by P-member nations followed. Mr. Zens retallied the votes a third time. The third tally showed 12 in favour of suspension and 12 in favour of the status quo. [Click here to see the official result of the third tally.]

According to ISO regulations, there must be a simple majority favouring a proposal in order to proceed with it. After the third tally, SC19 advised all inquirers that the vote was a tie and that, having fallen short by one vote, the Russian proposal was rejected. SC19 informed all inquirers that it considered the matter closed. It even brushed off the request of Sweden, which requested its vote to be correctly counted.
[Click here to see Sweden's vote.]
[Click here to see Sweden's request to have its vote removed from the tally 'not supporting addition of the proposed new work item.']

Judge for yourself whether New Zealand wished to retain the standard as-is:
[Click here and here to see New Zealand's clarification of its intent]

Three tallies... Three results... and, still, in the end, a lack of due process.

No further action was taken by SC19 until the Technical Programme Manager of ISO, Mr. F. Abram, wrote to the Secretary of SC19 on 20 November, 1998:
"[...] Having taken note of the above, it remains that there is a clear majority of members of ISO/TC23/SC19 willing to undertake further discussion and/or study on the five issues raised in the GOST-R. [...] As a minimum, appropriate answers should be given on each question put forward." The letter went on to recommend "a study of the concerned issues and to report back to subcommittee ISO/TC23/SC19 providing advices and or propositions for possible improvements of the concerned standards," [Click here to see the full text of the letter]

Five months later, on 14 April, 1999, the Secretariat of SC19 issued document ISO/TC23/SC19 N139, punting the problem back to WG3. It began by asserting that "As the result of voting (N137 Rev.1) is unequivocal [...]" That is an interesting choice of words considering the actual voting result, the rather unusual history of the vote count and the unresolved situation concerning the Swedish vote, and went on to say with studied understatement, "as there obviously exists an enormous need of discussion, the WG3 is asked to elaborate corresponding solutions [...]" [Click here to see the full text of the letter]

The WG3 leadership was, to put it mildly, an unenthusiastic recipient of the ISO Central Secretariat's suggestion to 'discuss' revisions to the standard. By April 1999, the WG3 had been restructured in such a way that all substantive discussion of standards was shunted over to a new entity called TWG. TWG meets separately from the working group and participation is by invitation only. TWG is in fact comprised exclusively of a select group of manufacturers, all vocal supporters of ISO 11784 and 11785 in its current, unamended form. [See statement of manufacturers.] TWG explicitly excludes manufacturers known to favour revision of ISO 11784 and 11785, as well as all delegates from the SC19 member nations.

At the April, 1999, meeting of WG3 in Lugano, in response to the ISO Central Secretariat's suggestion which was handed down via SC19, and pressure from the delegates of voting nations present at the meeting, the leadership of WG3 was forced to put the issue of revision on the agenda. The chairman of WG3 responded to pressure by national delegates by forming an ad hoc committee for the ostensible purpose of discussing revisions to the standard. it consisted of seven delegates. Interestingly, six of the seven hailed from nations that opposed revision of the standard. Three of these hailed from a single nation: Holland.

By September 1999, when it was discontinued, the ad hoc committee had not even been convened a single time. When confronted about this rather remarkable omission during the WG3 meeting of September 1999, the Chairman of WG3 admitted that he had never even attempted to convene the ad hoc committee. He also admitted, he had never invited input from the SC19 member nations. When pressed for the reason, he offered an excuse: his father "had been ill." He proceeded, in almost the same breath, to reprimand efforts made by the single ad hoc committee who hailed from a nation favouring revision (Canada) to solicit input from the SC19 member nations. He concluded by stating that, since there was no input from SC19 member nations, the issue was closed.

TWG announced in the same meeting that it had determined conclusively, in its closed session, that there was no need to revise the standard. This was no surprise, considering the fact that the membership consisted of companies that opposed revision of the standard in the first place. When one of the national delegates moved from the floor that a vote be taken to determine the wishes of the working group, the chairman flatly refused. It was clear that the majority of delegates present in WG3 favoured revision. The leadership of WG3, with loud, vocal support from certain manufacturers, ruled that there would be no voting, and that the request for discussion by the ISO Central Secretariat had been concluded and that the matter of revision was now closed. When delegates from P-member nations protested, they were shouted down. In fact, the official minutes of the meeting did not document the repeated motions made by WG3 members attempting to put the matter to a vote and protesting the lack of due process by the leadership of WG3.

Considering the means by which this seriously flawed standard has been upheld, in both SC19 and WG3, the legitimacy of the standard is questionable, at best. The documented problems with the standard have not been addressed either by WG3 or SC19. Inspite of the documented will of the majority of SC19 members, there has been no calling to account.

Within the structure of ISO, the technical committees and working groups operate with great latitude and independence, and are not directly subordinated to th Central Secretariat of ISO, which does not have the means to call them to order, even in the event of gross violations of due process. The authorities in the Central Secretariat have only the power of persuasion at their disposal, and the ability to make suggestions. Ultimately, the leadership of technical committees is not answerable to any higher authority.

Under the circumstances, then, there appears to be no process by which the egregious violations of due process in TC23/SC19 can be corrected. There is no provision for ensuring that the will of the majority of the P-member nations in SC19 is acted upon. The majority of SC19 has spoken: the standards are not suitable for use as currently written, and must be fixed. What did WG3 do? Nothing. What did SC19 do about what happened in WG3? Nothing.

As officials of ISO never cease to point out, users implementing ISO standards are on their own: they implement ISO standards at their own risk and responsibility. The fact that ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 carry the 'ISO' label is no guarantee for their quality or suitability to the job they purport to do. In fact there are major documented problems with the standard. Users implement them at their own risk and responsibility. The moral of this story is: User Beware. ]]>bmasin@eidltd.comThe Controversial ISO 11784/85 standard2001-11-30T20:03:00-08:00http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/review_vote.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.rfidnews.com/blog/files/review_vote.html#unique-entry-id-0November 2001 -- The year 2001 is the five-year anniversary for ISO 11784 and ISO 11785, bringing with it the automatic five-year periodic review prescribed by ISO. The voting was once again characterised by a number of interesting omissions and coincidences.

The documents ISO/TC23/SC19/N182 and ISO/TC23/SC19/N183 are the two forms issued by the SC19 Secretariat showing the votes of P-member nations on ISO 11784 and ISO 11785, respectively.

It is interesting that these two tabulation forms N182 and N183 are dated 12 September, 2001. Remarkably, when the WG3 meeting took place on the 15th, three days later, Mr. Skrandies , secretary of SC19, stated explicitly that there were no results of the votation as yet (see item 10 in the document WG3_V23_Paris). There were delegates of P-member voting nations present at the WG3 meeting who would undoubtedly have been interested in discussing the remarkable results of the vote, and the large number of member nations listed as non-responding, although their national working groups had met and determined the national positions on the matter of the review.]]>