Copyright © Richard Perry 2018. Copyright commencement date is 14th February 2018.
Richard Perry Versus.
Background to the offences carried out by Group 2: This is very important and shows how this Defendant Group have carried on committing offences against me because they mistakenly thought that Group 1 had stopped me enforcing my rights by their fraudulent prosecution that ended in my bankruptcy through corruption and crime. They created the product shown below which I allege is counterfeit and without any doubt is stolen from my patent. The United Kingdom Government refuse to even recognise my patent, refuse to make any statement whatsoever about counterfeiting or fraud or infringement and instead inform me they are closing my file. They refused to provide the names of the people involved - it is appalling. There is an extensive background to this Group found on pages 2 - 4, but because this crime is so obvious, i’ve started with the product argument first to illustrate the unimaginable depth of the corruption that is going on. if you are an inventor or you are investing your time and money into the UK, you will find this mortifying. Background: This is on page 2 of Def. Group 2. (Link bottom of this page) then go to next page. IP Pro Bono Dialogue REF: Group 2 Defendants GB2401616: Infringement of GB2401616 Fence Clip: Patent Reading: Claim 1. 1. A bracket for securing a fence railing or fence panel to a fence post, 2. The bracket comprising a main body shaped to match the shape of the end surface of the railing or panel, 3. And being adapted to encapsulate a portion of the end of the railing or an edge of a fence panel by means of at least two flanges extending perpendicular to the main body, 4. Said flanges incorporating at least one hole for the purpose of receiving a nail, screw or other means to releasably secure the bracket to the railing, 5. There being at least one tab extending from said body and struck entirely from within the confines of a said flange and incorporating a hole for the purpose of receiving a nail or screw to releasably secure said tab to the post whereby to secure the rail or panel and the post together. See photos below:
Re: IP pro-bono - R Perry Case 027 URGENT 2ND REPLY RN reptilog netcentral Reply| Tue 05/09/2017, 06:29 IPProBono Office ( Hello, I spoke to someone yesterday who told me they believe the offending product is counterfeit even though it doesnt look exactly the same. The man told me that a counterfeit means that the buyer would believe or know that by buying the product it would injure me or know that it is strikingly similar to the original and that it the offending product is doing and can only do exactly the same thing and function in the same way. he looked at my products and told me he could see straight away that the product is counterfeit especially as it doesnt even have any of its own labelling etc to distinguish it. Therefore would you kindly ask the pro bono unit to also put an argument forward to support my allegation of counterfeiting. Thank you Richard Perry NOTICE TO THE READER OF THIS DOCUMENT: THIS IS IMPORTANT: Point 1). From the content of their emails, IP Pro Bono also identified design infringement issues which they avoided taking further. The Defendants do not have their own patent and never filed one because they knew they were stealing my patent. Point 2). More Importantly (and the criminal aspect of this situation is): The Judge involved in the first civil case and who I allege has participated in serious crime, aided and abetted the Group 1 Defendants, and who has abused the administration of justice, instructed me to go to IP Pro Bono to obtain a legal argument on infringement of the second patent GB2401616. My second patent has been defrauded/stolen from me by Group 2 of the Defendants who are trading with the firms and individuals in Group 1 that stole the first patent - again aided and abetted by the same Judge involved. They all belong to same silly religious cult and there is undeniable evidence submitted to the Court by the London law firm involved that proves that Group 1 conspired with Group 2 to rob me of my patents. The law firm states that they are aware that I have written to Group 2 (who have stolen the second patent) which they couldn’t possibly have known unless Group 1 had told them, and there wouldn’t be any lawful reason for Group 1 to have knowledge of the private letters I had sent to Group 2 unless they were trying to use this information to their advantage, which they were. The reason is this: I had an injunction against me by the judge involved to stop me making claims against Group 1 or I would face contempt of court orders. At the time the law firm sent the letter of 22 August 2016 to the court, they were trying to maintain their witness testimony that ‘these are wholly independent businesses and entirely separate entities’ and that ‘they are definitely not working together and that has never been the case’ to avoid conspiracy charges and to make the court believe that I was making threats against the Group 1 Defendants by going through Group 2, and therefore breaching the terms of the injunction. However at the time, I didn’t know that Group 2 were trading with Group 1 until the letter from the law firm arrived, making it click and all fall into place. After investigation I found out that Group 1 and Group 2 of the Defendants were all trading together and all belong to the same silly ‘I believe in Zog’ cult. The letter to me from the law firm:
Two other Group 1 Defendants that the Law firm involved claimed they didn’t represent in order to support their false witness testimony and trying to keep all three firms separate in the initial civil trial. They later represented all of these firms in Group 1 when they thought they were winning and claimed to the judge involved that it was ‘for convenience’. This proves all three firms were indeed ‘working together’therefore also proving another instance of perjury, conspiracy, fraud etc.
Group 2 Defendant
Group 2 Defendant
Group 1 Defendant
Group 1 Defendant
Group 1 Defendant
That is patent FRAUD proven in evidence - yet again. A full larger version of the above photos can be found here: CLICK HERE
Continue to Page 2 for the details of these firms involved in this second theft and how they are trading with and conspiring with the Group 1 Defendants. The background of what they did and their fraudulent trading practices.
From: IPProBono Office <>Sent: 21 August 2017 13:17To: reptilog netcentralSubject: Re: IP pro- bono - R Perry Case 027 Dear Mr Perry, As previously mentioned, a firm introduced to you by IP ProBono will not be able to advise you on any criminal matters such as conspiracy, theft, fraud or counterfeiting. We understand that you would like an opinion on patent infringement. The Case Officer dealing with your request has asked the following question. You have previously recognised (in the paper you attached) that it is a mistake to compare the alleged infringement with your product, it must be compared with Claim 1 of your patent. Your Claim 1 states that a tab extending from the body is struck entirely from within the confines of a flange. This wording seems important as it was added to enable the patent to be granted. Could you please explain why the Hulme/Birkdale fence bracket can be said to include a tab struck entirely from within the confines of a flange? It seems to have (on each side of the main body) two flanges with the tab located between them, but neither during manufacturing nor in the finished product is the tab entirely within the confines of a flange. Your reply to this will be helpful in dealing with your request. Kind regards, IP Pro Bono Re: IP pro-bono - R Perry Case 027 RN reptilog netcentral Reply| Thu 31/08/2017, 12:56 IPProBono Office ( Hi, thanks for your reply. Because the middle piece surrounding the tab has been deliberately cut out to try to get around the patent, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO GET AROUND THE PATENT but this doesn't move the concept on by more than one step. It is irrelevant what my patent does compared to previous patents - the intellectual property office granted my patent and it is in force and i am asking for an argument to prove why the offending product infringes my patent. If they have any counter argument of invalidity then that is a separate argument and issue. I believe my patent is valid and it is in force. My argument is that the piece of metal that would connect the two arms has been cut out from the side flange and therefore producing two arms, but the offending product is still doing exactly the same job and used in exactly the same way and the concept is not moved on by one step at all, or where one modification is allowed. Judge Hacon told me in his own judgement that the step had to be moved on my one and that one modification is allowed in favour of the patent owner. The tab on the offending product has to be struck from within the side flange, and therefore the two arms, to enable it to function in use and to be manufactured. The tab is within the confines of the two arms (that make up the one side flange) and doesn't move over or under the two arms to overlap the arms - it is bent at one angle out of alignment of the side flange and cannot move any other way. It cannot be made any other way outside of the confines of those two arms because the tab is not, and cannot be, connected to any other piece of the body in the offending product otherwise it wouldn't work. The arms are not connected to any other piece of the body other than the back-plate and the two arms are bent in the same direction on the same plane, therefore struck from entirely within the confines of the one side flange even if it is said the flange consists of two arms - it is still one flange. The flange is one flat piece of metal - it doesn't extend in other other directions or into any other planes - it is just one flange bent around the corner of the fence panel exactly as disclosed in my patent and as shown in the photos. The tab width isn't longer than the length of the arms, it is shorter and so it cannot be argued that the flange is cut from the tab instead of vice versa. Therefore the argument that there are two flanges is nonsense because they are positioned as one flange and only operate and function as one flange and are only attached to one single back-plate. Please also provide an argument that would compare products (but they would argue that it is designed in visual appearance, differently) therefore please also provide an argument for design infringement if this is another route you have identified, as i am not legally trained. However it would also tie in with patent infringement because the way their product is designed falls within the scope of the patent. The case law of how someone skilled in the art would create the offending product from my patent is also very relevant because any idiot can come along and cut out the piece between the arms and claim they don't infringe the patent. That is the whole point - intellectual property theft. This type of criminal behaviour is an abuse of the entire system and is is deliberately fraudulent, so that they can argue a civil offence rather than a criminal one. If the patent didn't infringe the product and do exactly the same thing then the Defendants wouldn't have been able to to go around the entire industry claiming that it is the same and therefore bankrupting my thriving business. Thank you, Richard Perry
Their own witness testimony that they used to issue and serve proceedings in a United Kingdom court of law is proven to be false and untrue and deliberately misleading to try to prevent me from enforcing my rights. (ref: 20 section white numbered bundle). That is called Perjury under the Perjury Act 1911 and it is a serious criminal offence with a starting point of seven years in custody due to the level of harm caused. The law firm submitted hundreds of pages of false testimony/evidence spanning a dozen court hearings between 2013 – 2017. The judge involved claims ‘they’ve done nothing wrong’ and denied me all access to the evidence that he knew would further prove my allegations. Point 3). The Government and IP Pro Bono and the Judges involved were debating amongst themselves whether they would enforce my rights or not. it took them months between emails (refer to the dates in the emails) and whilst IP Pro Bono were deliberately delaying their response until the judges had dealt with my bankruptcy appeals, the other judges were making fraudulent judgements against me claiming that I didn’t have any evidence and that my claim was ‘doomed to fail’ and ‘devoid of merit’ and all that shit. This whole thing is barbaric, a public disgrace and inhumane. Point 4). I had informed IP Pro Bono of this situation and told them that the Judge involved had also committed criminal offences to uphold the United Kingdom agenda of deliberately refusing to recognize or enforce intellectual property rights. The judge is heavily influencing IP Pro Bono and advertises it on all of his emails. The third important point is this: I had taken advice from a very large worldwide accounting firm. I explained the situation about the corruption and fraudulent judgements. Their legal department gave me some advice which was along the lines of: “in fact it doesn’t matter if the first judgement for the first patent was corrupt or fraudulent because now you have the second theft of the second patent carried out by firms trading with the first lot. Therefore, if you prove that the second patent has also been infringed, it would give you a good credible argument on criminal activity and support your allegations, we would be interested to see what the outcome is”. Therefore, by IP Pro Bono agreeing with me and upholding my argument that the second patent GB2401616 had been infringed, it would prove the first judgement was indeed corrupted and fraudulent and it would further substantiate a wider conspiracy. This would be supported by all the cases and everything that went on in those cases between 2013 – 2017 that the judges involved have tried to hide or conceal. The conflicting findings of fact, denying all access to the evidence and then making judgements against me claiming that I don’t have any evidence, would all prove judicial corruption and fraud. So I put my argument above and the points of infringement to IP Pro Bono and guess what their response is? “Thank you for letting us know that you are considering alternative action in respect of the issues you have raised with us. We are sorry that IP Pro Bono has not been able to assist you on this occasion. We will now close our file.”
So they refuse to state that the patent has been infringed and yet refuse to state that it hasn’t because it blatantly obviously has been and it would prove my case. And that folks is United Kingdom Government corruption, human rights abuse and the aiding and abetting of worldwide firms that are going around stealing and defrauding people’s creative rights, butchering individuals and their start up enterprises, and all because they don’t want to pay for intellectual property. This is serious and organized crime and it undermines the entire Rule of Law. It makes a complete mockery of EU Treaties on sincere co-operation and undermines everything Europe is trying to do to protect and enforce intellectual property rights.
Anticipated arguments by the defence: 1). There are four forward flanges extending from the main body and not two (or one on each side of the main body). 2). There is modification to the side tabs having small rounded off ends stamped from an angled edge. In response to these two points: Point 1: The way that the product is used disproves argument point 1 because the flanges can only be used in pairs to fit around each side of the fence panel and the flanges are not used separately or individually for the purpose of fixing the fence panel to the fence post or even just fitting to the fence panel. In the offending product there have to be two flanges or one pair of flanges each side of the panel as this is the only way the product can be used. Therefore effectively there is only one flange each side of the panel and the thieves have just snipped out the piece of metal joining the arms together that would make one flange. Therefore this does not move the ‘concept’ on by one modification nor the actual product on by more than one modification in relation to the claims of the patent. It is also targeting the design of the product. Point 2: The fact that there is a rounded off end on the tab cut from a square, rectangular or angled body that leaves the ‘squared off’ edges again does not make any difference to the way the product is used or functions, it doesn’t serve any ‘use’, ‘in use’ or ‘means of construction’ purposes or any difference in the way the product is fitted, and again does not move the concept that I patented, on by one or more modifications. This product without any doubt infringes patent GB2401616 under the Patents Act 1977 and as amended 2014. Further, the reason why the middle tab has it’s rounded off edges is purely to assist in the actual manufacture of the product where it is stamped from one piece of steel: if the flanges/arms were not rounded off it would be a safety hazard due to sharp corners. It would be difficult keeping the strength and stiffness in the product coming off of the press because the corners are more likely to warp or twist as the press tool releases after each stamping action. During the stamping process/action the arms would be ‘struck’ from the same plane of /or the piece of material that would bend as one action to form one or more side flanges/arms in one action. The fact that the small piece of metal between the arms has been removed is immaterial to either the manufacturing process or the actual use/function of the product. I can even argue that the tab is struck from within the confines of the side flange because there is one flange/arm each side of (above and below) the tab and had this little piece of metal not been removed there is beyond any doubt a counterfeit product which is deliberate intellectual property fraud/theft. The part about this piece of metal between the arms is proven by my own knowledge and experience because I actually designed this very product myself between 2001 - 2003 when I was carrying out extensive testing of dozens of different prototypes to arrive at the version of my own product with the central piece of metal joining the arms together. This little piece of metal makes an incredible difference to the overall strength of the product because when the fence panel twists in the wind, the four arms or flanges easily twist and bend out of shape due to the weight and force of the panel being twisted which in turn twists the arms. In my own wind tests, I compared the two versions of the products and found that the product that I currently market (that is shown in the photos above next to the defendant’s product) is far superior and can be made in a much thinner material to achieve the same strength and durability. However, and in relation to other evidence proving a conspiracy to steal and defraud intellectual property rights, this offence would amount to Intellectual Property Theft/Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 and proves beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities that the defendants deliberately conspired and plotted to deprive me of my intellectual property rights, which had to have been the overriding objective or goal. The fact that the defendants failed to acquire their own patent rights for their product and only managed to register a design further proves their intent to injure me, whether through lawful or unlawful means, and that I was the target. The Judge involved in this situation instructed me to go to IP Pro Bono to provide me with a legal argument to prove infringement of the patent. I did what he told me to do and applied to IP Pro Bono. The Government’s recently set up free legal advice to Office to deal with IP rights cases. Here is the account of events and dialogue.
screenshot of the email just to prove this is in fact true - every word of it.
3. And being adapted to encapsulate a portion of the end of the railing or an edge of a fence panel by means of at least two flanges extending perpendicular to the main body
Patent GB2401616 1. A bracket for securing a fence railing or fence panel to a fence post,
4. Said flanges incorporating at least one hole for the purpose of receiving a nail, screw or other means to releasably secure the bracket to the railing,
It should be noted that the patent also has many dependant claims to account for slight modifications to the invention due to the invention having other uses within construction, such as fixing studwork and partitioning etc. as cited in the patent. The Defendants without a doubt have defrauded this patent.
5. There being at least one tab extending from said body and struck from within the confines of a said flange and incorporating a hole for the purpose of receiving a nail or screw to releasably secure said tab to the post whereby to secure the rail or panel and the post together.
All they have done is cut out the material in the flange. This is deliberate criminal intent and patent fraud/counterfeiting.
Dec 4 2018: Police: in this same letter Collyer Bristow LLp claim that they now represent only ‘two’ of the three Defendants and used this concealment in their 2nd restraining order application in 2017. This letter is on the court file in IP2015000090.