SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Jan. 10, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices (ECD), today comments on a desperate tactic by a distressed company. "These attempts by Stinger Systems, Inc. to confuse the market coming from a desperate company with minimal sales of hand-held ECD products in the marketplace demonstrates the dire straits they face as they are not having success with their existing efforts to compete with our TASER(r) devices," commented Tom Smith, Founder and Chairman of the Board of TASER International, Inc. "Customers continue to look to TASER(r) technology as the proven market-leader for electronic control devices. TASER International continues to focus on providing the best technology for our customers while our legal team deals with these day-to-day legal issues as well as expanding our portfolio of 22 granted U.S. patents and another 40 applied U.S. patents covering our core technology and future products. This is in addition to 14 issued foreign patents and another 61 pending foreign patents. This pattern of press releases issued over the last year by Stinger and McNulty is simply an attempt to distract the market and investors and will be dealt with accordingly through appropriate means rather than through responding to each bizarre press release," continued Mr. Smith.
TASER International has three U.S. patents issued as well as an additional two pending U.S. patents protecting TASER's new family of area denial products. When TASER purchased the assets of Tasertron, which was affiliated with attorney James McNulty Jr., in 2003, Tasertron falsely represented in the sale documents that it had paid all of the maintenance fees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on U.S. patent 5,936,183, one of the patents acquired by TASER in the purchase of Tasertron assets. The USPTO website also erroneously showed that all maintenance fees had been paid for this patent as well. In 2005 TASER was informed that this patent had expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees by McNulty's former affiliated company, contrary to its representations. TASER has filed documents with the USPTO for reinstatement of this patent. This expired patent, however, represents older Tasertron technology and now has limited value to the Company. Subsequent issued and pending patents adequately protect TASER's new area denial technology.
In related matters, TASER filed its Second Amended Complaint against Stinger Systems, Inc. on October 10, 2007 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case no. CV07-0042-PHX-MHM. TASER is asserting three of its patents were infringed by Stinger in the patent infringement lawsuit. Those three patents are: 6,999,295 (the "'295 patent"); 7,102,870 (the "'870 patent"); and 7,234,262 (the "'262 patent"). TASER is claiming that Stinger's S-200 device not only infringes on these three patents but also that Stinger has committed false advertising and patent false marking. TASER is seeking a permanent injunction against Stinger, as well as, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Stinger has filed a request for re-examination on the '262 patent and this action does not affect TASER's other 21 patents covering TASER technology. All of the issues raised in the request for re-examination were properly addressed by the USPTO when it properly issued the '262 patent. Since the request for re-examination does not raise any new issues that were not previously addressed by the USPTO, there is no legal basis to substantiate the request for re-examination.
"The '262 patent claims priority from an original patent application that was filed in 1999," stated TASER's patent litigation counsel Chad Campbell of the law firm of Perkins Coie Brown & Bain. "Stinger's re-examination request asserts that the '262 patent is not entitled to that priority date, but the issue Stinger is trying to raise is easily answered by comparing the original and the intervening applications to the invention claimed in the '262 patent. As long as those earlier applications described the '262 invention, 1999 is the right priority date and Stinger's inequitable conduct theory fails. The records of the USPTO show that TASER openly disclosed its claim of priority to the patent examiner," continued Campbell.
"The filing of a request for re-examination of the '262 patent is merely a delay tactic in our patent infringement lawsuit against Stinger since Stinger appears to be unable to defend our claim of infringement on the merits," stated Douglas Klint, TASER International's General Counsel. "This was confirmed yesterday when Stinger filed a motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit, which motion TASER International will oppose. It should be noted that McNulty previously lost a patent infringement lawsuit he filed against TASER International for one of his patents and his unsubstantiated opinions about TASER's validly issued patents are evidence of his apparent vengeance towards TASER. It is also highly unusual and suspect for a patent attorney such as McNulty to make any comments about another company's stock valuation. We believe this unusual behavior represents a continuing course of conduct concerning statements about TASER's stock valuation by McNulty stemming from prior litigation with Bestex, one of his clients. Bestex has represented that it has exited the electronic control device market place as a result of that litigation which concluded when the court granted both parties summary judgment. McNulty has appealed that ruling which appeal is pending," concluded Klint.
About TASER International, Inc.
TASER International's products protect life. TASER provides advanced Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) for use in the law enforcement, medical, military, corrections, professional security, and personal protection markets. TASER devices use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force. For more information, please call TASER International at (800) 978-2737 or visit our website at www.TASER.com.
The TASER International logo is available at http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=2931
Note to Investors
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including statements, without limitation, regarding our expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. We intend that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe-harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking information is based upon current information and expectations regarding TASER International. These estimates and statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, are not guarantees of future performance, and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results could materially differ from what is expressed, implied, or forecasted in such forward-looking statements.
TASER International assumes no obligation to update the information contained in this press release. These statements are qualified by important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those reflected by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include but are not limited to: (1) market acceptance of our products; (2) our ability to establish and expand direct and indirect distribution channels; (3) our ability to attract and retain the endorsement of key opinion-leaders in the law enforcement community; (4) the level of product technology and price competition for our products; (5) the degree and rate of growth of the markets in which we compete and the accompanying demand for our products; (6) risks associated with rapid technological change and new product introductions; (7) competition; (8) litigation including lawsuits resulting from alleged product related injuries and death; (9) media publicity concerning allegations of deaths and injuries occurring after use of the TASER device and the negative effect this publicity could have on our sales; (10) TASER device tests and reports; (11) product quality; (12) implementation of manufacturing automation; (13) potential fluctuations in our quarterly operating results; (14) financial and budgetary constraints of prospects and customers; (15) order delays; (16) dependence upon sole and limited source suppliers; (17) negative reports concerning the TASER device; (18) fluctuations in component pricing; (19) government regulations and inquiries; (20) dependence upon key employees and our ability to retain employees; (21) execution and implementation risks of new technology; (22) ramping manufacturing production to meet demand; (23) medical and safety studies; (24) field test results; and (25) other factors detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, those factors detailed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and its Form 10-Qs.
The statements made herein are independent statements of TASER International. The inclusion of any third parties does not represent an endorsement of any TASER International products or services by any such third parties.