APT MotoVox Group Inc. (MTVX)

[diannedawn]

The APT v Monster Moto case is no where near the "slam dunk" that it is being claimed here...
and now Monster Moto has filed as well

Here is the PR...
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnewswire/press_releases/Texas/2014/07/23/DA75615

Yeah...those frames look identical!ROTFLMAO!!!

Here are the court docs...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234833504/Monster-Moto-721


14. In addition, as depicted below, the purportedly revolutionary teardrop frame design as well as other design aspects of Defendants’ MBX minibikes were disclosed by the Savage minibike as far as back as 1961 :A true and correct copy of an advertisement for the Savage minibike in the December 1961 issueof Desert magazine is attached hereto as

Exhibit D

True and correct copies of additional photographs of the 1960’s-era Savage minibike are attached hereto as

Exhibit E

15. Indeed, all of the purported ornamental elements of the ‘798 patent are in the prior art. For example, the design of the Baja Doodlebug minibike, which has been on sale since at least 2004, includes design elements, such as the fenders, that are substantially similar, if not identical, to the ‘798 patent. A true and correct copy of a photograph of the Baja Doodlebug minibike is attached hereto as

Exhibit F

16. A cursory comparison of the ‘798 patent, Defendants’ MBX series of minibikes(which purport to embody the ‘798 patent), the Monster Moto MMB-80, and a number of other competing minibikes in the marketplace demonstrates nothing more than the fact that minibikes all share a number of similar characteristics for obvious and unavoidable functional reasons. To the extent that the ‘798 patent includes any ornamental aspects, such aspects are disclosed in the prior art and/or differ from the Monster Moto MMB-80."

No Sh!!!t Sherlock!!! Just like all bicycles pretty much have the same frame!!!

Here's some more FUNNY stuff:
"18. Among other things, Defendants contend that the identity of their customers --namely, retailers such as Sears, Kmart, Costco, and Alco -- is somehow a trade secret that belongs to them, despite the fact that the identity of these extraordinarily well-known companies (and the fact that they sell minibikes) is a secret to no one.

19. Similarly, Defendants contend that the identity of their (former) Chinese manufacturer is somehow a trade secret, despite the fact that such information is readily available to anyone in the industry.

20. In addition, Defendants have asserted that they have trade secrets in the design or manufacture of their minibikes, despite the fact that there is nothing novel in the design or manufacture of Defendants’ minibikes.

21. All of Defendants’ false accusations against Monster Moto revolve around the Monster Moto MMB-80, which was independently developed by Monster Moto and its employees and contractors, based on their years of experience in the minibike industry. The MMB-80 was developed without reference to any of Defendants’ alleged trade secrets. Indeed, no trade secrets were necessary as the information necessary to design, manufacture, and sell theMMB-80 was well within the knowledge of Monster Moto, its employees and contractors. While certain of Defendants’ former employees or contractor have worked on behalf of Monster Moto, each of these individuals signed a document pledging that they would not use any confidential or proprietary information obtained from Defendants in their work on behalf of Monster Moto (and, as set forth above, there is nothing novel, confidential or secret regarding Defendants’ minibikes in any event).

22. Defendants also contend that their trade dress is infringed by Monster Moto because, among other things, the box in which the Monster Moto MMB-80 is packaged includes instructions that read “DO NOT LAY FLAT” and “THIS SIDE UP.” The absurdity of this claim is apparent as similar instructions appear on virtually all boxes of this type."

This is going to be FUNNY!!!