U.S. Patent Office cites Raniere’s lying in federal court to rule he doesn’t own teleconferencing patent

On June 2, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trial and Appeal Board determined that Keith Raniere does not own the patent that he claims he owned – and that he says is his invention of teleconferencing.

In the matter of Microsoft Corporation versus Global Technologies, administrative patent judges Kalyan K. Deshpande, David C. McKone, and John A. Hudalla, made the Judgment and Final Written Decision: Mr. Raniere does not own the patent for teleconferencing.

Read the entire decision here: IPR2016-00669 Final Written Decision (mailed)

Here is a brief summary:

The U.S. Patent judges determined:

In February 2015, Keith A. Raniere, in Federal Court, commenced litigation against Microsoft for patent infringement on certain patents he claimed to own. He alleged that Microsoft was using his invention based on his patents.

However, the patents he cited were registered with the U.S. Patent Office as being owned Global Technologies Inc. (GTI), a State of Washington corporation that was incorporated in 1995 and dissolved in 1996.

The corporation did not list Mr. Raniere as one of the owners. In fact, GTI listed Toni Natalie as President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Board of Directors; Thomas Danzig as Vice President; and Director; and Steve Danzig as Treasurer and Director.

Nowhere was Mr. Raniere’s name seen on any corporate records.

Prior to instituting the lawsuit, Mr. Raniere created three documents to prove he owned the patents.

The first document was the “Shareholder Consent Resolution”.

The second document was the “Unanimous Consent Resolution” of the Sole Director of Global Technologies, Inc.. whereby Mr. Raniere purported to elect himself as President of GTI “…in order to facilitate the winding down of the affairs of [GTI].”

Mr. Raniere also purported to give himself authority to assign the patents from GTI to himself.

Mr. Raniere then “executed the 2014 assignment in his alleged
capacity as president and sole shareholder of GTI.”

On February 11, 2016, Microsoft brought a motion to dismiss the case claiming Mr. Raniere did not own the patents.

The federal court held a hearing on the motion on March 1, 2016, wherein it considered the exhibits and heard testimony from Mr. Raniere.

In his testimony before the federal district court, Mr. Raniere admitted that his representations in the “Shareholder Consent Resolution” were false.

The district court noted that the “…effectiveness of this assignment depends on the validity of two other documents executed by Mr. Raniere contemporaneously with the
2014 assignment.”

As to the “Shareholder Consent Resolution”, the district court found that Mr. Raniere was not the sole shareholder of GTI – which meant  that he did not have the authority to elect
himself as sole director of GTI.

Furthermore, the court found that “[t]here is no written document evidencing any transfer from any of the original owners of GTI to Mr. Raniere. There’s no credible evidence that Mr. Raniere had an interest in GTI that would allow him to transfer the
patents to himself.”

Regarding the 2014 assignment, the district court found that “[Mr.] Raniere has produced an . . . assignment to himself dated December 26, 2014, purporting to assign the [challenged patents] from GTI to him[self], but the Court finds that this assignment is
not effective to transfer ownership of the patents to Mr. Raniere.”

In the process, the court found that Mr. Raniere’s testimony was “wholly incredible” and “untruthful.”

The court also found that, “[d]espite . . . repeated opportunities, Mr. Raniere has failed to
establish that he owns the [challenged patents].”

The district court dismissed Mr. Raniere’s lawsuit. He appealed and the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that Mr. Raniere did not have authority to act as Patent Owner.

The U.S. Patent Office recognized GTI as Patent Owner based on the 1995
assignment and dismissed Mr. Raniere’s claims to ownership.

Mr. Raniere’s attorneys from Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP then contended that they were authorized representatives for GTI and presented Powers of Attorney signed by Mr. Raniere.

The U.S. Patent office asked Mr. Raniere’s attorneys “to produce a new Power of Attorney,
executed by an authorized representative of GTI.” since it had already been ruled that Mr. Raniere does not own GTI.

The U.S. Patent office stated that, “we will not accept any Power of Attorney signed only by Mr. Raniere.”

When Mr. Raniere’s attorneys failed to produce a new Power of Attorney, the U.S. Patent office judges determined that  Mr. Raniere’s attorneys were not authorized representatives for GTI.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court order determining that Mr. Raniere had no interests in GTI which owns the patents.

The U.S. Patent Office eliminated Mr. Raniere from consideration as owner of the patents based on the federal cases – and ruled that “[N]o one with a credible interest in GTI has made an appearance in these proceedings” and canceled the patents.

A federal court heard Mr. Raniere admit to lying.

But we should believe him when he says he is “the smartest man in the world” based on a take home IQ test? And don’t even get me started on his East Coast judo championship – or his tying the New York State for the 100-yard dash.

Frank Parlato