Notice: Thomas Wilkins hereby initially informs all who read this web page that, in the matter of GE v Wilkins, California Eastern District Court, Case No. 000674, that there is a preliminary injunction in which the Court has ordered that Wilkins not license, or offer to license, the ‘985 or the ‘565 patents, or the technologies patented therein, for the duration of the matter. However, to avoid any misunderstanding possibly caused by GE regarding Mr. Wilkins’ ability to continue working as a consultant in the wind industry, Mr. Wilkins seeks to discuss his understanding of the scope of the injunction, as well as his absolute commitment to comply with the court’s order.

*Please see [Wilkins counter-claim against GE] or specifically Counter-Claims and Prayer for Relief.

I. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In 1999, Thomas Wilkins, along with others, initiated the development of Ride Through and Reactive Power Control for Wind Turbines. In 2000, Ride Through was successfully tested down below 70 percent voltage with the Zond Z50 WTGs at the Lake Benton II wind farm.

In 2003, agents working on behalf of General Electric Company filed patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office - which later became patents ‘565 and ‘985. However, neither the ‘985 patent nor the ‘565 patent mentions the Lake Benton work back in 2000. And in fact, agents on behalf of GE assert in GE’s complaint that Thomas Wilkins’ work at Lake Benton was not part of the technology that was patented, and further assert the technology in those patents was not disclosed until 2002.

In 2010, agents acting on behalf of General Electric Company initiated a lawsuit against Thomas Wilkins after it was determined by the U.S. International Trade Commission that Mr. Wilkins is a co-inventor of certain ride through concepts patented by GE in the 985 patent. After GE’s first complaint was dismissed, and in order for GE to succeed in getting a preliminary injunction, Mr. Wilkins contends, upon information and belief, that agents acting on behalf of General Electric Company submitted documents containing apparent false statements to the federal court.

Initially, GE obtained a restraining order preventing Wilkins from even asserting his belief that he is an inventor and owner of the technologies patented in the ‘565 or ‘985 patents. However, the Court saw the inequity of that restraint, and eliminated it from the preliminary injunction order.

As it stands, the preliminary injunction enjoins Wilkins from licensing, or offering to license, either of the ‘565 or the ‘985 patents, or the technologies patented in those two patents. Thus, Thomas Wilkins, in complying with the court order, cannot and is not in any way attempting to license those patents or the patented technologies. Also be advised that the agents operating on behalf of GE have been put on notice by Mr. Wilkins that he has not consented to GE’s licensing of the technologies described in patents ‘985 and ‘565.

II. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION

To clarify, it is well known that the terms “low voltage ride through” and “dynamic VAR” are general terms, neither coined nor trademarked by GE, and certainly broader than the specific technologies patented in the ‘985 and ‘565 patents. Further, as regards the injunction, it is Thomas Wilkins’ understanding that those aspects of LVRT and VAR Control that are not included in the patent(s) are not part of this lawsuit, and thus not part of the court ordered preliminary injunction. Please understand, however, that Thomas Wilkins’ foremost concern is compliance with the letter and spirit of the preliminary injunction.

Although the US Federal Court Eastern District of California has ordered a preliminary injunction which enjoins Thomas Wilkins from licensing, or offering to license, the technologies patented in the 985 and 565 patents until the resolution of the matter, that is the limit of the court order. For instance, should a third party wish to request consulting services from Mr. Wilkins regarding ride-through or reactive power problem solving, that is not enjoined, so long as all prospective partners understand that there will be no discussion of licensing any of the technologies patented in the 565 or 985 patents. Additionally, should you wish to obtain information regarding Thomas Wilkins’ inventorship, he is free to have those discussions as well.*

Further, Wilkins is not restrained from asserting his belief that he will ultimately prevail in this suit, including prevailing on his ownership and right to license claims. Such court ordered ownership and right to license is expected to occur after successful conclusion of the trial on the facts, and lifting of the preliminary injunction. However, until such a successful conclusion of the matter, there will be no discussions at all about licensing or prospective licensing.

If you are interested in discussing consulting relationships with Thomas Wilkins, feel free to contact him directly. If you would like information on the matter of GE v Wilkins or regarding the injunction, you are directed to contact counsel for Thomas Wilkins, which information may be found on the court record.

* - If you have an interest in patent validity issues, please see the following links [Wilkins counter-claim against GE] [USPTO Order granting Reexamination of the 985 patent].