Parkerwest website SWABBY

patent for clay floc system

I understand that some of you have questions regarding the status of our lawsuit against Clean Up America for infringing the Parker West patented system, so let me bring you up to date.

Parker West successfully defended its patented technology in recent litigation. In September of 2009, the U.S. District Court has ruled that Clean Up America, Inc. has intentionally infringed on Parker West's patented mobile wastewater reclamation and treatment techology by manufacturing, marketing and distibuting the Swabby 48 and Swabby Mothership equipment in the industry. The court ordered Clean Up America, Inc. and Cean Up America Franchise Development Corporation to pay TREBLE damages to PW because of their intentional fraud, breach of contract and patent infringement and to reimburse PW for its attorneys' fees and costs expended to defend the patent.

The District Court also orderd Clean Up America, Inc. and Clean Up America Franchise Development Corporation, together with any and all persons or entities in "active participation" with them, to cease and desist their business activities and operations that infringe PW's patent, including use of the Swabby 48 and Swabby Mothership. Accordingly, continued use of the PW wastewater recovery and treatment system, utilizing clay based flocculants is violation of the Court Order. Moreover, because the equipment obtained from CUA infringes PW's patent, PW is entitled to recover damages going back to the date the purchaser started using the equipment.

William Clemons has filed for personal bankruptcy. CUA has not filed for bankruptcy.

Rather than initiating an adversarial proceeding PW is offering an opportunity to establish a new and ongoing business relationship to anyone who purchased equipment from CUA. As part of our commitment to establishing a business relationship with CUA/PW equipment owners or any other company utilizing the PW System, we are currently willing to waive our claim for damages based on past infringing conduct.

A critical component of this offer is PW's intention to promptly negotiate the terms of a licensing agreement with regard to our patented technology.
 
Parker West

I want everyone to understand why we find it necessary to license the PW Systems, aside from the CUA infringement.

The purpose of the license agreement is to protect the purchasers of the PW Systems, as well as, the consumer of their services.

There are hundreds of different clay based floc formulas, maufactured by a variety of companies. Our patent covers the use of any and all clay based flocculants. However, during the last 15 years, there are very specific formulas that we use, which have been tested by government and independent labs to confirm that the wastewater treatment is meeting sewer discharge requirments and that the sludge is non leachable, non hazardous.

CUA sold our systems without our knowledge, intentionally and fraudantly selling them to innocent companies, who had no knowledge of the PW patent.

CUA was not selling the clay based flocculants that we tested, jeopordizing the integrity of the PW Systems sold. Also, CUA stated they were selling a "special sauce" that they made and quadrupled our suggested selling price. The purchasers of the systems didn't even know they were using clay flocculant and were not properly trained, consequently many of them aren't even using their system....some are even shutting off their vacuums.

Those companies who have purchased the Swabby 48 and are entering into a licensing agreement with PW are amazed when they use the floc we provide compared to the product CUA was selling.

Another purpose of the licensing agreement, aside from protecting our patent is to enable PW to combine purchases to enable us to obtain the clay floc at volume discounts, passing the savings to the liscensees.

We want to build a team who all support each other, because it is very difficult to compete against the majority who disagree with our mission.

Also, the Swabby Mothership was not built to our specifications. It is huge and the wastewater treatment system is totally wrong.

When we commissioned CUA to build the first Swabby 48 to incorporate with our existing vaccum recovery/vacuum recovery system, the purpose of the optional Ride On Pressure washer was to build a mechanism that would enable the operator to clean faster and with less fatigue than those who do not collect and clean their wash water, particularly when cleaning large surfaces such as parking garages/lots, transit stations, truck stops, etc.

We were the odd man out when we patented the PW clay floc treatment system in 1996, and still are, because most in the industry do not find it necessary to even collect their wastewater, much less clean it.

The PW System is unique, very fast, compact, streamlined wastewater treatment. This is why CUA did not utilize their own patented, mechanical filtration system...it doesn't work.

The key is that the PW System removes soluble metals, suspended solids and emulsfied oil in a single step, within minutes. In other words, you can use soaps. Most mechanical filtration systems fail if you use soaps and they are multi step, large, complex systems that take up alot more floor space and require large trailers to transport. Also, due to the process of encapsulation, the PW Systems generated a non leachable, non hazardous Class II waste.

The PW Systems which power a Ride on Pressure Washer and/or two vacuum recovery tools, incorporates a 3 point heat exchange system (instead of heaters/boilers/gas engines), 700 cfm vacuum recovery, 61Hp water cooled engine (propane) incorporated with a PW treatment system that treats 800gph, all fits on a 14' L x 6.5'T trailer, excluding the driving mechanism. C02 emissions are reduced by 75%. Much safer for the workers. Gas/energy cost and consumption is reduced by approximately $1,000.00 a month, because we have eliminated 4 gas engines. The savings in fuel offsets the cost of the equipment.

Hope this clarifies everyones questions. Feel free to contact me at anytime.
 
Just some simple questions here, I don't own a swabby or anything from CUA.

If I build my own system and use floc for the waste water from pressure washing, will I be sued?

This needs to be addressed before I build something because I don't want to infringe on anyone's patent but then again, why are so many companies selling the floc for pressure washing???????

If so, will all the water treatment facilities across the USA be sued for using floc to process their waste water? Some facilities use pressure washers to clean up areas and the waste water is either vacuumed up or sent through pipes to the waste water department of that industrial facility for processing.

I ask the questions here so many here can benefit from the answers and questions.
 
Do you sell the floc to everyone or just the people that you sell licenses to?
 
Absolutely not can you be sued for using flocculation or building a similar ride on type surface cleaner. Floculation is mearly a term used.

Floculant additives can be purchased all over the place, you just need to design your floc formula to achieve the results you are looking for.

As far as disposal, get in contact with a haz waste hauler in your area, they will problay do a profile on your waste and then enter into an agreement to disopose of the waste for you, we use drums that they provide for us.

I use floc aft of the mechaninal seperation and have great results.

Put some time and ressearch into designing your own system and I am sure that you will be able to acheive great results.
 
cparker said:
I understand that some of you have questions regarding the status of our lawsuit against Clean Up America for infringing the Parker West patented system, so let me bring you up to date.

Parker West successfully defended its patented technology in recent litigation. In September of 2009, the U.S. District Court has ruled that Clean Up America, Inc. has intentionally infringed on Parker West's patented mobile wastewater reclamation and treatment techology by manufacturing, marketing and distibuting the Swabby 48 and Swabby Mothership equipment in the industry. The court ordered Clean Up America, Inc. and Cean Up America Franchise Development Corporation to pay TREBLE damages to PW because of their intentional fraud, breach of contract and patent infringement and to reimburse PW for its attorneys' fees and costs expended to defend the patent.

The District Court also orderd Clean Up America, Inc. and Clean Up America Franchise Development Corporation, together with any and all persons or entities in "active participation" with them, to cease and desist their business activities and operations that infringe PW's patent, including use of the Swabby 48 and Swabby Mothership. Accordingly, continued use of the PW wastewater recovery and treatment system, utilizing clay based flocculants is violation of the Court Order. Moreover, because the equipment obtained from CUA infringes PW's patent, PW is entitled to recover damages going back to the date the purchaser started using the equipment.

William Clemons has filed for personal bankruptcy. CUA has not filed for bankruptcy.

Rather than initiating an adversarial proceeding PW is offering an opportunity to establish a new and ongoing business relationship to anyone who purchased equipment from CUA. As part of our commitment to establishing a business relationship with CUA/PW equipment owners or any other company utilizing the PW System, we are currently willing to waive our claim for damages based on past infringing conduct.

A critical component of this offer is PW's intention to promptly negotiate the terms of a licensing agreement with regard to our patented technology.
Click to expand...

Cathy, can you scan and post the judgment?

I understand that your situation with CUA was not just one of a contractor "using flocculation" to clean water in a mobile setting, but was rather (as I read it) a situation where you were in an agreement with CUA and they failed to live up to their end of the agreement. (At least that's what your suit appears to allege. I read the entire text)

Maybe you got a bum rap on here if people didn't understand the allegations of fraud and without reading the text of the claim one would never know that the problem was one of an agreement gone bad. I'd be the first to defend Parker West if this was simply a case of one party not fulfilling promises.

I'd also be against anyone copying your machines that you have patented. As I stated before I've been involved in patents before and I know the work and money that goes into the process.

But cleaning water with flocculents is not a new and useful invention. It wasn't a "new and useful invention in 1997 (your filing date).

It would be like using a toothbrush to clean my computer keyboard. I didn't invent the toothbrush and just because I thought to use it to clean the keyboard doesn't mean I'm all the sudden an inventive genius who can claim the rights to "all keyboard cleaning with a toothbrush" just because I put two and two together. How many thousands of others have done it before and realized how ludicrous it would be to make a patent claim on that.

Now, if I constructed a special toothbrush (call it a Kbrush) especially made for cleaning keyboards then I could certainly patent that toothbrush and sell it all day long with patent protection.

But I would have NO CLAIM against anyone else who used a simple toothbrush to clean their keyboard.

I know of no one who has made it a business of cleaning air filters the way we have. When we used the ultrasonic cleaning method we went through 4 patent attorneys (of which 2 of them had been used by us in the past and they were fully competent) who informed me that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to make a claim on "any and all use of ultrasonics" in cleaning rooftop air filters and that my ONLY option was to patent my equipment using open language and then use the patent to SCARE anyone who tried to compete.

Is this what you have been doing?

I was told the only way to protect my PROCESS was to perfect the equipment, protect the design of the equipment and stay one step ahead of the competition.

I made the decision to fore go the protectionism process and simply compete by continuously refining my product in a way that the competition can never reach my profit margins at my low rates without my assistance.

You could have done the same. Your patent is 13 years old. If the "scare" marketing and "just wont the lottery" pricing you have been using was effective, you'd be selling so much equipment and licensing rights you wouldn't have time to be bidding garages against Jim.

How much are you charging for a licensing agreement to use flocculents without the purchase of your equipment by the way?

NOTE: by the way, I mentioned on TGS that I didn't know who you were. I had forgotten about this thread from a while back and once I read this I realized you were one in the same.

PS- Your attorney will tell you not to respond to this. Mine would. They always tell you to be quiet when you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Why is everyone so hard on Parker West?

We have nothing but good intent. We have been at this for 15 years and have spent almost a million dollars to get to this point so we can provide the best available technology and and most productive environmental compliant system known to this industry.
We are not threatening anyone. But, our investors insist that we continue to defend our patent ...we have spent over $100,000. defending it against CUA...but, it will be alot easier to win the next time because we have already won once.

Please let me make this very clear.....
Parker West patent is only for MOBILE Systems, not stationary. Our patent is for a mobile surface contaminant extracting and water recycling appratus comprised of a standard truck, pickup, trailer or other WHEELED container that is modified by the addition of a CLAY BASE FLOCCULANT powder wastewater treatment unit. Mounted in combination with the wheeled container and the PW wastewater treatment unit is a vacuum system and pressure/washing steam cleaning system.

So, if you want to purchase a clay based flocculant system and use it at your shop or set one up at your customer's business, you will not infringe on our patent.

The lawsuit against CUA is published information. We won for two reasons, intentional fraud patent infringement and breach of contract. We wouldn't have been awarded treble damages by the courts if it was obvious CUA was trying to steal our patent.
Very difficult these days to win patent lawsuits due to the "obviousness law". So, winning this lawsuit, strengthened our patent's value, not weakened it.

We want this industry to have a sensible solution. But, we have every right to capitilize
on all the hard work, time and money that we have put into our project, don't you think?
 
Cathy, I am not trying to be a pain in the butt here, just would like an answer, will I be sued if I use floc in treating my waste water when pressure washing if I build my own system and buy floc from a company?

A simple yes or no will do.

I am not good with all the legal-talk, I am just a simple guy trying to earn a living but don't want to be sued.

Can you please give me an answer in simple terms so I can understand please?

Thank You.
 
I hear what you guys are saying, I would just like Cathy to answer.

I know that there can be mod's done and loopholes, just wondering if they are out there pursuing small contractors that use floc to sue them if they are using the floc to treat their waste water when pressure washing.

This is one of the several different technologies I was looking at for the new trailer later this year, probably go with the other newer technology but not sure yet.
 
cparker said:
Why is everyone so hard on Parker West?

We have nothing but good intent. We have been at this for 15 years and have spent almost a million dollars to get to this point so we can provide the best available technology and and most productive environmental compliant system known to this industry.
We are not threatening anyone. But, our investors insist that we continue to defend our patent ...we have spent over $100,000. defending it against CUA...but, it will be alot easier to win the next time because we have already won once.

Please let me make this very clear.....
Parker West patent is only for MOBILE Systems, not stationary. Our patent is for a mobile surface contaminant extracting and water recycling appratus comprised of a standard truck, pickup, trailer or other WHEELED container that is modified by the addition of a CLAY BASE FLOCCULANT powder wastewater treatment unit. Mounted in combination with the wheeled container and the PW wastewater treatment unit is a vacuum system and pressure/washing steam cleaning system.

So, if you want to purchase a clay based flocculant system and use it at your shop or set one up at your customer's business, you will not infringe on our patent.

The lawsuit against CUA is published information. We won for two reasons, intentional fraud patent infringement and breach of contract. We wouldn't have been awarded treble damages by the courts if it was obvious CUA was trying to steal our patent.
Very difficult these days to win patent lawsuits due to the "obviousness law". So, winning this lawsuit, strengthened our patent's value, not weakened it.

We want this industry to have a sensible solution. But, we have every right to capitilize
on all the hard work, time and money that we have put into our project, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Cathy, don't get me wrong, as I read it you were being ripped off by CUA.

You are right about capitalizing on your work. If you provide a product that a contractor can invest in and expect a decent return on his or her investment you WILL capitalize on your work.

You aren't offering any viable options for the average Joe to use your "patented" technology.

Imagine how much more money would be in your pocket and in your investor's pocket's right now if you had bypassed CUA and now had hundreds of contractors paying you minimal "licensing fees" just to add flocculation to their mobile filtration equipment using their own designs.

How many of them would buy flocculant powder from you?

How much money would that put in your and your investor's pockets?

How many would get tired of working with their own "experiments" and eventually upgrade to your equipment?

If priced reasonably you could position yourself as an industry leader and a community minded company. As it stands right now 13 years have passed since you filed the patent and I've never seen one of your units on the road. The clock is ticking, you only have 7 years left. Do you plan to spend that on "defense" or "offence"?

Just some thoughts.

And Cathy, If I am interpreting your response regarding patent violation correctly what you are trying to say is "Yes, using any type of flocculation on a trailer or truck at a worksite IS a violation of your patent regardless of the equipment configuration". Is that correct?
 
We have always offered the PW Systems to the pressure washing industry.

It has always been our intent to be a supplier, not a service provider. We tried to sell the systems to your industry for several years. No one was interested. So, to survive, we went into the service business to make a little money, demonstrate to government and test, test, test to confirm our technology.

However, we still couldn't compete against the companies who were not properly managing their wastewater, even with a dual system. So, 5 years ago, we contracted with CUA to build the first Ride On portable Pressure Washer, the Swabby 48, so we could work faster. But, when we received it didn't work, vacuum recovery was pitiful and the pump blew up in just 57 hours. Couldn't get CUA to come to California to fix it. In the meantime, CUA began selling our systems, telling us no one was interested in our vacuum recovery wastewater treatment system..

About 2 years into it, we found out through a press release that CUA had defrauded our company....just when Gary was diagnosed with terminal leukemia, which we have been battling ever since. Took us almost 3 years to get through the legal process to defend our patent. During that time, we put everything on hold. I wanted out. But, Gary kept working on redesigning and improving the PW Sytsems to be even more productive and environmentally compliant. He told me he wanted me to continue on, no matter what happens to him. So, now that we are done defending our patent, we are ready to start again, offering licensing opportunities.
 
To clarify in simple terms. Our patent is only for a MOBILE vacuum recovery/clay based flocculant system, not any other type of flocculating system, such as using polymers.
 
I'm sorry to hear about the health problems.

At this point how can Parker West and the PW community come together? Are there any options that the average PW'er can afford to get into in this economy?

I think there are few here who would condone any lobbying of the government for stricter rules but there are a lot of companies who would like to reclaim and re-use the water for faster service.

What are your thoughts?
 
Sorry to hear about the health problems, I have had relatives pass with similar situations and I know how hard it can be.

Cathy, would you be interested in talking with the contractors here that are interested in the floc technology? Conference calls can happen easily and we can have some great discussions instead of typing back and forth.

We have some online chats on Thursday nites over on FWA (fleetwashacademy.com), you just have to register there. It is a good chatroom,please let us know if you would like to.

Let us know when you might have some time if you would rather have a conference call with those that are interested in this floc technology and we can have a conference call and maybe work something out were we all benefit.

Have a nice day!
 
greg/sd said:
Can we as pressure cleaning contractors use flocculent on our pressure washing rigs to process washwater and not be sued. Its is a simple question that requires a simple answer.
Click to expand...

I am not into suing. That is why we are offering licensing agreements to everyone you unkowingly are infringing on our patent. We want as many people as possible who are really attempting to it the right way to SUCCEED. We do not, absolutely want to shut you down. We are here to support you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top