Law suit - File #29200/3/2011

Law suit - File #29200/3/2011Law suit - File #29200/3/2011Jean Yves Thibaudet vs. Jean Yves Thibaudet vs. RumanianRumanian State & Ion I. State & Ion I.

Basgan Jr.Basgan Jr.

Fondation Ion Basgan – August 2013 Fondation Ion Basgan – August 2013 Strictly confidentiallyStrictly confidentially

October 28, 2011 - October 28, 2011 - the five heirs of Jean Philibert Thibaudet, represented by the son the five heirs of Jean Philibert Thibaudet, represented by the son Jean Yves Thibaudet, sued in the Court of Bucharest, the Rumanian State represented Jean Yves Thibaudet, sued in the Court of Bucharest, the Rumanian State represented by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in order to recover the royalties and other by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in order to recover the royalties and other intellectual property rights, rising from the US patent # 2’103’137. It appears that intellectual property rights, rising from the US patent # 2’103’137. It appears that Romania used the above mentioned intellectual property rights, to compensate the Romania used the above mentioned intellectual property rights, to compensate the payment balance with USA, in the years 60’s. payment balance with USA, in the years 60’s.

February 21, 2012February 21, 2012 – the ex-senator Ion I. Basgan (Jr.), contesting the quality of owner – the ex-senator Ion I. Basgan (Jr.), contesting the quality of owner of Thibaudet with respect to the US patent 2’103’137, intervened in the Law suit, of Thibaudet with respect to the US patent 2’103’137, intervened in the Law suit, pretending he is the owner of this patent, based on the Heir Certificates #1 and #9. Ion I. pretending he is the owner of this patent, based on the Heir Certificates #1 and #9. Ion I. Basgan (Jr.) denied the Assignment dated 1940, between the inventor Ion Basgan and Basgan (Jr.) denied the Assignment dated 1940, between the inventor Ion Basgan and J.P. Thibaudet.J.P. Thibaudet.

February 26, 2013 -February 26, 2013 - the Decision of the the Decision of the Court of Bucharest Court of Bucharest dismissed the claim of JY dismissed the claim of JY Thibaudet and didn’t recognised the quality of owner of Thibaudet, concerning the US Thibaudet and didn’t recognised the quality of owner of Thibaudet, concerning the US patent 2’103’137, ignoring the USPTO Certificate dated January 21-22, 2013.patent 2’103’137, ignoring the USPTO Certificate dated January 21-22, 2013.

Judge: Mrs Miruna LUPU; Court clerk: Mrs Cristina BACIUJudge: Mrs Miruna LUPU; Court clerk: Mrs Cristina BACIU

JY Thibaudet decided to JY Thibaudet decided to appealappeal to the highest court. to the highest court.

Chronology




Intervention of Basgan Jr. to reject the owner quality of Thibaudet




The Court decision to deny the statute of Thibaudet of owner of the US patent




Appeal of JY Thibaudet




The USPTO Notice / January 21-22, 2013




Court decision /February 4th, 1961 rejecting the assignment from 1940

Ion I. Basgan (Jr.), produced in the court a document like a part of a Decision of the Ion I. Basgan (Jr.), produced in the court a document like a part of a Decision of the court of the district TUDOR VLADIMIRESCU / Bucharest, dated February 4, 1961; by court of the district TUDOR VLADIMIRESCU / Bucharest, dated February 4, 1961; by this Decision, the Court, based on the hearing from January 21th, 1961, decided that:this Decision, the Court, based on the hearing from January 21th, 1961, decided that: the Assignment dated 1940, between the inventor Ion Basgan and J.P. Thibaudet was a the Assignment dated 1940, between the inventor Ion Basgan and J.P. Thibaudet was a simulation and is considerate as void. simulation and is considerate as void.

Several technical details should interpellate the judge:Several technical details should interpellate the judge:•This pretended document from 1961 This pretended document from 1961 has no file numberhas no file number. A law suit should . A law suit should automatically have a file number.automatically have a file number.•This This decision in first instance is not definitive,decision in first instance is not definitive, because JP Thibaudet should have, because JP Thibaudet should have, at least, the alternative of at least, the alternative of AppealAppeal..•How can a Court take a decision against JP Thibaudet, when Thibaudet had How can a Court take a decision against JP Thibaudet, when Thibaudet had no no acknowledgementacknowledgement about this law suit, he was about this law suit, he was not represented in the Court not represented in the Court and he and he had not the had not the possibility to defend possibility to defend him self or by an attorney.him self or by an attorney.




The assignment from 1940




Court decision /February 4th, 1961 rejecting the assignment from 1940




--

Thank YouThank You

Documents

Law suit - File #29200/3/2011