DOOH world beware: another patent owner wants to claim your money

I received this “press release” by email from David Sitbon, who is CEO and owner of a company named u-see2, according to this web site:

It struck me as odd, in many respects. I frankly have no idea what to make of it and I did not feel like digging deeper, since it’s not my field of expertise.

I post the doc as it was sent to me, without any edits:

“”Most of the US Dooh In-store vendors are using my patents. They will be asked to pay royalties for it, soon”.

This was said by Mr. David Sitbon,  a businessman who owns  a Dooh company called U-see2

The main patents is called “Advertising method and system with use of multi-screened computer monitor units” . The patent seems to claim that royalties are entitled for playing ads on almost any retail screen based on the service desks, facing customers.

Mr. Sitbon told us that the patent is valid to any counter screen (POS or other), playing Ads or promotions on screens located between the person who gives the service, to the person who gets the service (QSR, POS promo screens, Bank counters, etc) .  

“After few years of waiting and learning the US Dooh market”,  says Mr. David Sitbon, the owner of U-see2 , “we are currently choosing our local US partners, and getting ready to claim our rights, starting early 2017”.

A quick search over Google indicates that Mr. Sitbon has at least 10 additional Dooh patents.

The Most of his relevant  Dooh patent is called System & Method for Digital Multi- Lateral proofreading  during meeting.   . Either way, the 2 leading patents (which are mentioned above) are due to expire only on 2028, thus it seems he’s expected to play a significant role in the Global Dooh market in the coming years.” 

When I asked Mr. Sitbon’s representative, Avihai Michaeli, if they were aware of what the industry’s stance towards patent trolls was, he sent me the following (posted as is):

“We will offer the following comment:

Yes we do understand how any industry will see patents owners.
However, we believe that David’s case is different. David is someone who comes from the Dooh industry, and came up with idea for a double sided screen, which is the eccence of his company named u-See2 . Without protecting it with a patent the U-see2’s screen could be “just another screen” and David’s company potential incomes could be effected or terminated.

We could understand negative notions if the patent owner was coming from a different industry, to the one of the patent, and looking for “side money” from another industry. Patent Trolls are known as “non-practicing entity” but this is clearly not the case. U-see2’s business is the Dooh market. 

We believe that the courts of law, can tell the difference, as just happened in the Apple-Face time case in the beginning of October.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s