Posts
3462
Joined
9/4/2006
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Edited Date/Time
1/23/2012 2:32am
$18 million in gross revenues for the first year is pretty good-- but you gotta hire a lot of lawyers.
Are they being sued by State of California? (this is edited version)
FY2007/FY2006 Financial Results: FY2007 and FY 2006 financial results are posted on our Web Site at http://www.leatt-corp.com. Below is a summary of these results. In FY2007, our first year of full operations, we produced net income of $1,946,330 on operating income of $6,667,760 and gross revenues of $18,317,382. Our operating profit margin in FY2007 was 37%. Since these results represent our first operational year and are based on two variations of the same product, we are very pleased with the outcome. With an expanded product line and increased marketing efforts last year, we expect our FY2008 results to reflect further progress in growing the company, despite the economic upset of the past several months. We are also introducing SAP Business One as our accounting and database tool and are enhancing our accounting and financial capabilities in general.
Litigation Updates: We have spent considerable time and resources to produce an innovative neck brace technology that has been proven in the field. The Company has patent coverage and other registered IP rights around the globe. We have previously announced that we would aggressively litigate to protect our patents and intellectual property rights. Earlier this year we settled an infringement matter in the United Kingdom; we cannot divulge details of the settlement since it is subject to a confidentiality agreement, however the competitor (FRO Systems) was prevented from entering the market place (See the press release at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
We have engaged Connelly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP as our IP law firm to assist in our ongoing efforts to protect our valuable IP in the USA.
The Company has recently withdrawn its patent infringement suit against Alpinestars S.P.A. and Alpinestars USA Inc. ("Alpinestars"), even though we believe we have a strong case. The Company believes that it should focus its efforts on promoting the Leatt-Brace® Neck Brace System in the United States, rather than on litigating this infringement claim. The Company withdrew its suit without prejudice, thus preserving its future right to refile the case against Alpinestars, and as a result of the companies accretion that the Alpinestars product would not enjoy commercial success (See the press release at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
Before consumers consider competing products, they should consider the actual testing and track record of the neck brace in question. We are confident that such a comparison will result in the purchase of the Leatt-Brace®.
On December 11, 2008, a South African court granted the Company's motion for restraining order against two former Company employees, which order temporarily restrains the former employees from commercial exploitation of Leatt-Brace® Moto-R Prototype 2 and disclosure of related proprietary information. The Company is pursuing a permanent injunction against the two former employees as well as other relief. The Company alleges that the two former employees are seeking to sell a neck brace based on the Leatt-Brace® Moto-R Prototype 2 neck brace through a California company and in violation of the Company's proprietary rights.
Recently the Company was named as one of twelve defendants in a California state court lawsuit. The claim is for alleged product defects and breach of product warranties. The Company believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against this action.
The Company announced that Leatt and Pro Tork, a Brazilian manufacturer of racing equipment, have reached a settlement of their dispute over the alleged infringement by Pro Tork of Leatt's intellectual property rights in Brazil. Leatt had brought action against Pro Tork for the alleged infringement by Pro Tork's Neck Brace Pro product of Leatt's rights in the Leatt-Brace® Moto GPX. Under the terms of settlement, Pro Tork has ceased all international sale and distribution of its Neck Brace Pro product and will pay an undisclosed sum to Leatt. (The Company's press release regarding the settlement is available at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
Are they being sued by State of California? (this is edited version)
FY2007/FY2006 Financial Results: FY2007 and FY 2006 financial results are posted on our Web Site at http://www.leatt-corp.com. Below is a summary of these results. In FY2007, our first year of full operations, we produced net income of $1,946,330 on operating income of $6,667,760 and gross revenues of $18,317,382. Our operating profit margin in FY2007 was 37%. Since these results represent our first operational year and are based on two variations of the same product, we are very pleased with the outcome. With an expanded product line and increased marketing efforts last year, we expect our FY2008 results to reflect further progress in growing the company, despite the economic upset of the past several months. We are also introducing SAP Business One as our accounting and database tool and are enhancing our accounting and financial capabilities in general.
Litigation Updates: We have spent considerable time and resources to produce an innovative neck brace technology that has been proven in the field. The Company has patent coverage and other registered IP rights around the globe. We have previously announced that we would aggressively litigate to protect our patents and intellectual property rights. Earlier this year we settled an infringement matter in the United Kingdom; we cannot divulge details of the settlement since it is subject to a confidentiality agreement, however the competitor (FRO Systems) was prevented from entering the market place (See the press release at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
We have engaged Connelly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP as our IP law firm to assist in our ongoing efforts to protect our valuable IP in the USA.
The Company has recently withdrawn its patent infringement suit against Alpinestars S.P.A. and Alpinestars USA Inc. ("Alpinestars"), even though we believe we have a strong case. The Company believes that it should focus its efforts on promoting the Leatt-Brace® Neck Brace System in the United States, rather than on litigating this infringement claim. The Company withdrew its suit without prejudice, thus preserving its future right to refile the case against Alpinestars, and as a result of the companies accretion that the Alpinestars product would not enjoy commercial success (See the press release at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
Before consumers consider competing products, they should consider the actual testing and track record of the neck brace in question. We are confident that such a comparison will result in the purchase of the Leatt-Brace®.
On December 11, 2008, a South African court granted the Company's motion for restraining order against two former Company employees, which order temporarily restrains the former employees from commercial exploitation of Leatt-Brace® Moto-R Prototype 2 and disclosure of related proprietary information. The Company is pursuing a permanent injunction against the two former employees as well as other relief. The Company alleges that the two former employees are seeking to sell a neck brace based on the Leatt-Brace® Moto-R Prototype 2 neck brace through a California company and in violation of the Company's proprietary rights.
Recently the Company was named as one of twelve defendants in a California state court lawsuit. The claim is for alleged product defects and breach of product warranties. The Company believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against this action.
The Company announced that Leatt and Pro Tork, a Brazilian manufacturer of racing equipment, have reached a settlement of their dispute over the alleged infringement by Pro Tork of Leatt's intellectual property rights in Brazil. Leatt had brought action against Pro Tork for the alleged infringement by Pro Tork's Neck Brace Pro product of Leatt's rights in the Leatt-Brace® Moto GPX. Under the terms of settlement, Pro Tork has ceased all international sale and distribution of its Neck Brace Pro product and will pay an undisclosed sum to Leatt. (The Company's press release regarding the settlement is available at: http://www.leatt-corp.com/).
I've been wearing the EVS...that won't get me in legal trouble will it?
Anyone using the "I can't afford one" is kidding themselves. You can find used ones all over. You can even buy a new one if you save up some dough. Think of all the other things you will buy that might not be necessary, new gear, new boots, that new pipe, graphics, other stufflike that.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
I actually had a hard crash the first time I wore the Evo in Arencross. It was a side-slap kind of landing that knocked me cold. It's hard to say how much the brace did. But I can say my neck didn't hurt at all even though I had a sprained shoulder and some nasty bruises all over.
Anyone that has difficulty understanding the benefits of capitalism over socialism/communism can find a good example in the motorcycle industry. Google Jawa/CZ and see what communist Czech produced at the same time the Japanese were developing the Elsinore, YZ's and RM's...
A neck brace may not save your life, but, its readily available, why take the risk? Look how fast life can change. Hopefully you'll never need it, but why not have it there in case you do?
Every plane has flotation devices under the seat. I've never used one, but I'm glad it's there in case . hahaha
I high sided at E-Town in practice after coming together with a guy on the practice track in a high speed right hand sweeper. I hit my head hard, spit some blood from a bite on the tongue, smashed the visor off my TLD helmet , and really rung my bell. The next day I totally expected some serious whip lash, and discomfort. My neck felt fine. I was so impressed. Didn't save my life by any means, but prevented a miserable week of work havin a tweaked and sore neck. I don't even ride my quad clowning around in the snow with out my Leatt any more. LOL
I had a crash that changed my life, and I'm only 30. It was a fluke thing, and I had all my braces and protective equipment on. I would hate to look back and be able to blame my injury on negligence on my part in not using what's available in terms of safety . Hell it's hard enough dealing with it knowing I was at least doin my favorite thing in life when I got hurt. hahaha
Not at all
The Leatt uses shelves to provide a alternate load path around the neck during compression forces on top of the helmet. There was nothing like this on the market before the Leatt so that's why their intellectual property was granted patents to protect their design.
Pit Row
We are closing the gap on quality. In fact, 6 of 17 2008 JD Powers best in category awards went to American cars. There are also a lot of other five star rated US made cars if you do the research. Where the Japanese kill us is the compact car category.
The HANS is secured firmly to the shoulders via the safety belt's five-point harness, the helmet is then clipped via tether to the HANS.
So in a crash, the force of the head movement is transferred to the HANS and then the safety belt harness.
The LEATT is not secured to the shoulders or body, the helmet is not tethered to it and it's primary purpose is to prevent hyper-extension of the neck by reducing forward and backward movement via the "shelves"
HANS has no "shelves"
Look similar, work totally different
I'm not dogging Leatt's design, it's a great first effort, but by suing all their competitors, there's not much chance we'll get a BETTER design any time soon. And theirs isn't the ultimate in anyone's estimation. Suing competitors over such an obvious and derivative design is unconscionable.
The way normal businesses operate, which is how moto businesses should operate, is that other companies can leverage off another entity's investment in developing a patented product by taking a license. There's nothing that prevents any other company from striking a deal with Leatt or from taking innovation even further.
Allowing other companies to copy protected material doesn't benefit anyone as far as making more safety equipment available. What it does, in fact, is stifle innovation.
So you don't like the Leatt.....fine. Don't buy one. There are a couple other options now. Get one of those.
If the design was so simple and obvious, then you should have done this years ago. You'd be rich now. Plainly, Dr. Leatt saw a need for a neck protection device. I'd guess he looked at everything out there to do similar functions and took the best of all those devices. Then he made whatever improvements he thought the public would want and safety would warrant. Now you have the Leatt. There are lots of people in the world that make big dollars to decide what gets patents and what don't. They get paid to know more about intellectual property than you. They decided the Leatt was worthy of patents, so no one else can infringe on those patents now.
Post a reply to: Leatt financial statements...