The Tamko Class Action Lawsuit, developed by Tamko Corp. in South Bend, Indiana, is a patent infringement lawsuit filed against the Tamko Company (which produces Teflon coated roofing tiles and also other products) in the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges that Tamko manufactures and markets PVD coated roofing tiles that do not adhere to the stringent manufacturing requirements necessary for a legitimate patent. Specifically, Tamko contends that its products do not comply with the minimum requirement of one patent per product category.
On top of that, Tamko also contends that the claimed invention itself is not patented, but only a ‘misleading’ patent application that is legally meaningless under applicable patent rules. The Tamko class action lawsuit then proceeds to demand that Tamko give up all rights to the Tamko invention so that the judge can award damages against Tamko.
Tamko Class Action Lawsuit
If you’re involved in a Tamko Class Action Lawsuit, you may not be able to avoid this situation, even if you’re certain that your company’s product was illegally designed.
Tamko’s patent application does not disclose that there is a patented invention at issue, nor does it provide any details about how the invention came about. In short, Tamko manufactures roofing tiles based upon ‘insider’ information that’s freely available on the net, including design ideas for the Tamko Class Action Lawsuit, rather than on good faith estimates of how many roofs will be produced. Further, the claims in this case do not even describe any unique or unusual features of the PVD roof tiles that would make them unique.
Furthermore, even if the claims do describe some ‘inventions’ that were unique to Tamko roofing tiles, such as special hinges, clips, or flaps, what exactly are these ‘inventions’?
Furthermore, how did these supposed inventions come about? Were they implemented by Tamko or independently developed by other parties? The fact that Tamko has adopted a strict policy of protecting its confidential information, as well as a vow to keep confidential all data and documents relating to the development of Tamko roofing tiles makes it clear that it must have developed the roofing tiles on its own without outside influence.
Tamko’s own claims are problematic.
For example, it is undisputed that Tamko designed the ‘clipping’ mechanism that allows roofing tiles to be neatly strapped together in the middle of a roof space. It is also undisputed that Tamko designed and patented a specific method of ensuring that the tiles are properly aligned when secured to the roof structure. Finally, it is undisputed that Tamko actually did implement one of these methods in its own product-the Tamko Class Action Lawsuit.
Now let’s get serious. Let’s assume that Tamko did nothing wrong here.
That would indeed be an amazing achievement for any company, let alone one that claims to have invented something that can prevent or stop leaks in roofs! But Tamko has a long history of coming under fire from roofing professionals for apparently misleading the field with its claims and its overall lack of understanding of the claims it makes. These claims go on to say that Tamko’s Class Action Lawsuit is deceptive and defamatory of roofing professionals, even though this is most certainly not true.
Roofing professionals, it seems, do not hold a monopoly when it comes to being confused by Tamko Class Action Lawsuit claims.
Some may have doubts about the construction of the Class Action Lawsuit website, but the better way to approach this is to ask whether the website is truly independent or if it is biased due to funding arrangements or, worse still, undisclosed payments to the attorneys who will be handling the Tamko case. It’s hard to imagine that Tamko would choose to give the attorneys behind the website much money, but one cannot exactly blame Tamko for not coming clean with regards to its role in the development of the Class Action Lawsuit website.
Whether this was done out of fear of upsetting the roofing industry, or to cover their own backs while in the process of marketing a product that may in fact harm consumers, or even just for sheer greed – nobody really knows, but you know something is fishy when it happens – you know something is wrong if the lawyers behind the site cannot come up with solid facts or, worse, outright lies about the effects of their ‘tried and tested’ revolutionary design!