PhaZZer Electronics, Inc., a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, continues to defend its right to fairly compete against Taser International, Inc. (TASR), which recently changed its name to Axon (AAXN)

KISSIMMEE, Fla., April 20, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- PhaZZer Electronics, Inc. ("PhaZZer") has recently been informed that Taser International, Inc. ("Taser") has been releasing for its self-serving business development several documents, including a "Taser/PhaZZer CEW Comparison," all in an attempt to potentially mislead purchasers, including law enforcement agencies, and possibly the public-at-large, regarding the status of a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Taser against PhaZZer ("Suit"), and the procurement costs and features of the PhaZZer conductive energy weapon (CEW).

In a seemingly unfair and unjust promotion of its products, Taser has made several false statements in this "Taser/PhaZZer CEW Comparison", including:

"PhaZZer CEW infringes Taser's patent and trademark" without any such determination by the Federal Court; indeed, PhaZZer has a motion to dismiss the entire Suit pending,

[The PhaZZer Enforcer] "Can't be retriggered after 3^rd try", when in fact, it takes less than a second to reset this safety feature in the PhaZZer Enforcer,

[PhaZZer has] "1 holster with exposed cartridge", when in fact, PhaZZer has several holster options for Law Enforcement and consumer use

[PhaZZer] has "no ISO or Mil Standard Certification", when in fact, PhaZZer factories are ISO 9001 certified.

These objectively false statements of Taser are improper, and PhaZZer maintains that Taser's falsehoods are for the purpose of influencing consumers and their purchasing decisions; with a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of PhaZZer's audience. 

In addition, it is PhaZZer's opinion that Taser is making a clear attempt to produce fear among PhaZZer's actual and potential consumers by issuing inflammatory statements, such as:

"It's not clear that PhaZZer has the financial strength to stay in business…",

"It is questionable if PhaZZer has insurance to protect the customer in the event of serious bodily injury or death" - It should be noted that PhaZZer has had no serious bodily injuries or deaths from the usage of our CEW and has maintained both litigation/risk policy and aggregate liability policy for the past four years.

"Taser has sued 2 previous CEW manufactures for patent infringement (Stinger and Karbon Arms), and prevailed in both lawsuits. Both companies are now out of business.", and 

"Taser has over 150 patents and has filed a complaint against PhaZZer …." when Taser's Suit only asserts one allegedly infringed patent which will expire in only two years on October 14, 2019.

PhaZZer notes that the US Patent and Trademark office has already taken up Reexamination of the patent asserted in the Suit and initially rejected all of its claims. Even if the patent is eventually resuscitated to some degree, PhaZZer intends to file for a second Reexamination of any surviving claims with the US Patent and Trademark Office

With a trial in the above Suit not even scheduled until 2018, or later, and PhaZZer's intent to appeal and stay any unlikely judgement against it, time will apparently run on any injunction sought by Taser.

PhaZZer believes that healthy competition drives companies to create better products, provide superior customer service, and drive cost down for the consumer.  

PhaZZer will continue to move forward despite these efforts by Taser to mislead consumers.  PhaZZer believes in its products and, in PhaZZer's opinion, the egregious falsehoods of Taser only provide further proof that Taser is desperately concerned about PhaZZer's competing CEW products and the substantial growth of PhaZZer in the marketplace.

SOURCE PhaZZer Electronics, Inc.