Stinger Systems Request Reexamination of Taser International's Intellectual Property

Stinger Systems Request Reexamination of Taser International's Intellectual
Property
Large Portion of Taser's Intellectual Property in Jeopardy

TAMPA, Fla., Jan. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: STIY), a leader in electro-stun technology today
announced that has submitted documents to the United States Patent and
Trademark Office requesting a reexamination of Taser International's
intellectual property.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently evaluating
whether to reexamine Taser International, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: TASR) United States
Patent 7,234,262. The application for the '262 Patent was filed on December 2,
2005. It is alleged that the application for the '262 Patent was erroneously
designated as a continuation of an earlier Taser patent application, filed on
September 17, 1999, and that Taser failed to disclose to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office that from at least the year 2000, Taser had
manufactured an M-26 model Taser, embodying the inventions claimed in the '262
application. It is further alleged that, consequently, the inventions claimed
in the '262 application are unpatentable as obvious pursuant to 35 United
States Code 103(a). A copy of the complete request for reexamination appears
at www.stingersystems.com.
In a pending law suit, that is Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger
Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: STIY), Stinger Systems, Inc. alleges that the erroneous
designation of Taser's December 2, 2005 '262 application as a continuation of
Taser's earlier September 17, 1999 application, and Taser's failure to
disclose during the application proceedings that it had, for some years prior
to 2005, manufactured an M-26 Taser, embodying inventions claimed in the '262
application, combine to constitute Taser's inequitable conduct before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. A federal court may not only
invalidate a patent in the event of an applicant's inequitable conduct when
prosecuting the application before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, but inequitable conduct with respect to one patent in a family of
patents can infect all related applications, Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania,
Inc..(Fed. Cir. 2007) 504 F.3d 1223, 1230. Patents in the family include
Taser's patents 6,636,412 and 7,075,770. Taser's patents 6,636,412, 7,075,770
and 7,234,262 may all be invalidated if Stinger's argument in the case
prevails.
Attorney James McNulty, Jr., who undertook advanced studies in business
with the late Peter Ferdinand Drucker and studied law under James E. Rogan,
former United States Under Secretary of State for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, commented "It
appears in my opinion that the financial markets are under the misimpression
that Taser International has a patent monopoly on projectile stun guns. In my
further opinion, this misimpression supports an unjustifiably speculative
price for Taser international stock. I have reviewed Taser's portfolio of
patents and in my considered professional opinion, the patents contained
therein are extremely narrow (and in some cases even farcical) patents, that
provide Taser little or no competitive advantage. However, Stinger believes
that all Companies must follow the protocols of patent filings and believe
that Taser has not done a proper job of filing these patents and must be
challenged. In my further considered professional opinion, Stinger realizes
the challenges of creating a state of the art stun gun that has the ability to
not just shock but immobilize individuals. That is the key to entering into
this market, to have technology that immobilizes. Stinger has that and has
filed for patents for its new technology. Stinger also has an active research
programs for multiple products. Stinger Systems, Inc. also sells patented
electronic prisoner transport and riot shield devices and has developed patent
pending technologies for reducing the size of disabling shock circuits for
discharge from conventional firearms."
ABOUT STINGER SYSTEMS
Stinger Systems, Inc., a leading provider of electro stun technologies,
develops and sells a broad array of products utilizing advanced electro sparc-
pulsed technology to police, corrections, and security sectors worldwide.
www.stingersystems.com.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This announcement contains forward-looking statements within the meaning
of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The forward-looking
statements are based on Stinger Systems' current intent, belief and
expectations. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and
are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict.
Actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements
because of the risks described in Stinger Systems' filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Existing and prospective investors are cautioned not
to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only
as of today's date. Stinger Systems undertakes no obligation to update or
revise the information contained in this announcement whether as a result of
new information, future events or circumstances, or otherwise.
SOURCE Stinger Systems, Inc.

Robert Gruder, CEO of Stinger Systems, Inc., +1-866-788-6746, or
info@stingersystems.com