header logo

CTC frauds and corruption

CTC Global Caught in Illegal Contract and Corruption Scandal with Officials

In 2017, the Premium Times published an article about cases of corruption involving CTC Global and Power Transmissions officials, covering contracts from 2012 up to 2017.
The article highlights how by corrupting officials, CTC Global managed to avoid any competitive bidding for the projects, and pushed Power Transmissions authorities to buy overpriced products.

Fraudulent representation of ACCC product performance

In 2018, Jason Huang, CTC’s original CEO and then CTC’s Chief Technology Officer from 2010 to 2016, claimed in a California court proceeding that he was wrongfully terminated by CTC because he challenged CTC’s fraudulent representation that its product could perform in a manner CTC had not evidenced it could, which put the public at risk (Global Corporation v. Jason Huang et al, Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES).
This allegation by the former boss and chief engineer of the company raises some severe doubts about CTC claims regarding ACCC performance.

Patent fraud

During the prosecution US Patent No. 7,368,162 the Patent Owner and/or inventors exhibited a pattern and practice of plagiarizing, concealing, and not disclosing material and adverse reference and documents.
Either through or by their patent attorneys the Patent Owner filed applications that plagiarized numerous references and then failed to disclose the references.
A particularly egregious violation is the blatant extensive plagiarism of Douglass et al., Maximize Use of Existing Route, New conductor designs offer improved properties for increasing current-carrying capacity, Transmission & Distribution World, pgs. 22-27 (March 1, 2002) (hereinafter Douglass).
Douglass, a material reference, summarized the then current industry interest and research into overhead conductors including the use of carbon and fiberglass composites. Not only was almost all of the first three pages of the Provisional application a verbatim plagiarism of Douglass, but during Ex Parte Reexamination Application No. 90/011,740, and contrary to the undisclosed Douglass article which the Patent Owner knew about, the Patent Owner argued composites were not known for use in overhead conductors or cable.

It is also worth noting that through a separate inquiry into citations reported in the Provisional application the use of composites in overhead conductors was further substantiated in the following news article: Study on the use of composite materials in electric power transmission to be reported Composites pg. 2 (Jan. 1987).

Most of the first three pages of the Provisional Application No. 60/374,879 filed April 23, 2002, were copied verbatim from Douglass. A comparison of text from the Provisional Application and Douglass is shown in Table 1. Such an exact copying can only mean that the Douglass reference was readily available prior to the filing of the Provisional Application.
Clearly, the extensive verbatim plagiarism of Douglass and the extensive copying from other references are violations of USPTO Rules 11.804 (c) and (d).

Much of the Provisional Application is presented as a compilation of paraphrased or copied text. In fact, most of the disclosed subject matter relating to the claimed composite core, its properties, and methods of manufacture come from other sources, many in the public domain, such that substantially all the inventive features are mere design choices based on known art.