InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 22
Posts 7125
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/21/2012

Re: CI Rainmaker post# 31469

Thursday, 10/23/2014 5:14:55 PM

Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:14:55 PM

Post# of 104389
I guess I'd prefer to stick with the words on record:

* From the press release "...optioning Thick-Shell 'Giant' Quantum Dot patented technology"
* LANL's Express licensing: http://www.lanl.gov/projects/feynman-center/licensing/express-licensing.php "non-exclusive rights"
* and Art's post #21596 avoids saying "exclusive."
* I didn't check the last two Q's but there is almost nothing in the K about the thick shell license.

WRT to Bayer, 10K says they acquired them. It will be interesting to see what the next Q has to say about that deal. Unlike the licenses which would be defended by Rice, Arizona, LANL, etc., QMC owns the cost of defending these Bayer inventions, most of which are non-USA ("3 domestically and 33 internationally"). And again QMC's words from the recent 10-K:


If we are unable to protect our intellectual property adequately, we could lose our competitive advantage in the nanotechnology market.

Our ability to compete effectively against competing technologies will depend, in part, on our ability to protect our current and future licensed and other proprietary technology, product designs and manufacturing processes by obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing our intellectual property rights through a combination of licenses, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets and also through unfair competition laws. We may not be able to obtain, maintain or enforce adequately our intellectual property and may need to defend our products against infringement or misappropriation claims, either of which could result in the loss of our competitive advantage in our marketplace and materially harm our business and profitability. We face the following risks in protecting our intellectual property and in developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling our products:

• possible loss of our exclusive licenses with Rice and the University of Arizona;
• we cannot be certain that Rice’s patent will be sufficient to prevent others from developing or using technology similar to ours or in developing, using, manufacturing, marketing or selling products similar to ours;
• given the costs of obtaining patent protection, we may choose not to file patent applications for or not to maintain issued patents for certain innovations that later turn out to be important, or we may choose not to obtain foreign patent protection at all or to obtain patent protection in only some of the foreign countries, which later turn out to be important markets for us;
• the laws of some foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States, and we may encounter difficulties in protecting and defending our rights in such foreign jurisdictions;
• third parties may design around our licensed technologies, and there is no assurance that any licensed patents and other intellectual property rights will be sufficient to deter infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights by others;
• third parties may seek to challenge or invalidate any licensed patents, which can result in a narrowing of or invalidating our patents or licensed patents, or rendering such rights unenforceable;
• we may have to participate in proceedings such as interference, cancellation, or opposition, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or before foreign patent and trademark offices, with respect to our patents, licensed patents, any patent applications, trademarks or trademark applications or those of others, and these actions may result in substantial costs to us as well as a diversion of management attention;
• although we are not currently involved in any litigation involving intellectual property rights, we may need to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties for infringement or misappropriation or defend our intellectual property rights through lawsuits, which can result in significant costs and diversion of management resources, and we may not be successful in those lawsuits;
• we rely on trade secret protections to protect our interests in proprietary know-how and processes for which patents are difficult to obtain or enforce; however, we may not be able to protect our trade secrets adequately; and
• the contractual provisions on which we rely to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, such as our confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with our employees, consultants and other third parties, may be breached, and our trade secrets and proprietary information may be disclosed to competitors, strategic partners and the public, or others may independently develop technology equivalent to our trade secrets and proprietary information.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.