Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

That's really not true. Not being a wiseacre, but would the question asked to two long-time law firm partners, in different firms, doing loads of IP litigation and IP protection for Fortune 500 companies, with Engineering degrees from MIT and Princeton, along with law degrees from similarly situated Universities suffice? I'd hope so. That Eon patent wasn't long to review.

I'm quite impressed with your ability to get the opinion of not one, but two, eminently qualified patent attorneys so quickly (and presumably without being billed).

I won't even get into the photos of the trademarked Apple in the Eon patent. That's willful patent infringement if it doesn't have Apple's consent and that's treble damages.
(post 129552; http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=134777235

Would you be so kind as to clarify what is Eontec doing that allegedly infringes an Apple patent? Is it the use of Apple's trademark logo in the patent application? Is it the item that was depicted in the application? Is it the patent itself?

You seem to be inferring that the patent itself is an infringement of Apple's patents. If so, that raises an interesting issue. Many people have asserted that Eontec can do whatever it wants, without Apple's consent, with Eontec IP. However, you seem to feel that Eontec's IP "infringes" on Apple's patent. I guess Eontec's IP isn't as broad as people thought.

To determine whether an device infringes a patent, you must read the alleged infringing device onto a claim of the patent. If one element of the claim is not found in the device, then the device does not infringe.

Are you saying that they reviewed the Eontec patent and concluded that it constitutes patent infringement and that treble damages may apply? Would you care to share what Apple patent they allegedly read the infringement upon? To have found infringement, your attorneys would need to have not only read the Eontec patent, but found an Apple patent that "claims" whatever it is that you are asserting is the infringing device.