Yes, SGLB's S-1 filing reminds me of Google's S-1 filing. Both have very similar wording. For example, I'll compare the Intellectual property disclaimer in google with Sigma Labs. Looks like standard SEC safe harbor provisions.
Google IP in S-1 filing
We also seek to maintain certain intellectual property as trade secrets. The secrecy could be compromised by third parties, or intentionally or accidentally by our employees, which would cause us to lose the competitive advantage resulting from these trade secrets.
We are, and may in the future be, subject to intellectual property rights claims, which are costly to defend, could require us to pay damages and could limit our ability to use certain technologies in the future.
Companies in the Internet, technology and media industries own large numbers of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets and frequently enter into litigation based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. As we face increasing competition, the possibility of intellectual property rights claims against us grows. Our technologies may not be able to withstand any third-party claims or rights against their use. Any intellectual property claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming, expensive to litigate or settle and could divert management resources and attention. In addition, many of our agreements with members of our Google Network require us to indemnify these members for third-party intellectual property infringement claims, which would increase our costs as a result of defending such claims and may require that we pay damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. An adverse determination also could prevent us from offering our products and services to others and may require that we procure substitute products or services for these members.
With respect to any intellectual property rights claim, we may have to pay damages or stop using technology found to be in violation of a third party’s rights. We may have to seek a license for the technology, which may not be available on reasonable terms and may significantly increase our operating expenses. The technology also may not be available for license to us at all. As a result, we may also be required to develop alternative non-infringing technology, which could require significant effort and expense. If we cannot license or develop technology for the infringing aspects of our business, we may be forced to limit our product and service offerings and may be unable to compete effectively. Any of these results could harm our brand and operating results.
SGLB IP in S-1 filing
..."We may be unable to protect our intellectual property rights...Our success in part depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology...There can be no assurance that our program for protection of intellectual property and proprietary technology will be sufficient to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology from competitors. Our business is also subject to the risk that our issued patents will not provide us with significant competitive advantages if, for example, a competitor were to independently develop or obtain similar or superior technologies. In addition, our issued patents may be challenged or infringed upon by third parties. The enforcement of intellectual property rights is subject to considerable uncertainty, and can be expensive and time-consuming. Patent reform laws and court decisions interpreting such laws, may create additional uncertainty around our ability to obtain and enforce patent protection. Any significant impairment of our intellectual property rights could harm our business and our ability to compete. The unauthorized use of our intellectual property could make it more expensive to do business and harm our operating results. Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also very important to our business, however, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential or proprietary information...
