Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[joshuaeyu]

LQMT response on Alloy Clarification. This will be the last time I addressed this topic.



April 20th 2018


Can u share with us why DC-105s and INJ-105s are removed off Table 1 on this latest revision of design guide?

We found that 106c and 105s perform comparably and have decided to standardize on a single alloy for the EON system. EON also uses 106c as their primary alloy, allowing us to collaborate on quality and cost improvements.

April 24th 2018


We know LM105 is LQMT Formulation (IP)
Please clarify 105s and 106c for its formulation (IP) ownership.

The LM105, 105c and 106c alloy formulations are not protected by patents specifically. However, all of these formulations are made within tightly controlled and proprietary specifications. For example, all constituent metals have impurities such as iron, sulphur or tin, and these alloys are highly reactive with oxygen. We invest heavily to understand which impurities at what levels can be tolerated by our process. Achieving very high purity is extremely expensive, but allowing certain levels of impurities can compromise surface finish, the ability to completely fill a mold, strength, fatigue, corrosion, etc. Knowing how to specify cost-effective, high performing alloys is part of our core intellectual property. Comprehensive analysis of various alloys is time consuming and expensive. Hence, our decision to focus on only two standard alloys, namely LM105 and 106c.

Let me frame my question in a slightly different way.
There were 4 alloys which was spec in design guide 4.2 namely INJ-LM105, INJ-105s, DC-105s,DC-106c.
I assume INJ-105s and DC-105s are the same alloy just being used in two different machines.
Is that correct?

This would be correct.

If yes, then there were 3 alloys namely LM105, 105s, 106c.
Is that correct?

Correct.

Out of those 3 alloys, does any of them trigger the cross license agreement between Eon and LQMT in order to the shared by the two companies?

While not patented, the chemical composition/ specifications is shared under the spirit of the Parallel License Agreement.

I was under the assumption that 105s is Eon formulation while LM105 and 106c are LQMT formulation. Are you stated none of those alloys are under patent control?

None are under patent control, but that doesn’t mean the material specifications are public or otherwise known outside of LQMT.

Can I assume LM105 “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which LM105 can be used would fall under these efforts.

Now that 105s has been removed from design guide 4.4. Can I assume 106c “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use also?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

If yes and Eon has plan to use 106c for their production use. Can I assume 106c “WILL” trigger cross license agreement for EON production use then?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

For metal purity (hence high cost), can I assume LM105 is the “pure hence high cost” version while 106c can have artificial defect due to low purity but can be marketed for lower cost.

We currently only view at an application level. Given size parameters under the two platforms (and alloy characteristics) we look at LM 105 on the Engel platform as the best fit for medical grade parts and 106c on Eon for industrial and automotive applications.

Does machine output (Engel vs Eon) contribute different quality result with the same alloy? In another word, will LM105 produce better result when use in Engel machine than Eon machine?

Each alloy is used under a different platform. As you can deduce from the design guide, LM105 is used on the Engel platform and 106c on the Eon platform.

Oct 24th 2018

EON Systems Advance
We are also quoting more business on our EON systems, which are fully upgraded for US operations with increased robotics and automated lubrication systems. Part quality is excellent. This lower cost system was initially targeted for price-sensitive industrial parts, but it is proving to be suitable for demanding medical and automotive applications.

We continue to drive ongoing projects that are progressing to domestic production, but we have increased our focus on developing EON-based projects. Our ability to develop parts in the US, and produce in China, is very attractive for customers that require very high production volumes.

Nov 6th 2018

Liquidmetal and Yihao are working together to improve the cost of commercial AMM machines, alloys and processing methods to open markets globally.

Jan 29th 2019

Work continues with EON affiliate Yihao Metals to develop parts for large international customers. This work leverages our shared amorphous metal technology to support customer design and qualification efforts domestically while able to rapidly scale production in the US and China.