Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

This does not address 106c which is a JOINT alloy w Yihao-Eontec and uses Eontec equipment.

If 106c was jointly developed by Yihao and Eontec, why is LQMT getting any revenue? Under your facts, 106c is not owned by LQMT and is not patented by LQMT, which means that 106c is outside of the Parallel License Agreement, and consequently, territorial exclusivity doesn't apply. Why would Yihao/Eontec or Asus pay LQMT for something that LQMT doesn't own and isn't covered by the territorial exclusivity provision of the Parallel License Agreement?

Also LQMT hasn’t fought to pursue legal action against Asus for using ball demo, mentioning past products, citing references in presentations, or using the Liquidmetal name—why????

What is Apple's cause of action for Asus using the ball demo? Apple doesn't own the demo. Apple has a perpetual and exclusive license to the technology, but it doesn't control everything LQMT, including the bouncing ball demo.

What is Apple's cause of action for "mentioning past products, citing references in presentations"? (I assume you mean Apple's "past products" and that Asus is doing the mentioning.) In America, there is the legal doctrine of "fair use" which allows you to mention competitors and their products. The same applies to "citing references in presentations."

What is Apple's cause of action for "using the Liquidmetal name"? The Liquidmetal name isn't owned by Apple nor exclusively licensed to Apple.