Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

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.

Can you share the source for the quotation? Some sources are more pertinent to LQMT than others.
SAY WHAT YOU MEAN
MEAN WHAT YOU SAY