Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

There isn’t any contractual obligation for the “kickbacks.” That belief started off as wishful thinking and has been repeated so often that it is believed as truth.

Here are the facts (no wishful thinking):

1. Apple has an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, perpetual, fully paid up license to LQMT technology, as defined by the MTA, in the field of Consumer Electronic devices.


2. Apple can use and sublicense that licensed technology worldwide without regard to any payments to LQMT.

3. Eontec and LQMT entered into a cross licensing agreement of their respective technologies with the stipulation that cross licensed could not be licensed in the field of CE devices. This stipulation was a consequence of Apple having exclusive use of LQMT technology in the field of CE devices.

4. Apple isn’t a party to the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement.

5. The EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement provides for exclusive territories but fails to establish enforcement mechanisms.

6. The exclusivity provision only applies to components made using cross licensed technology. (So, if Eontec manufacturers something that doesn’t use LQMT technology, then there is no territorial exclusivity with regard to that item.)

7. The EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement does NOT require royalty payments.

Given these facts, if Apple goes to YIHAO and wants a BMG component made, then Apple would grant YIHAO a sublicense to manufacture that component for Apple. That BMG component is outside of the scope of the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement. There is no reason, but wishful thinking, to believe that a royalty would come to LQMT.