Hi OT, I did a little dd tonight and here is what I found. This information comes from stock research on hotstocked.com
First, to your opinion that we don't own the technology, it appears you are correct:
"We entered into a license agreement on July 1, 2001 for patented technology relating to hydrophilic polyurethane matrices on an exclusive basis."
The key words in this statement are "exclusive basis".
Second, is the life of the agreement:
"Our license is a continuing one for the full life of the design patent, which was jointly developed by one of our former employees, and which covers the design, manufacture and use of a liquid-absorbent layer in a "molded sponge design." The patent expires in 2017.
The key words in this statement are "for the full life of the design patent".
Third, is SpongeTech's right to agreements with third parties.
"On January 31, 2006, our license agreement was amended. Pursuant to the terms of the amendment, we have the right to (i) enter into arrangements or agreements with third parties to use third parties' logos, name, slogans and/or marks on our products for advertising, promotion, manufacture, distribution and sale"
The key words in this statement are "right to enter into arrangements or agreements with third parties." This is sufficient evidence that there may be SpongeTech products in the market without the SpongeTech name.
In summary, I think SpongeTech does have some advantages driven by the fact that a former employee was involved in the development. In fact the packaging designed and patented by SpongeTech is on the Dicon Pacific website. I did not see it in the Taikone website though.
GLTY,
Frank
AI
