Replies to post #105851 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

what about bmg formulas not in cip that belong to eontec?

I will attempt to answer your question, but it is ambiguous. I don't know who would be using the Eontec's bmg formulas (LQMT or Eontec), whether they would be using it with a process covered by CIP, and whether it involved a Consumer Electronics Product.

Assuming you meant LQMT using Eontec's bmg formulas to manufacture a Consumer Electronics Product, then it would be under the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement. In which case Eontec's BMG formula is covered under the CIP. "'LMT Technology' shall mean any and all Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Rights that, at any time during the Capture Period, are: (a) owned or licensed (including, without limitation, sub-licensed) by LMT or LMC, or that LMT or LMC have a right to use." (See, MTA, section 1.A(i), (http://contracts.onecle.com/liquidmetal/apple-transaction-2010-08-05.shtml).) Such a situation falls under scenario 1 of my post and Apple sues LQMT.

Assuming you meant Eontec using its formulas to manufacture a consumer electronics product, then there are several possibilities:
a) the manufacturing process involves a CIP technology, then Apple sues Eontec. (Scenario 2 of my post.)
b) the manufacturing process doesn't involve a CIP technology, but Eontec exports the goods to a country that violates the non-compete clause of the LQMT-Eontec cross licensing agreement. Then, Apple attempts to pressure LQMT to enforce the non-compete clause. If LQMT doesn't enforce it, the well is poisoned between LQMT and Apple. (Scenario 3 of my post.)
c) the manufacturing process doesn't include a CIP technology and Eontec does not exports the goods to a country that violates the non-compete clause of the LQMT-Eontec cross licensing agreement. Then, (IMHO) there isn't much Apple can do to prevent Eontec from doing that.