Interesting to see LM-105 and LM 601 in comparison to two experimental alloys. Hey those little squares look like the shiny paper weights many have laughed about. :)
Apple has revoke interest into Liquidmetal. That's the real positive news.
With that being said, I don't see how all the recent new filing (if implemented for high volume mfr) will/can improve BMG commercialization.
Material superiority aside, BMG cost trade off (cheaper than aluminum claim) has always been about "one step" process hence end "total cost" is less.
Recent Apple filling of various methodology of BMG coating/plating does not really solve the cost problem. While the concept of "cheap metal plated with BMG" sounds cost effective on the onset, multi step process might eliminate all the cost gain.
For simplicity view, one's initial thought would be this is analogous of a "gold plated" rolex vs a "solid gold" rolex.
Well......is it?
If we go back to Li's argument on his view of solving cost via "ultra thin"
If the actual product (phone case) requirement is to be very thin, why border to coat/plate a cheap thin material in multi process instead of just make it 100% BMG in "one step".
With Li's alloy being 5 to 10x cheaper and ultra thin capability, I argue one should maintain the K.I.S.S principal.
Don't forget the most important requirement of high volume mfr is "MATURITY". At a glance, Li is the only one who has 2+ years of multi million revenue mfr of his alloy while nobody (include LQMT) has anything meaningful.
It takes time to transition from patent to production. While the patent news (of alternative way to apply BMG) is very exciting, I cannot foresee of it being "mature" and/or "cost effective".
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
