Replies to post #114122 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

Quote:
__________________________________________________________________________________
LQMT doesn't have a license to use Eontec's formula's in the field of CE.
__________________________________________________________________________________


The above is an outright Lie.

The cross license agreement gives LiquidMetal the rights to use ALL Eontec IP including its BMG and machines, so Liquidmetal can die-cast Li’s BMG formula on EON machines in the field of CE and Apple can’t do sh!t about it.

The only restriction on CE is regarding use of CIP IP, for both lqmt and eon.
NO restrictions on Eon IP or BMG for CE, which, again, lqmt has free use of in its territorial markets.

You asset that "[t]he cross license agreement gives LiquidMetal the rights to use ALL Eontec IP including its BMG and machines, so Liquidmetal can die-cast Li’s BMG formula on EON machines in the field of CE ..."

According to Liquidmetal,"[t]he License Agreement provides for the cross-license of certain patents, technical information, and trademarks between the Company and Eontec. ... The licenses granted under the License Agreement cover all fields of use and products other than consumer electronic products, watches and components thereof, certain luxury goods, and defense and munitions applications." (See, Liquidmetal's SEC Form 8-k, filed March 14, 2016; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000143774916027549/lqmt20160311b_8k.htm.)

What is your source for your assertion? If your source is better than Liquidemtal's SEC filings, I'd like to know it.

[PatentGuy1]

You assert that "[t]he cross license agreement gives LiquidMetal the rights to use ALL Eontec IP including its BMG and machines, so Liquidmetal can die-cast Li’s BMG formula on EON machines in the field of CE ..."

However according to Liquidmetal,"[t]he License Agreement provides for the cross-license of certain patents, technical information, and trademarks between the Company and Eontec. ... The licenses granted under the License Agreement cover all fields of use and products other than consumer electronic products, watches and components thereof, certain luxury goods, and defense and munitions applications." (See, Liquidmetal's SEC Form 8-k, filed March 14, 2016; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000143774916027549/lqmt20160311b_8k.htm.)

What is your source for your assertion? If your source is better than Liquidemtal's SEC filings, I'd like to know it.

[Watts Watt]

Just curious...

But how many of the die casting patents of Eontec have been tested in court against the whole plethora of die casting patents that LQMT had that went into CIP?

Do you think that all of the die casting patents of LQMT/CIP are mutually exclusive of those of Eontec's?

That there is absolutely no overlap or possibility of infringement?

Just curious...

Have all of LQMT's process patents expired? Perhaps.

I remember how many years the investors were assured by Team Steipp that all of the patent bases were covered to protect LQMT, and yet, somehow Eontec can do anything it wants inspite of LQMT's patent portfolio...

Hmmmmm.

How many other holes are there in LQMT/CIP's patent portfolio that Apple can not prosecute in an infringement case.

Again, just curious.

Could some resident patent expert explain this to me...how so lock tite is Eontec's portfolio base against competing portfolio bases?

Of course, this entire discussion is about CE...not Non-CE.

The point of this post should be obvious to all...

What power does Eontec have against Apple in a patent infringement challenge?