Replies to post #116762 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[rige]

LQMT can produce and market its own CE products as long as the BMG used is Li's formula and they where manufactured on EON machines.

Apple may have rights to CIP but it does not have rights to Prof. Li's much cheaper BMG.
LQMT has those rights.

[Spartan]

I may be way off the path but I believe that LQMT can use the Eontec processes and alloy to do anything they like. However, die cast is not as sophisticated as injection molding.

[bobroo]

Yes, manufacturing a LQMT Apple accessory would be a great place to start getting back into the cell phone market.

A better idea would be to make a logo'd item LQMT could sell to us shareholders. I believe the shareholders were the ones to purchase teethe bulk of the knives. Certainly they could get another $240 out of each of us.

[PatentGuy1]

I have a simple question. Being that Apple holds the CE exclusivity for CIP patents, does this also prevent Liquidmetal from producing and marketing its own accessories for CE products, such as a LQMT case for iPhones, iPads, etc?

There are conflicting answers to your question posted on this board. Some believe that LQMT has the right to use Eontec's formulations to manufacture consumer electronics (CE) products. IMHO and based upon the information that we currently have before us (i.e., the Apple-LQMT Master Transaction Agreement (MTA) (see, http://contracts.onecle.com/liquidmetal/apple-transaction-2010-08-05.shtml) and the Eontec-LQMT Cross Licensing Agreement), LQMT doesn't have a license to use Eontec's formula's in the field of consumer electronics.


FACT: The Eontec-LQMT 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.)


To the best of my knowledge, the assertions that LQMT has a right to use Eontec's formulas in the field of consumer electronics are not supported to a statement confirmed by either Eontec or LQMT. Rather, such assertions appear to rely on rumor and supposition.

It should be noted that the MTA was amended to provide Apple with rights of first refusal (see, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000114036112034926/ex10_41.htm), and these rights expire on Feb. 5, 2018 (see, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000143774915015062/ex10-1.htm). In particular, "Apple will have the right of first notice by LMT of any of the following activities that LMT may pursue with any third party (including any Affiliate of LMT), which right of first notice may be exercised in accordance with Section 9A(c) below:
(i) the sale, transfer or other assignment (except by non-exclusive license or exclusive license) of any Intellectual Property Rights by LMT that have not been licensed by LMT to Apple; or
(ii) the exclusive or non-exclusive license by LMT of any Intellectual Property Rights in any field of use relating to Consumer Electronic Products owned, acquired, invented, conceived of, or otherwise developed in whole or in part by LMT or any of its Affiliates after the Capture Period Extension."

IMHO, Apple's right of first refusal under section 9A was not triggered by the Eontec-LQMT cross license agreement for two reasons. First, it was a licensing agreement, and consequently, 9A(c)(i) was not met. Secondly, the licensing agreement did not cover consumer electronics, and consequently, 9A(c)(ii) was not met.