Eontec has both formulae and process patents which are allegedly unique to Eontec and not in CIP and within their own sphere, give Eontec some protection.
What is not clear, however, is whether any of Eontec's process happens to overlap with any process of Apple's within or without CIP which would trigger prosecution for infringement. This is an extremely important point. No one here on the board can address this potential until Apple actually commences a prosecution.
Injection molding is a subset of die casting.
Even Professor Li (as well as Professor Johnson of Caltech) have stated that injection molding IS die casting. So to suggest that the process patents in CIP are mutually exclusive of Professor Li's process patents may be incorrect.
Again, only until challenged in the courts, one is hard pressed to say that there is complete independence or immunity from infringement.
So, personally, I tread very carefully in this area, and in spite of Google and Samsung difficulties for Apple in litigation, I still would not underestimate Apple's skill set in this arena, outside of China or in China, since Eontecs sphere of influence marketing wise is not solely limited to China.
Just an opinion on topic.