Replies to post #130776 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

So Apple paid $20 million for exclusive rights to Liquidmetal’s LM-105, then Materion gets a patent for the exact same formula but calls it Vitreloy 105 and makes it available to anyone.

Has anyone looked at the patent that Watts referred to in post 130766 (https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135179295)?

I believe that the patent in question issued as USPN 9,044,800 because it corresponds to the only application filed on the date given in the post that includes the word "vitreloy" in the specification. From a review of the patent itself, anyone can see that the patent doesn't claim the exact same formula as Liquidmetal's LM-105. Rather, the patent claims a method of manufacturing. (See, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=((vitreloy.BSUM.+or+vitreloy.DETD.+or+vitreloy.DRWD.)+AND+20110831.AD.)&OS=spec/vitreloy+and+apd/20110831&RS=(SPEC/vitreloy+AND+APD/20110831.) So, to answer your question, Liquidmetal's LM-105 formula is NOT available to anyone assuming that there is a valid patent on such formulation.

While the patent may disclose Vitreloy 105 it does not claim it. With the exception of dependent claim 15. However, dependent claim 15 has all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13. So, with respect to this patent only, anyone could use the formula of claim 15 so long as they didn't do the limitations of claims 1 and 13. I believe that it is a misnomer to refer to this patent as the "Vitreloy 105" patent because the formula isn't being claimed.

But Li can use EON’s DC105s, DC106c & LQMT’s LM105, LM105s in Eontec machines for Consumer Electronics.

You keep repeating that, but the clear and unambiguous language of the cross licensing agreement between LQMT and Eontec says the opposite.