Replies to post #167378 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[KanadienEh]

Out of context, one paragraph can be misread. In the header of the agreement, where the parties agree to be bound, what are they binding on? Is it the use of all things Liquidmetal, or is it specific to the formula they worked on together?

The cross patents are off the table, but a new formula invented erstwhile might not meet the definition of the agreement.

[PatentGuy1]

Reading one paragraph without context can lead to erroneous conclusions. However, I suspect that the paragraph in question places restrictions on what LMT does/did while the MTA was in effect. You would need to check for Termination/Survival Clauses to see what clauses remain in effect post termination/expiration of the MTA.

I’m more interested in the details of 106c. Was it developed jointly by LQMT and Eontec or solely by Eontec or solely by LQMT? If jointly, what are the details of the joint development agreement? If solely by Eontec, then if it is licensed to LQMT via the PLA, LQMT can’t use it in the field of CE. If solely by Eontec and not licensed via the PLA, what are the terms for the license to use 106c?

The manufacturing process should also be considered. If the manufacturing process infringes one or more of the CIP patents, then neither LQMT nor Eontec can use 106c in the field of CE. (Remember the PLA expressly states that CE is a restricted field of use for both parties.) TWT.



I realize that a lot of people here regard 106c as the magic bullet that allows LQMT to get into CE, but I haven’t found anything from LQMT regarding the ownership/licensing/rights/restrictions of the material.

[myryebread]

Also a waiver from Apple works.