While I would like to believe those who think that the restrictions on CE apply only to the patents owned by CIP at the time the agreement was signed, and to new patents developed by Apple and/or LQMT during the extension periods (which have since expired), and that new patents (such as LM106c) are exempt from the CE restrictions, that is not how the Master Transaction Agreement between Apple and Liquidmetal Technologies reads.
NOTE, LQMT is prohibited from developing (future tense) components that can be used in CE. That would include the joint development of LM106c by Eon and LQMT. And as for the size of the component part, there is nothing in the agreement that says tiny parts do not count.
To summarize (and I know I’m going to get flack about this): unless Apple gives the OK, LQMT is prohibited from entering the CE market. Period! Our only hope is that Lugee can get Apple to allow LQMT to get into the CE market.
needing to document/consolidate answers to those questions for the sake of my own sanity/investment. yes to the first question based on -territorial rights set out in the pla. -bb statements on yihao collaboration and consumer applications. -end of cip and beginning of pla with eon/yihao/lqmt holding new alloy/machine patents that apple can’t touch. -direct answer form eon.
my rambling opinions to the second question. (although i believe answers to the first question negates the second question) regardless. -100 people will interpret the mta 100 different ways. it can be argued/debated endlessly. -the mta supposedly allows apple to define any future products in any market category (auto/medical) as a ce once apple begins to sell products into those markets. it makes no sense and questions the enforceability/validity of sections in the mta if not its entirety.
meanwhile back in the real world. -lugee has significant control over new machinery/alloy formulations/supply/production/maze of companies/patents and lqmt has rights/access to them all via the pla. -state-sponsored investment in eon gives lugee more power/connections. -new patents/alloys/supply/smartphone sales have shifted and apple is no longer in a strong negotiating position. -i believe the current reality/situation trumps the decade old nonsensical infused mta. https://www.liquidmetal.com/exec-supporters/
As pointed out by The Paraclete (post 174679), the MTA includes a non-compete covenant that may prevent LQMT from participating in such design/engineering/sales of bmg components. For reasons given in post 174696, I believe that the non-compete may be expired.
The answer to your question may depend on the meaning of "non apple patented amorphous alloy and non apple patented process."
If the IP doesn't belong to LQMT and the non-compete covenant is expired, then (IMO) LQMT could participate in design/engineering/sales and collect revenue.
However, if the IP does belong to LQMT, then I suspect that LQMT did NOT participate in design/engineering/sales of bmg components because Li said in March 2019 that LQMT "will not pursue application of our bulk Liquidmetal alloys in the consumer electronics field" in the last 10-k. (See, https://liquidmetal.gcs-web.com/node/11486/html.) Any design/engineering work for Asus had to have been commenced prior to March 2019.
So, if LQMT did design/engineering work prior to March 2019, then the work did not involve "our bulk Liquidmetal alloys" or Li (and members of the BoD) lied to the SEC.