Replies to post #176804 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[GracieAnn]

Isn’t ALL CE outside the PLA?

[PatentGuy1]

Let me see if I have this straight:
1) 106c is outside of CIP and inside of the PLA (post #176804 by jaybiscuit)

2a) 106c was jointly developed by Eontec and LQMT (post #176805 by jsr5)
or
2b) 106c was a "JOINT alloy w Yihao-Eontec" (post #176791 by jaybiscuit)

3) "LM105, 105c and 106c alloy formulations are not protected by patents" (post #170107 by joshuaeyu)

4) The territorial exclusivity enjoyed by LQMT only applies to "Eontec Licensed Products." "Eontec shall take such action and measures as shall be necessary to ensure that Eontec Licensed Products are not sold or resold in or into the LMT Exclusive Territory by Eontec or any other party in the chain of distribution (whether as a part of a finished product assembled or produced by a third party or otherwise) without first obtaining the prior written consent of LMT." (See, Parallel License Agreement, Article 2, section 2.3, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000143774916027548/ex10-2.htm )

5) “Eontec Licensed Products” shall mean any product the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale or importation of which by Eontec would, but for this Agreement, infringe a valid claim of an LMT Licensed Patent in a jurisdiction where such valid claim exists or that incorporates or uses any element of the LMT Licensed Technical Information in its design or manufacture.


Questions for jaybiscuit:
Assuming you are right, 106c was developed by Yihao-Eontec:
a) why is it inside of the PLA? The PLA is an agreement between Eontec and LQMT. Why would Yihao want to abide by an agreement that they are not a party to?
b) components made from 106c (developed by Yihao-Eontec) would not be "Eontec Licensed Products" as defined by the PLA, wherein territorial exclusivity only applies to "licensed products." How would LQMT get revenue when there is no territorial exclusivity?


Questions for jsr5:
Assuming you are correct, 106c was jointly developed by Eontec and LQMT:
a) Was it developed under the PLA or under a different agreement?
b) If under a different agreement, why hasn't LQMT announced such as a material event? (Wouldn't a new and valuable formulation that has the capacity to allow LQMT into the CE field constitute a material event?)

Question for anyone:
If there is no patent on 106c, as posited by joshuaeyu (post #170107), then any component made from 106c does NOT qualify as an "Eontec Licensed Product." According to the definition of an "Eontec Licensed Product" the component must infringe a patent held by LQMT. (See item 5 above, definition of "Eontec Licensed Product".)

If there is no "Eontec Licensed Product", then there is no territorial exclusivity. According to the PLA, "Eontec shall take such action and measures as shall be necessary to ensure that Eontec Licensed Products are not sold or resold in or into the LMT Exclusive Territory..."

If there is no territorial exclusivity, why should LQMT expect revenue from the importation of items made from 106c?