Replies to post #179752 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

"Liquid metal " is close enough to "Liquidmetal " that the company has taken litigation multiple times in the past. Why not now? This is CE no?

By “company” I assume you mean that LQMT/CIP has litigated “ liquid metal” multiple times in the past, but how many times has Apple litigated it? The suit against Freud America involved LQMT and CIP. (See, https://casetext.com/case/liquidmetal-techs-inc-v-freud-america.) From the judgment posted on Casetext, I could not find any mention of Apple.

Why did I bring up Apple? Because as you say this is CE and because (as I said in my prior post) the MTA gives Apple the EXCLUSIVE right to defend licensed IP, which includes the registered mark “LIQUIDMETAL.” See prior post for citation to MTA.

You ask “why not now” with regard to why the use of “liquid metal” isn’t being litigated. Clearly only Apple can answer that question, but ONE answer (among several answers) is that Apple doesn’t care.

Funny how you leave out one additional option of that this "Liquid metal " was allowed by Apple and the company.

Please reread my post:

Conclusions:
1) Apple has given their permission for Asus to use the trademarked "LIQUIDMETAL" and/or said that they won't try to enforce "liquid metal."

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151138111
Now I admit that I didn’t use the word allowed, but if Apple says that they won’t try to enforce, then they are allowing.

I hope that clarifies it for you.