Replies to post #234156 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PayMEmf]

Jay been awhile thanks for sharing, it's appreciated...I figured the agreements between eontec and apple need adjustment before we see any revenues inside CE. 

Auto markets have me intrigued.

[Almosthere]

That explains why we didn’t receive any revenue from Huawei. Nothing of theirs was sold in our territories.

I think this will be a totally different scenerio if Apple uses EONTEC to produce parts/products that are sold in our territories.

Apple has no rights through the MTA to BMG processes and formulas that are not within the time frame spelled out in the license agreement. This opens the door for Eontec/LQMT PLA to be a path for revenue to lqmt when processes and formulas (falling outside Apple MTA) are used to produce an Apple product/parts through EONTEC.

The doubters just don’t get it and never will.

[PatentGuy1]

I think that Li was either misinformed or ducking your question. Generally, one of the rights an exclusive licensee has is the right to enforce its exclusivity against third parties. The exclusive license is worthless if only the licensor can enforce it but chooses not to do so. Unless there are explicit provisions in a contract stating otherwise, generally either the licensee or the licensor may try to stop infringement by a third party.

In this case, I do not recall anything specific in the Parallel Licensing Agreement of the MTA requiring or prohibiting LQMT from trying to stop a third party from infringing. Li might be ducking for a couple of reasons: (1) the litigation can be expensive and LQMT doesn't see a financial upside to enforcing in China; (2) Li might not want to risk litigation where some patents might be declared invalid/unenforcable by the Chinese courts (such litigation might negatively impact the corresponding patents in the US).