Leonardo Patent Report Publication Scheduled for Nov 21? [UPDATED — EU Examiner Dissatisfied]

Thanks to E-Cat World reader Torbjörn for bringing attention to the European Patent Register report on Leonardo Corporation’s “Method and Apparatus for Carrying Out Nickel and Hydrogen Exothermal Reactions” patent application.

I am not familiar with how this patent application process works, but there are entries in the status report that indicate recent activity in connection with this patent. On October 19th of this year there is an entry stating, ” Despatch of a communication from the examining division”, and the “First Examination Report” is listed as taking place on November 21, 2012.

I am not sure how to interpret these entries. It seems to me that a despatch of a communication would indicate a report sent to Leonardo Corp., and that an “examination report” would be a public disclosure, but I don’t really know if that’s the case. If there are any people here experienced with how this whole process works, it would be interesting to hear your comments.


It seems I did not dig deep enough.

There are documents associated with this patent application published on October 19th which show that the patent examiner are not satisfied with the amount of information provided by Leonardo.

In this Communication document the examiner states that the application “does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention” and gives Leonardo for months to correct deficiencies. If these corrections are not provided the application will be considered withdrawn.

The deficiencies are outlined in this document, the Annex. Here it states that among other things:

The description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention . . . In the description it is claimed that the reaction of hydrogen and nickel produces copper and is generating energy. However, there is no explicit evidence of copper and energy as a result of a nuclear reaction . . . At present cold fusion, which is the basic explanation given in the description is not accepted as mainstream science and technology . . . In the present case, the invention does not provide evidence which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention . . . it is reported that the process takes place ‘in the presence of unknown catalysts’. No information on the catalyst material from the tube is provided in the description as filed.

Rossi has been very secretive about the inner workings of the E-Cat, and the lack of detail in the patent application has been seen by many observers to be a danger for Leonardo and Rossi in terms of getting patent approval — it seems these concerns are echoed by the patent examiners.

  • Camilo

    Having been in charge of patenting process for my company, I’m sorry to pop the bubble, but this will be an internal report from the patent office, often provided by a third party “expert in the field” hired to do so. It’s part of the normal process of review of patents, and will probably have plenty of observations, as the “expert” needs to assess if the invention is new, and if it has “inventive merit”. Often happens that the “expert” is not such, as the fee they pay is rather lame, so I would expect this to be just round one of a long battle, specially due to the nature of Rossi’s claims.

    • Filip48

      That’s what I mean.

  • Methusela

    Sadly, as published over on ecatnews.com, it seems that the patent is in the process of being rejected, unless Rossi provides more information?

    Perhaps Frank could ask Rossi to clarify?

  • buffalo

    yes this is the achilles heel of the whole lenr buisness.i would suggest to rossi to not worry about patent battles right now and just mass produce,flood the market,ride the wave,and hopefully establish a namebrand that sits in evry1,s mind from that point on

  • GreenWin

    A patent examiner asks for more details? This would only surprise those who have never entered the patent process. The voluminous publicity the e-cat has already received pretty well establishes originality. So now Rossi’s lawyers need to add detail that protects the trade secret, (like the formula to Coca-Cola) and satisfies the examiner.

    On another note OpEdNews ran a nice review of the Hugo Award winning documentary “The Believers.”

    “The documentary is ultra-cautious, and actually understates the certainty that researchers now share about cold fusion. Whether the phenomenon can be tamed and captured as a transformational new technology remains to be seen; but the physical effect is now undeniable.”


    • GreenWin

      More on trade secrets.

      In the United States:
      “Trade secret protection attaches automatically when information of value to the owner is kept secret by the owner. A trade secret owner has the right to keep others from misappropriating and using the trade secret. Sometimes the misappropriation is a result of industrial espionage.

      Trade secret protection endures so long as the requirements for protection – generally, value to the owner and secrecy – continue to be met. The protection is lost if the owner fails to take reasonable steps to keep the information secret.”

      In European Union:
      “In EU the protection of trade secrets is subject to individual States. What is protectable varies from State to State. In common law countries the law of confidence potentially protects all types of confidential and secret information whether it is commercial, industrial or personal.

      In some other countries, for example, Belgium and France, there is specific statutory protection against disclosure by employees and former employees of manufacturing or process information but different protection for commercial information.”

  • Dr. Mike

    It appears that the real problem with Rossi not being able to get a patent on his e-cats is that he does not understand what information is required to obtain a patent. An inventor has two choices- 1) do not seek patent protection for the invention and try to keep all infpormation as a trade secret or 2) seek patent protection in which case the invention must be “fully disclosed”. Rossi is trying to obtain a patent without “full disclosure”, which just isn’t ever going to happen!
    If it is obvious to the patent examiners that a patent application does not have full disclosure, the patent application will be automatically rejected. No one will ever be issued a patentt when the application states that “unknown catalysts” are needed, when the examiners know that at least one catalyst is known. For Rossi’s e-cat patent application, he should be patenting as one claim the use of a catalyst by explaining how the catalyst aids in the production of heat and in another claim all catalysts (or classes of catalysts) that would work in his system.
    It should also be pointed out that if an inventor is issued a patent, but it is later determined that the inventor withheld some key information necessary for making the invention work, the patent can easily be declared invalid, if challenged.
    From what I have read on this website and Rossi’s blog, I believe Rossi has a reasonable understanding of the mechanism for the heat production. Since this mechanism represents new knowledge, his patent application would be more likely to be approved if he did explain the mechanism. However, it should be noted that the basic Ni-H system using “nanocrystalline Ni” has already been patented in patent #6,248,221 without having an explanation for how the excess heat is produced. Rossi’s patent application should be focused on claims that are improvements to the existing patent, such as the use of a catalst, the control of the process, the source for the hydrogen, and the physical design of the system.
    One other thought for the followers of this website- unless Rossi has an agreement with the owners of patent #6,248,221, he could be prevented from selling any system that uses nanocrystalline Ni + H as a source of energy until patent #6,248,221 expires.

    • GreenWin

      Dr. Mike, sounds like you have a reasoned approach to this. As we see from Ivan, the EPO is prepared to issue a patent to Francesco Piantelli for a system to generate nuclear energy between hydrogen and a transitional metal. The patent cites as prior art the 1994 work of applicants Sergio Focardi, Roberto Habel, and Piantelli titled, “Energy Generation and Generator by means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion.”

      It seems likely given Sergio Focardi’s 1994 cited work, and his present partnership with Rossi, the unique applications in e-cat, if adequately disclosed – are also patent-worthy.

    • clovis

      Dr. Mike,
      Hi, does the device patented under patent #6,248,221 , ever had a product sold to any market,anywhere. if not it no good , under the new rules, of first to market, gets all the marbles . smile

      • Ged

        First to market? As far as I know everyone (soon the US too) is standardizing as First-to-File (you get the patent if you are the first to file for it, rather than the one who invented it). First-to-Market would be a horrible, horrible thing for inventors, so I find it hard to believe any nation would head that way… There’s been crazier things though. Do you have any information on what you mean?

        • clovis

          hi, Ged,
          correct a mondo, it was first to file, my bad.

      • Dr. Mike

        I haven’t seen any product even though this patent was issued in 2001. New rules will be first to file, rather than first to market. However, if someone without a patent was selling an invention, no one else would be able to file a patent for any device that was quite similar. I would recommend that everyone with a scientific background check out this patent on the internet to judge for themselves just what has been patented. I think Rossi has numerous patentable inventions to add to this patent, but I don’t see how he gets around the claim in the patent for using “nanocrystalline Ni”. Note this patent properly patents many other elements and combinations.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree. Rossi should hire a good and experienced (=expensive) lawyer. The wording will make all the difference.

      Many patents are already granted with cold fusion or LENR in their description, so its not a problem, problem is somewhere else. Check my post in forums section for a link to a big list of patents involving CF.

      IMO, he should go ahead with products, the leader in the market will have far more advantage than a patent protected inventor. Patent or no patent, the ecat formula will be copied asap and will be improvised and made immune to patent infringements, there is no doubt about it.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        You are underestimating Rossi and his patent attorneys

    • Omega Z

      Dr. Mike

      Rossi’s Route to a patent may be part of a more complex plan.
      He has filed & obtained patents before & does have a patent Lawyer.

      I’m speculating that once the H-cat is ready for production that the patent will be modified & then be granted.

      The Original Filing gives him some limited protection. This allows time to work out problems which are added over time to that application. At a certain point he can throw in the secret sauce & any other missing details.

      I’m not positive, but I think I read in the U.S anyway that he can divulge the secret sauce to the patent Office & have NDA up to the patent being granted & a short period following. This drawn out process may have been about buying time.

      • Dr. Mike

        Omega Z,
        You very well may be correct that Rossi’s strategy is protecting his secret information as long as he can, then obtaining a patent by providing all the information required by the patent examiner after he has the H-cat perfected. I know that a patent application can be modified before it is issued with rights defined by the original filing date. Unfortunately, I don’t know all of the current patent laws. If this is Rossi’s strategy, then no one should be too concerned that the patent examiners are currently rejecting his application, as they well should.

        • Jambo

          Coming from a 20 year political hack, energy industry professional and LENR believer – I would like to offer a perspective on this patent issue as follows: The patent issue is irrelevant. – Rossi, this means you.

          Idealism aside – just imagine the broad scope of capital, infrastructure, investments, jobs (in the multi, multi-millions), and economics of global hydrocarbon extraction, engineering, moving, processing, refining, distribution and investing – all of which is inextricably tied to politics, national economies, treaties, international relations, personal wealth, interpersonal political relationships, etc. If you think about this objectively you will come to understand that there is not only no political incentive to industrialize LENR but the strongest possible disincentive to do so. it is a political impossibility unless – it “slips through.”

          Denial of patent is an elementary tool to prevent commercialization of technology but it is by no means the only.

          While everyone (politicians included) wants new and improved technologies (candles to lightbulbs or buggies to cars) no elected representative wishes to preside over the difficult transition to it (or, in this case, catastrophically disruptive). The wish for that kind of government is a pipe dream.

          Politics is about votes, period – not those of a few idealists – but those of the masses who need their current jobs (not some “pie in the sky” future energy job) and their wealth. It’s about money – large amounts of politically connected cash that can disappear with a phone call.

          if you are awaiting political support beyond the tacit from either party – you are in for a long, disappointing wait. While singular (dual use) elements of the tech may be “patentable” there will be no direct patents issued for LENR – that may seem negative – but there just won’t.

          For LENR, government is not an ally but an adversary and if the tech is to become ubiquitous the only option is to charge forward quickly – without the dreamy hope of a government patent – before it will ever become a useful reality.

  • GreenWin

    Hmm… looks like the cat and dog are now both out of the bag. In fact, it appears that most LENR work went underground after F&P, and never stopped. Between Mills, Miley, Focardi and Piantelli – cold fusion has been alive and well. Just below the radar.

    • e-dog

      say what?
      are you refering to me?.. you shall be hearing from my lawyer Gwin! 🙂

  • Chris

    It was clear from the outset that his patent application was absolutely sloppy. His only hope for a patent would be to opt for it as an alternative to industrial secrecy i. e. specify the catalyst along with all other information that the examiner requests.

    Apart from his grossest mistakes, his application is so fraught with troublesome details that he could have avoided by engaging the services of a good patent consultant. It isn’t even in good English and it has a lot of superfluous stuff while lacking essentials. Perhaps he talked to one or two but refused to specify the catalyst and so decided to take his own shot.

    There are two ways to protect what he is planning to sell, secret (more suitable for what remains within private quarters) and patent. A patent is the antithesis of secrecy, it is fundamental to make it such that anyone versed in the art can acheive the result by following the instructions, adding no more information then what is well known. Talking about a catalyst without specifying which it is, was no use and, in ultimate analysis, it is Rossi’s only inventive step ensuing the research of Piantelli, Focardi et al.

    • hadamhiram

      Patents are the only way Rossi can hope to protect his invention, but even still they may be useless because the e-cat will be reverse-engineered as soon as a competitor gets ahold of a working device. Trade secrets are also very nearly useless these days, as there is virtually nothing that cannot be reverse-engineered. Some companies do maintain them, especially in the food industry (Coca Cola us a good example), but it is not as if nobody could determine the exact composition of Coke if they really wanted to.

      Rossi himself has said that the technology is so simple that it will be reverse-engineered immediately when commercial products are released. Patents are therefore important, but at the same time his company must be *first* to market, so it makes very good sense to be secretive right now. That is probably why his patent application has no useful details.

      Unfortunately, that also tends to ruin the patent application… Not sure why Rossi did such an amateurish job on the patent application – probably it is a function of his paranoia. Perhaps some of that fear is justified.

      All of these problems would be solved with a demonstration of a working commercial product. That is probably what Rossi was thinking when they did the 1MW plant demo in October 2011.

      They key here is *commercial* product. It doesn’t matter for patent or trade secret purposes if they demo a prototype. Demoing a prototype has other effects, e.g. it will interest investors and stimulate competitors. But a *commercial* product, meaning one that can go into production immediately, could be patented in situ and there would be no opportunity for a competitor to make a prior claim. A commercial product would also give Rossi first-mover advantage, which is the only real advantage he will actually have in the long run (because competitors WILL reverse engineer the e-cat, change one thing slightly, and have a new – possibly better – product).

      In short: Rossi’s only winning strategy here is to be able to actually manufacture a sellable product that works. For that he doesn’t need a patent, he needs industrial and environmental safety certifications. Watch for news on *those* certifications. The patent stuff is superfluous.

      • Chris

        The patent stuff is NOT superfluous.

        The patent stuff is necessary because his critter will be reverse engineered as soon as a customer has it and doesn’t respect an NDA, or reports the theft of it to the police or whatever. I don’t get how you can say a patent is useless when the useless thing is secrecy.

        AFAIK the demo is not useful to replace the lacking information in his application; this is clear in that document too, did you not read it?

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        “Trade secrets are also very nearly useless these days”

        Except for the several thousand years it took to replicate Damascus Steel.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Rossi’s sale to the military customer after the October, 2011 demo, will be a huge advantage for him in the patent wars to come.

    • Robert Mockan

      Rossi claims he has 27 technical people working on the E-Cat technology.
      Making reports is a mandatory requirement in any kind of research and development. Involving technology, that means technical reports.
      How is it possible, since communication is essential, and done with technical reports, that the CEO of a company would present his patent application, as written, for evaluation to an examiner?

      The disconnect between what Rossi says, and what Rossi does, is…. getting bigger, not smaller.

      • GreenWin

        We’ve seen so much of this peculiar “work” – one begins to think this has been designed. If Piantelli get his patent, it opens the door for a Rossi patent. Ultimately as you point out a patent does not prevent people from making their own devices. It may allow a device to capture a healthy market share for a while.

        Point is, there is plenty for everyone. And we should enjoy the abundance.

      • Chris

        First: What do you mean that it is a “mandatory requirement”?

        Second: He filed the application loooooooong before claiming to have 27 people working on it.

        • Robert Mockan

          Much is involved in proving an invention if it goes into litigation. Given Rossi background, he would know how critical all written documentation would be. And he has expressed his understanding of the importance of what he is working on, and that he has competition. It takes more than laboratory notebooks. Mandatory requirement? Absolutely!

          As a CEO he has to answer to people. Even if he did not take the initiative, it is inconceivable that others involved would not.

          Chris, you are nit picking. Use some common sense and apply obvious deductions and inferences.

          And the 27 people? What is your point? Before he had 27 people he had 26, before that he had 25, once upon a time he had one or two, that would include himself.

  • Robert Mockan

    Would a patent on water prevent people from using water?

    Once people know how to make LENR catalyst (especially second or third generation catalyst that can be made literally in your garage, and used very simply by just dumping it into a metal container, to generate high temperature heat), will people pay to use the technology, because there are “patents”?

    • clovis

      Hi, Robert
      If i had this device and the patents,and safety certifications, i wouldn’t care if you built one for yourself, or even a friend or two, because most people don’t want to be bothered with building one, but if you start to sale the device then you would have to deal with me. because i built the first one and applied first for patent, and sold the very first one . i am the owner.

      • Chris

        Uhm, if everybody starts to make their own, doing so instead of buying one, it would amount to the same as competition without royalties.

        • Omega Z

          The Masses never learned how to program their VCR’s
          The Masses pay double for a chicken cut up rather then cut it up themselves. What more can be said.

          Patents are just to keep other businesses Legit. Unless their Chinese.

      • clovis

        yekks, on second thought i don’t think i alone could hold this new fire,
        Dr. Rossi is some tough cowboy.–SMILE

      • Robert Mockan

        Most people do not like to build anything, if it is a bother.
        My question posits that it becomes more cost effective to build rather than buy, and made simple enough so no bother, especially when wanting megawatts. Will millions of people using LENR catalyst for propulsion applications (cars, boats, aircraft), or homes anywhere (in the hottest and coldest climates), and water desalination, will we see armed conflict between governments and people free of controlled central energy? Consider also that there are energy intensive methods for making most industrial materials used to make products for and to run the physical economy. They are not applied presently because energy is too expensive, but cheap energy changes the game. With cheap electricity made from cheap energy you can cost effectively make fuels for vehicles, plastics, grow food with hydroponics, make building materials, and so on.

      • julius

        You think that way because we live in a society where there is money.
        With LENR, we would live an transitional period where money will gradually disappear.

        • Miles

          Money is at the core and root of everything. It control our lives, manipulates people & makes us dependant on it for our survival. You cannot live without it. I don’t see how it could disappear.

        • Charles

          Money disappears to be replaced by what?

          Will a pound of potatoes require 1/200th of an E-Cat?

      • LilyLover

        To me patents are meaningless, but I’d rather have Rossi in possession of the Patent rather than the PTO stealing it from Rossi and awarding it to NASA/Big Oil.

        I prefer:
        Open Source > Ethical Person owning the patent > Unethical person owning the patent > govment owning the patent > govment stealing it for the big oil through PTO

        So, yes, I can tolerate Rossi’s patent over PTO’s theft.

    • Chris

      There is a very simple reason why people can’t patent water, the same by which people can’t patent the wheel. Novelty is a requirement.

      The same goes for patenting, say, sodium chloride. No novelty. But suppose you discover the solution to an important problem, which consists in using ordinary table salt (or, say, salty water) along with some other specified material and subjecting it to some specified conditions. If nobody had previously thought of this for solving that problem and it wasn’t too obvious to think of, even for experts looking for a solution, then it can count as an inventive step. Mind, it would not amount to a patent on salt, nobody would have owe you royalties every time they cook their pasta or make corned beef (and it’s too late to patent these two things).

      • Robert Mockan

        Patenting water was used in the rhetorical question to make an analogy, for comparison with LENR catalyst to help understand the point of similarity. Your reply about novelty is well taken. Yet how novel is using nickel and hydrogen to create an exothermic reaction? This question does not focus on the lack of awareness among people about the exothermic reaction, but on weather or not the reaction itself is an invention, or a discovery, or an application, that Rossi can legitimately claim as his own, and obtain a patent on because of “novelty”. Keep in mind that this subject has been studied, to various degrees, going back over 20 years in relation to cold fusion, and many years before that when exothermic reactions (of unknown origin) between nickel and hydrogen were observed in research on catalysts used in the chemical industry.

        What do you think?

        • Omega Z

          Rossi may be able to patent the specifics or process for enhancing the LENR process. This is only good for 20 years & Rossi is aware of this. He may be delaying a patent on this until the Engineering of the hardware is advanced enough to go full production.

          It’s probably all about getting a jump start on any competitors. Revealing the secret sauce before he’s ready only allows the competition time to develop an alternative before Rossi goes to market. If it only gains him a year, it’s still a head start.

          The Real money will be in the Hardware.

    • HeS

      Similarly, alcohol. It is produced in distilleries, although each of us can make it.

      • Robert Mockan

        A good example of why individual LENR usage may be the rule rather than the exception. Alcohol for drinking is taxed and regulated such that it has hundreds of percent markup. A “screwdriver” is just orange juice and ethyl alcohol. A nickel for the juice, a dollar for the ethyl. It costs less than a nickel to make the juice, and it also costs less than a nickel to make the ethyl. What you pay extra is taxation. Is it a bother to make it? Yes, but suppose it was not?

        • Robert Mockan

          The cost differential between making and buying is actually worse in the alcohol example, because most of the time you can’t get a screwdriver unless you go into a bar. And then you have to pay the barkeep markup. For a dimes worth of ingredients at the source, you end up paying 5 bucks a shot at the retail end. Apply similar reasoning to everything you use and everything you do, all costs reduced by cheap LENR catalyst you can make yourself.

          In my opinion LENR technology can lead to a paradigm shift for how people live. A LENR patent is like a crazy entrance gate guard at the final NFL game deciding the best team, who opens the gate but then stands in the way blocking all the people trying to get into the stadium.

          Good luck with that.

          • Hampus

            Yes LENR combined with 3d printing will indeed be a revolution. Similar to the agricultural revolution.

            When man first started growing plants they realized that someone had to guard the stock, at that time you only had harvest once every year and you needed this food to last. So the first society was born, one ruler to controll the crops and hundreds of workers to managed the fields.

            When energy and production becomes individualized/democratized great changes will come indeed.

          • daniel maris

            I think automatic agriculture at home will also be important. We can’t be far away from being able to grow and process many crops – salads and pulses certainly – at home working from fridge-freezer like units.

          • LilyLover

            Yes, Robert, this is WHAT I expect out of LENR.
            People willing to Paradigm Shift their thoughts.
            Cause, for all else, the utopia LENR would bring could have existed with existing technology.
            Very well said.

            As contrary as it may sound, as of now, I believe, granting patent to Rossi would be equivalent of your vaccine being sent to lab for replication. Using up that vaccine, would be like “Patent theft by PTO for big oil” or “open sourcing the catalyst and persecuting people for making it through legislation/fear/”disappearances” “.
            Does it make sense?
            Well I guess, this is our only divide so far…

          • Omega Z


            The LENR technology gives off Radiation & the Nickel is poisonous. It will be regulated to the few. If not, our over population problem would be alleviated.

            But that’s not the Problem with your Ideas. Like me, you appear to be a do-it yourself person. You get a sense of pride in doing everything you can yourself. Even when it costs more then buying a product. You’ve probably mastered or become very good at multiple disciplines.

            You then compare the masses to yourself. Therein lies the problem. Your an Exception. A part of a small minority of people. Most people have trouble mastering 1 or 2 disciplines let alone many.

            Hence people will buy/pay someone to install their E-cat product. They have neither the skills or equipment to build one. Nor do they want to.

            Just as people will continue to buy the food at the local market. It’s cheaper, less work, & convenient. The Difference will be that much of it can be grown closer to the populace. I grow some of my own, but only because I can grow heirloom breeds that taste much better. Considering my labor, it’s definitely not cheaper.

            Note that most people these days will wait an hour+ for roadside service for a flat tire. After about 15 minutes you or I would be cruising down the road.

            These days people do little for themselves. They pay someone to do everything for them. Which is part of the reason many people can’t get ahead even with a good wage & why the Service industry is so hugh.

          • Roger

            But wait, I am here.
            I built my own hot water/heating system because there wasn’t one clever enough.
            I built my own solar controller because the existing ones are not particually efficient.
            If the ecat ever gets out of the bag, I will build one, I’ll probably buy one as well. But I reckon it would be fun to build of your own.
            I own a 3D printer but it wouldn’t be good for anything as hot as an ecat.
            However, what I can see hapenning is lots of small companies springing up when the secret is out, patent or no patent.
            If I were Rossi I would open source the whole thing, blue prints diagrams, secret ingredients, the lot. He’d get a nobel prize and his name would appear in the same places as Newton and Einstien.

          • Robert Mockan

            Almost right except I do not compare myself to others. The dilemma to implement change can be resolved by providing means for average people to educate themselves. Unfortunately that path is also obstructed by making attendance to the government controlled schools mandatory. As always , coercion interferes with all other time dependent activities. Coercion for that purpose is part of social systems. Are there exceptions? Of course. But too few.
            As you allude to, the efforts to crush self reliance at a very early age are usually successful.

        • GreenWin

          Wait a minute. You’re saying I should be paying 8-10 CENTS for my Screwdrivers down at Murphy’s pub? Hell, for 50 cents, I can get me and Charlotte a tempestuous low cost buzz!! I’m in!

      • …..you should visit Eastern Europe one day….enough moonshining to see stars the rest of your life…


      • GreenWin

        Yep. The only reason I keep the old claw bath tub around.

        • Peter_Roe

          I’ve just spent good money on one of those (Victorian bath tub) for the new bathroom I’m building. My wife hates me.

    • Jim

      Patents provide a right to sue for damages. If I patent a gizmo, and you make and use such a gizmo, the damages may not be provable or worth the hassle of a lawsuit. But if you start selling gizmos and suck up 40% of that market, and a court finds you guilty of patent infringement, then you can be assessed the amount of damages to my earnings. Courts and juries determine the amount of those damages. And if the infringement is willful, the damages are tripled.

    • Martin

      The purpose of a patent is to prevent people from using a technology or an idea for commercial use. It is completely legal to copy such things privately for idividual use.

      • Garry

        Not always. Roche sued many people in the biotech industry for Taq polymerase enzyme arguing that people who made their own enzyme were robbing Roche of their market opportunities.

        I am not agreeing with that stance, but Roche scared a lot of people to start buying their enzyme again and paying the royalty.

        I know, because I was one of the people who made my own polymerase… 🙂

    • Garry

      The key aspect of a patent is that the description of the invention must be sufficiently clear that anyone “skilled in the art” can reproduce the invention.

      That is, in part, the rejection so far. He’ll eventually (hopefully) get a good lawyer who will know what to do. Patents are not hard to get … a skilled lawyer can find/create the right claims that get around an examiner’s objections.

      THe problem is the patent system is antithetical to Rossi’s way of doing business/science. He wants the PROTECTION a patent will give, but does not want to DISCLOSE what is necessary to get said patent.

      A conundrum for him for sure.

    • Filip48

      People download tons of music and movies ilegally every day, especially in Asia.

      • LilyLover

        If we are talking about movies, Penalty ratio is
        250,000 : 10 or say 25000. Penalty ratio for Banking money Laundering is 1,000,000,000 : 1,000,000 or say 0.001.
        So, piracy is mathematically 25,000,000 times more severe a crime than drug-money laundering.
        So, Penalty ratio for Piracy:Drug money Laundering is 25Million.
        Even if they were equitable crimes, the 25M is a huge Penalty ratio.
        Since piracy is not even as bad as drug money laundering, based on penalty ratio, the piracy and thereby extension, the patent laws are 1 /25,000,000 = 4EXP-8 =0.4part per billion sensible.
        I.e. their importance in my view is as much as 3.46 milliseconds in a day are important.
        3.46 ms /day -> 0 (tends to zero) … therefore I agree with Robert that, open source is the way to go.
        People are coward enough to accept 25M as a penalty ratio for Piracy over Bank-drug-money-laundering makes me sad. On top of that say at reserve requirement of 1/40, graveness of penalty ratio become 1Billion times more. And banks do it (not even) out of thin air… we have to work hard for that.

        So, this translates to … people value their one day at the same level as they value the ban k gan g s 86.5 nanoseconds.

        Unless people begin to value their life at least 1:1 i.e unless people DEMAND penalty ratio of 1:1 for equitable crimes, I have no choice but to believe they are st u-p id & cow a- rd.

        • LilyLover

          That translates to:
          For a crime, if an average man is punished 10 years jail time; a banks- ter or member of the “upper class” should be punished 114 seconds.

    • jacob

      patents are really to prevent someone from copying and manufacturing it,if someone builts one in their garage for personal use its not a big dear ,can’t really be policed ,but if someone builts them and sells them ,they would be liable for patent infringement,unless an agreement has been made between the patent holder and manufacturer.

  • jacob


  • jacob

    oh no,

  • jacob

    this auto moderation is for the birds !!!
    maybe we should get a list of words that can not be used ,which must be by now half the dictionary ?????????

    • Robert Mockan

      Did he change the moderation procedure? I also get a moderation message sometimes, and the comment vanishes for awhile, then comes back, then vanishes again. Eventually it either gets posted for good without a moderation message, or vanishes for good. And I still do not know why it gets moderated to begin with. No offensive words. Strange.

      • buffalo

        hey robert mockan.do u got access to a lab?have u done any physical lenr research

        • Robert Mockan

          Yes to both questions. But presently no access to funding for maintaining either. Too bad. Not my loss.

  • jacob

    Rossi is leading science right now.
    Patent puppet examiner ,not so good,dissatisfied?
    politics involved in process,not so good.

  • LilyLover

    ” LilyLover on October 30, 2012 at 1:47 am

    If we are talking about movies, Penalty ratio is
    250,000 : 10 or say 25000. Penalty ratio for Banking money Laundering is 1,000,000,000 : 1,000,000 or say 0.001.
    So, piracy is mathematically 25,000,000 times more severe a crime than drug-money laundering.
    So, Penalty ratio for Piracy:Drug money Laundering is 25Million.
    Even if they were equitable crimes, the 25M is a huge Penalty ratio.
    Since piracy is not even as bad as drug money laundering, based on penalty ratio, the piracy and thereby extension, the patent laws are 1 /25,000,000 = 4EXP-8 =0.4part per billion sensible.
    I.e. their importance in my view is as much as 3.46 milliseconds in a day are important.
    3.46 ms /day -> 0 (tends to zero) … therefore I agree with Robert that, open source is the way to go.
    People are coward enough to accept 25M as a penalty ratio for Piracy over Bank-drug-money-laundering makes me sad. On top of that say at reserve requirement of 1/40, graveness of penalty ratio become 1Billion times more. And banks do it (not even) out of thin air… we have to work hard for that.

    So, this translates to … people value their one day at the same level as they value the ban k gan g s 86.5 nanoseconds.

    Unless people begin to value their life at least 1:1 i.e unless people DEMAND penalty ratio of 1:1 for equitable crimes, I have no choice but to believe they are st u-p id & cow a- rd.
    That translates to: For a crime, if an average man is punished 10 years jail time; a banks- ter or member of the “upper class” should be punished 114 seconds. ” Any thoughts? Ideas?

    Does this make any sense to at least one person? Please let me know. Thanks.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Communism = equal poverty. Class hatred personified.
      No class left to envy. No one to look down upon.

      • Chris

        It’s got nothing to do with Communism.

        Why do you have to leap onto political and ideological matters? The Cold War is a thing of the past; get over it.

        • LilyLover

          Thank you Chris.

    • Chris

      Open source is a choice, software geeks are free to make this choice or not.

      The software I’m completing will not be open source, though I used open source tools to develop it. Programming can be a hobby, it can be a profession (in several different ways). It is both to me.

      Rossi would have no advantage in letting the e-cat out of the bag, unlike everybody else who would benefit (and not just by sparing royalties). Nobody can persuade him to change his choice, but a properly done patent application would be the best compromise.

    • Robert Mockan

      The Internet provides a lot of alternative viewpoints.

      Here is an interesting link to a You Tube video that tries to explain why there is such a large disparity between the have and have not.


  • Petrol

    I don’t understand how patents can be useful or enforceable if you are not willing to spill the beans. Simply stating x occurs when some magic y happens is not useful to anyone.

    Nor is it fair for a third party to be litigated against for independently using the same magic when it was never specified.

    Patents don’t give you exclusive province over aspects of nature. They only provide exclusivity on specific means of achiving an end.

    For example you can’t patent the production of photons but you can certainly patent a design for a device that creates them.

  • georgehants

    From Scientific American
    Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion
    By Jennifer Ouellette | October 29, 2012
    I can’t speak for the quality of the film, because I haven’t seen it, but as someone who has covered physics for (*cough*) going on 20 years, I well remember the controversy, and have followed it off and on over the years. So I readily admit to getting a little rant-y when I encounter insufficiently skeptical reportage on this topic. It’s prime ground for wishful thinking: who wouldn’t want a source of cheap, limitless energy? I sure do! But wanting something to be true isn’t the same as something actually being true in the rigorous experimental sense of the word.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Here is a good article from a patent law student. Just proves how crazy and out of date our patent laws are.


    • Andre Blum

      I do not understand why this makes the patent laws crazy or out of date. This is just what they are and have always been.

      Too many people view patents as a kind of reward for an invention. That is not what patents are about.

      A patent is a deal between you and a state, where in exchange for fully disclosing your invention, you get the exclusive right to do something with it for a limited amount of time.

      The decision to make such a deal is up to you. If you do, you will need to bring in your part.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Simple. When these laws were enacted, we did not have a world market where stealing someones IP (Patent) is fair game. Patent law is out of date along with enforcement of IP. The only true protection you have is keep your invention a secret and build and sell your invention improving it, pricing your product to sell in volume. But eventually the bad guys will still win, but hopefully by then you will have made a good return on your IP. I am not sure I like this world we have made.

  • georgehants

    From The Register
    Hitachi buys Horizon to save UK’s nuclear future
    Germans get the wind up and dash for gas: Japan steps in
    By Phil Muncaster
    Posted in Financial News, 30th October 2012 10:18 GMT
    This will specifically involve the construction of two to three 1,300MW plants at Horizon’s existing sites in Wylfa, Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire, with the first to be ready by 2025 at the latest.
    The power stations will contain Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology, a Generation III boiling water reactor. Four ABWRs have already been built on time and to budget in Japan by Hitachi, although UK regulators have yet to approve the design.
    While some will no doubt point to Fukushima as a sign the UK should be looking to scale down its reliance on nuclear, Hitachi was quick to point out the benefits to the economy the deal will bring.
    The government echoed its comments and said the project would help achieve its vision of a “low carbon secure energy future” for the country.

  • andreiko

    A by a village blacksmith manufactured e-cat and or hotcat will always be more expensive than a manufactured by robots.A product like the e-cat and or hotcat is to protect only as quickly as possible the best and cheapest product (e-cat and or hotcat) massively in the market.

    • Andre Blum

      thumbs up for english comment!

      • buffalo

        its gona rain gold

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Respect for the English comment, Andreiko. Now everyone can respond to your sensible remarks.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi Patent strategy is very clear: Keep the patent process going while protecting his IP via trade secret strategies.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 30th, 2012 at 8:19 AM
    Dear Luigi Sandri:
    1- it is false that any of our patent applications has been rejected. The process of patent pending is long and complex and goes through series of discussions between the Patent Office and the Attorneys of the Inventor. This is true for normal patents, you can imagine how complex is in this case.
    2- the fact that the patent is accepted or not will not affect at all our production and the diffusion of our plants. Simply, we will have to defend the Intellectual Property in other ways. Actually, we are manufacturing our plants and delivering too.
    Warm Regards,