Industrial Heat Amends E-Cat Patent (May 5, 2016)

On the Italian website, user Nevanlinna has found documentation on the US Patent and Trademark Office which shows an amendment to the patent for Devices and Methods for Heat Generation which was originally filed by Industrial Heat as a WIPO patent on November 6, 2014, with Andrea Rossi listed as the inventor — See here:

This patent also has a USPTO application dated November 6, 2014, with Andrea Rossi as the Inventor, Industrial Heat as the Applicant, and Leonardo Corp. as the Assignee — see:

Also, there is a Chinese version of the patent — see here:

The original patent application had 33 claims, but this new amendment, made on May 5, 2016 (which is after Rossi filed his lawsuit against them), cancels all those claims because of dependency errors in them, and replaces them with new corrected claims.

The document can be seen here:

So really there is no new technical information in the patent, just some corrections, but it does show that Industrial Heat is continuing to maintain its IP claims in connection with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, even though they have said they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims about the invention. It would seem from this that IH does still see value in the E-Cat.

  • standby

    Where is Thomas Baker?

  • kdk

    Yeah, there is some incentive for them to sit on it.

  • John

    I reviewed the description on the Brillouin website . The description sounds similar to the E-Cat. Since IH is also working Brillouin, once they understood what the E-Cat is and saw it function, they may have concluded the E-cat technology had already been developed. Brillouin says they had already proven their technology at Berkeley in 2010. Since the technology had already been developed by Brillouin, IH may feel the contract was void since the intellectual property was not Rossi’s to sell.

    • kdk

      Problem is that Rossi has a little more proof behind him.

      • More proof?
        We never saw proof since 5+ years from Rossi.

        Only reports with large loopholes, when looked into the details.

        So we cannot draw any conclusion.

        Maybe IH had enough of Rossi’s childish unprofessional behaviour and decided to support BEC due to their REALLY independet verification and clear evidence by SKINR and SRI.

        • Stanny Demesmaker

          The Lugano report made pretty clear that there was excess heat. The report has never been debunked by experts of the type of calorimetry used in the test.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The Lugano thermometry was most likely wrong. MPMF has demonstrated this even experimentally. IMO it does not matter if the arguments come from “experts in the field”. What matters is if they are conclusive. But if you prefer “expert opinions”: Mats Lewan has forwarded the report and the connected criticism to some knowledgeable people. I recommend waiting for the result.

          • Hi all

            As I often point out: Look at what they do, not what they say.

            Kind Regards walker

          • It’s sad to still read this.
            The lugano report had huge errors which were also confirmed by MFMP. The IR measurement was done with wrong black body emission values. If you take the measured numbers and re-calculate the temperature with correct alumnia emission values, you get very disappointing results, leading to a COP of around 1, within error margin.

            It’s sad that Frank here at e-cat world never lost a word about it. So “e-cat world-only readers” are still believing the Lugano report was positive.
            You may have to read more than just e-cat world to get the whole picture.

          • Ged

            The COP is still above 1 with the new assumptions. Thing is, Lugano scientists also used spots of emissive paint, so no one is completely sure which assumption set is correct yet–but both equal COP>1 (3 versus 1.4 or so).

            And this is IH’s reactor, don’t forget.

          • Private Citizen

            Thomas Clarke: “The Lugano Prof’s calculation, corrected for Planck curve and alumina
            emissivity (using their values, and a correct 0.95 for the band
            emissivity), gives COP=1.07 for both of the two active tests.

            it must be realized that the possible errors in this calculation are
            high. I would give this figure a tolerance +50% – 30%.


            COP vanishingly low

          • Ged

            His analysis has plenty of problems, as others point out, and his assumptions on emissivity and what the scientists already rolled into their calculations or not are not well constrained. MFMP -empiracly- tested all this, so their data and Bob Higgin’s analysis using their results completely trumps Clarke.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Don’t forget that they did not use the self sustain mode. COP rises dramatically with sustain…

          • Hi all

            I still think this is about the October Surprise.

            Kind Regards walker

          • greggoble

            Didn’t happen in 2012… most likely will in 2016. IH must consider how the Sept 22 briefing will affect the dispute. Replication continues to quicken full disclosure. Thanks for the patent update… I expect many more, and more complete, patents have been filed that we have yet to see. I continue to have a hunch that IH feels they have enough to capture part of this energy market and no longer need Rossi anymore. Also, the patent history of cold fusion goes back decades, it seems that every LENR patent has parts of other LENR patents in it (even Rossi) Making the device and entering the market… IP might be not be needed.

            Re-reading this old article… interesting from my perspective today.

            Have fun!


          • Stanny Demesmaker

            If the temperatures were not correct measured, then explain me how nickel melted in the reactor? Nickel has a boiling point of 1453°

        • bachcole

          Proof is in the eye of the beholder. The difference between you and many of us others is that you are so sure of yourself and set yourself up as the arbiter of proof, and the rest of us realize that proof is in the eye of the beholder. Rossi already has proof as far as I am concerned. It is OK if you don’t agree, just don’t define words to suit your purposes.

      • clovis ray

        lots more proof, as long as i have been around, brillouin has demonstrated, nothing, lots of talk no substance,

    • SG

      The Brillouin systems used a traditional “wet” cell (plus a proprietary EM pulse) until after Rossi’s appearance on the world stage, after which Brillouin moved to a “dry” cell. While Brillouin claims not to use Li in their reaction, they nonetheless appear to have taken queues from Rossi. It is also possible that Rossi took queues from Brillouin at some point along the way.

    • Or rather more cynically, that Tom Darden or someone on his team spotted that Brillouin’s work was similar enough to Rossi’s to allow them to quietly transfer key information to Brillouin from Rossi’s IP, which would allow them (they thought) to cut Rossi out of the loop. Godes may have seemed a rather cheaper ‘source’ for a working cold fusion reactor.

      The arrival of e-Cat X/Quark – if this claimed technology lives up to AR’s claims – would have blown this scheme, necessitating some hasty revisions. Unfortunately for them, it seems that Rossi was aware of their bad faith at an early stage, and was playing IH as much as the latter was trying to play him.

      • Pweet

        Keeping in mind what Aldo Proia wrote about the way he was treated as a Rossi licensee, and how Rossi shafted all his previous licensees and partners, I have no doubt that a more even description of who was playing who will show Mr Rossi’s behaviour in this as not being pure as the driven snow. Until we hear from IH as to what their position is, I would not be painting them as the villain.
        At the moment all we have is the pot calling the frying pan ‘black’.
        That’s not to say they are not, but at this point and only relating to this matter, we don’t have much to indicate they are. Refer back to all the nice things said here about IH and Darden when the partnership was announced.
        A lot of that talk was based on what Rossi said about both. It doesn’t seem reasonable to negate all that positive assessment on the basis of what the same person is now saying, specially when that person is chasing 89 million dollars.

        • Can’t disagree with that – anything seems possible at this point, and as you suggest there are no saints in this story.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I may be mistaken, but I thought it was IH that instigated the license buy backs.

          • Pweet

            If IH was actually a partner as per the initial announcements then that could possibly be the case. However, as we have been made aware by way of the posts of Mr. Rossi, IH was only another licensee, albeit a major one. On that basis I think any direction as to how other licensees were dealt with would have been mostly by Mr. Rossi. Aldo Proia made unfavorable mention only of his dealings with Mr Rossi, not IH. Proia had a number of contacts with Rossi regarding non performance of Rossi’s side of the license agreement which prevented Prometeon from exercising their rights under their license. I don’t think Rossi would want IH to be involved in this since IH, being just another licensee, might have taken fright a bit earlier than they did, but stranger things have happened so at this point, no way of knowing for sure.

          • BillH

            Then that’s more money IH paid out without any tangible return, if the 1MW plant is unreliable in some respect that just another good reason not to hand over more cash.

      • Sanjeev

        Assuming that the Ecat works as claimed, and assuming that IH tested it thoroughly, the best way to get rid of Rossi is to pay him his $89M and say goodbye. They already have the IP (they paid for it) and they have effectively disabled Rossi via the license agreement. It was easy.
        The non payment of balance means, that IH not only believes that the 1MW plant didn’t work, but also believes that the IP they own is now worthless.
        Amending the patent may mean that they intend to use this patent as a support for some other tech which they feel is better. It can be HHT.

        • If IH are de facto competitors to Rossi, then they would not want to seed his operations with $89M until they absolutely had to. So this could be a stalling tactic more than anything.

          They could see themselves as de facto competitors to Rossi, if they had decided to take another path to commercialization (e.g., with Brillouin) or if they perceived the E-Cat X technology making their hot cat technology obsolete and Rossi had not yet transferred that IP.

          • cashmemorz

            Maybe IH sees Brillouin as having an in with one or more industrialists that were at the congress demo. If a good “in” it may be promising to open a road to a licensee or partner that has high potential for marketing and general proliferation of their device.

        • artefact

          If they pay the $89M, they will also have to pay one billion to Leonardo from their sales.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like I missed it. Any references for that?

          • artefact

            Its in the licence agreement 3.2 C.


            “Leonardo will be entitled to receive five percent (5%) Loyalty on net sales by the
            Company of E-Cat Products or energy produced by E-Cat Products, payable annually on each January 31 with respect to the previous 12 months ended December 31, until aggregate compensation paid to Leonardo pursuant to this Agreement equals $l billion.”

          • Frank Acland

            The way I read the preceding part of that section is that the royalty payments of $1 billion only take place if i) another company enters the market that infringes on Leonardo patents, or ii)if a Leonardo patent infringes on the patent of another person.

        • Dr. Mike

          This modified patent application is still similar to Rossi’s early patent applications that did not begin to disclose the real invention. There is no way the Patent Office is ever going to issue a patent to an application claiming the fuel is to contain a “trace amount of hydrogen”. (A valid disclosure would provide a range for the amount of hydrogen needed relative to the amount of Ni.) Without more information no one can figure out why IH is keeping this “placeholder” patent application up to date with modifications to the claims as even these modified claims do not begin to provide full disclosure of a useful patent. If this modified patent application represents the amount of IP that Rossi has transferred to IH, one would conclude that Rossi has failed to transfer his IP to IH. Perhaps IH is withholding its $89M payment to Rossi because it feels Rossi has not fully transferred IP as required by their contract?

          • NT

            You may have nailed IH’s basic court defense strategy…

          • psi2u2

            Ya, especially the update from Mats.

          • I ate well yesterday : )

            I have not yet received my factory visit invitation : (

          • Pweet

            At above, I will address just one point because all the rest is dependent on point of view and I accept mine is just one of them.
            However, on this point, where I stated;-
            “I don’t see anything in the patent application which suggests the heating action is by way of a LENR.”
            and you then ask;-
            “what is heat source in the patent then? Nothing?”

            The whole point is, a patent only protects what is written in the patent, and in this case, the only source of heat mentioned is the electrical heater, so that’s what will be protected by the patent, if it is granted. Anything else, be it LENR or witchcraft, will not be covered.
            It’s a pretty simple requirement of a patent application; the novel technology which is required to be protected must be specifically mentioned and included in a claim specific to the new technology.
            So, again I say, I don’t see anything in the patent mentioning LENR.
            Does anyone else?
            If not, then a patent application is still open to anyone else who can show a workable and repeatable LENR and describe it in a specific claim to the extent that someone else can reproduce the device with the information given in the patent. So far, nobody has. The crew at MFMP are proof of this. Using the information available from patents and other sources, they have not been able to ‘substantiate’ (to use a current expression) the claims in any of the patents, apart from the energy produced by the electrical heater.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, Rossi did not reveal all of his IP, and with good reason. IH planed to hijack Rossi’s complete World IP by associating themselves with other LENR firms as a cover to say the IP is their own and applying for their own patents. Rossi caught them with their fingers in the cookie jar.

      • Hi all

        An American thing:

        Kind Regards walker

  • kdk

    It works so poorly and they’re just so unsure, because of flimsy data, that they decided to put more time and money into updating the patent!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Selling no, stealing yes.

  • Ged

    Patents are based on data. If that data is true from IH’s devices as put in the patent, then they lied with the “can’t substantiate” (though it is true that they don’t specify what claims of Rossi’s they are speaking of, so it may not be a lie based on what we currently are assuming they are talking about) in their PR. If they lied in the patent and the data is false yet they didn’t amend that, which means at this point they are -knowingly- lying on a patent under oath, they are vulnerable to legal action from the US including fines or imprissonment up to five years or both as posted by the USPTO with 18 U.S.C. 1001.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guy,
    It did slow him some, but they are brought to a halt, are they not, if they try and manufacture the e-cat, THERE WILL BE TROUBLE.

  • Steve Savage

    Rossi Wins Indy 500 … I think this is a very good omen!

    • clovis ray

      wonder if they are kinfolks,

  • kdk

    They’re just BS artists, and somebody somewhere is leaning on them… all the best people call in APCO, don’t cha know?

    • Turbo3

      Have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you please try again.

      • kdk

        I’m saying that anything coming from the APCO shills or IH is almost certainly just noise from an open mouth with nothing real behind it.

        APCO have a long history of running PR for the worst of the worst in the power circles of the world hiding their crimes or dressing up their misdeeds. That IH chose them is telling. It is either that or they did have good intentions but now people with lots of money and power are pressuring them to delay while they make retreats with lots and lots of money in bad investments. If they were paying attention (and they most certainly were), they would know these changes were coming anyway. People are trying to scrape whatever money they can from every last drop of oil they can sell.

      • Hi all

        to understand some of the things APCO worldwide have done I suggest you start here.

        As you can see some of the things they are involved in highly questionable and as has been noted elsewhere methods they have been none to use have turned up recently in various LENR circles.

        Kind Regards walker

        • note that you should be careful on Sourcewatch, like on any wiki or journal. It is maintained and censored by activists who have an agenda.

          Sourcewtach on Apco is not much more honest than wikipedia on e-cat… some facts are true, but some are missing, and that is not an accident.

  • cashmemorz

    Where you use “validated” and have this term translated as “substantiated” as per IH statement then the whole scenario, as Bernie K above draws it, fits what IH is actually (most probably) attempting to do.

  • Ged

    IH made Lugano and the 1MW plant and the 11 COP reactor (a patent without Rossi’s knowledge or signiture, as it is even more possible to do that under the AIA; so that data was from IH). So what is not “substantiated” (IH says nothing about “methods”, and their 11 COP patent says otherwise)? Seriously, do you or anyone have hard facts, from IH? At the moment we just have supposition alone. In fact, Dewey and Jed would not agree with you, so even those taking a favored IH stance are split and fractured as to what IH means. Why? Cause none of us have facts and only vague statements from IH. The facts we do have so far do not agree with your view, nor Dewey or Jed’s. They don’t agree with anything rational from our view.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    There is one fact that is indisputable. Darden and IH have creating nothing, they are trying to make a profit on LENR without creating anything, they are simply money managers and opportunists.

  • Rene

    The claims are interesting. 1-12 are design claims that specifically excluded preloaded hydrogen. That’s probably to stay away from previous gaseous hydrogen applications.

    Claim 15 limits the scope to fuels producing more than 10Kwh per kg of fuel. 10KWH is 36Megajoules. Now that looks like a lot but it isn’t. Propane generates 46MJ/kg. Animal and vegetable fat produces 37MJ/kg, so this patent is not particularly useful but there are a lot of devices that generate this amount of heat using steel and ceramics with only a trace of hydrogen. I think this claim would fall as prior art.

    Claim 19 is self referential, hence invalid, probably a typo which needs reissue to fix it, likely refers to claim 13 and not itself.

    Claims 13-20 are method claims locking in the specifics of how to initiate ‘the reaction’, notably the on/off cycling. Note there are no claims of AC vs DC or any RF or specific waveforms, so those claims are trying to be broad. Also note again the disclaimer: ‘not preloaded with a pressurized gas’.

    Patent infringement requires that all of the claims must be infringed, so looking further, I see that claims 21-33 describe the system, and though claim 21 is very broad in encompassing a generic controller that monitors the temperature of the reaction and uses that as feedback to turn on/off the heating elements, the rest of the claims pretty much limit this patent to exactly one thing: Rossi’s e-cat, right down to the exact physical configuration of the resistor heating elements.

    Were this patent granted, it would mean no one could make a reactor of specifically that design. That’s about it. This looks like a patent designed to be rejected. The more I read this patent, the more I see it as a ploy to simply not pay Rossi his 89 million dollars. It’s worth spending about $10,000 to $30,000 to get out of an $89 million contract.