Leonardo Corporation Issues Press Release Announcing Termination of Industrial Heat License

The following press release has been posted on Leonardo Corporation’s ecat.com website here: http://ecat.com/news/pressrelease-industrial-heat-loses-license-for-rossis-e-cat

INDUSTRIAL HEAT LOSES LICENSE FOR ROSSI’S “E-CAT”

Leonardo Corporation announced today, June 2, 2016, that it has terminated the license granted to Industrial Heat, LLC. for the Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology. Effective immediately, Leonardo Corporation has the sole and exclusive right to the E- Cat intellectual property in all territories previously licensed to Industrial Heat, LLC. According to Leonardo Corporation, the decision to terminate Industrial Heat, LLC.’s license follows Industrial Heat, LLC.’s failure to pay the agreed upon licensing fee.

The license previously granted to Industrial Heat, LLC gave the company the exclusive rights to use the E-Cat intellectual property in the geographic territories of North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Emirates.

In an effort to avoid any delay in making the E-Cat units commercially available in the above territories, Leonardo Corporation will be working diligently with its strategic partners to develop a new manufacturing and distribution strategy for those territories. For those customers located in these territories, all future inquiries regarding the E-Cat should be directed to Leonardo Corporation directly through its website.

As a result of its terminating Industrial Heat, LLC’s license, Leonardo Corporation has also demanded that Industrial Heat, LLC immediately assign all patents and patent applications based upon the E-Cat intellectual property to Leonardo Corporation, or abandon these applications in all jurisdictions.

Additional information is available at www.ecat.com.

Contact: Leonardo’s attorney John Annesser, Esq. [email protected]
SOURCE: Leonardo Corporation

Andrea Rossi made this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
June 2, 2016 at 4:30 PM
William:
Thank you for this important link with the press release issued today from my attorney John Annesser, Esq.
We made this move to make clear a thing about which there has been a lot of confusion, because IH continues to make patent applications with my technology, using without my authorization my name as the inventor and the name of Industrial Heat as the assegnee. It must be clear and sound that Leonardo Corporation has terminated the license granted to Industrial Heat LLC in all the following Territories:
North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates.
This press release of our Attorney is clear and straight to the point.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • giovanniontheweb

    clear as water

  • Rene

    Finally and good. I only wish he’d not pretend he is some large corporation working diligently with its strategic partners. He is a small startup, hopefully agile enough to get product to market soonest.

    • Observer

      He is Andrea Rossi. You have not seen anything like him before and the likes of him will not be seen again. His name, “Andrea Rossi”, will define him.

  • BillH

    If only it was that easy….I divorce thee, I divorcee thee, I divorce thee. A wasted year then, the report has probably been shredded already. I don’t think an exclusive license will be that easy to shrug off. At best AR will be out of those markets for years. IH will simply counter claim to the value of $1Bn, they may even make more that way.

    • Mark Underwood

      Even Rossi’s time in an Italian prison wan’t wasted. Similarly I’m sure that in the Florida shipping container he learned much, very much. But how ironic, that a guy who holds the Italian 24 hour endurance running record from his youth finds himself so confined from time to time later in his life!

      I don’t know why the ERV report would be shredded. It will have historical value, at least.

      As you imply, this announcement isn’t legally binding, but it shows clearly Leonardo’s intent and surely it will be the very verdict the Judge will come to: Leonardo and IH are divorced, with IH having to relinquish all rights to Leonardo’s intellectual property. How can such a licence not be voided by a sane judge, given such animosity between the two parties?

      Not sure if Darden will be compensated in any way for the 11 million of his own money he put up.

      I hope Rossi learns from this: no more licensing out Leonardo’s intellectual property; only manufacturing agreements.

  • Buck

    Now we wait to see how APCO and Jones Day will manage the situation in support of their client . . . IH/Darden. At the least, this will impact the court case.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys. I would. Say whoraw , great going Dr.R, so glad to see you back in the Saddle .

  • Steve Savage

    I’m starting to think Rossi is even smarter than I believed (and I hold him in much esteem)… He’s a player for sure, in the good way!

    • SG

      Rossi is in his twilight years. My bet is on him winning this battle in the end to clear his name from the first half of his life (which, by the way, I find fascinating and misunderstood by most). Neither Rossi nor IH will go down quietly. Not only are reputations on the line, but so too is a world-changing technology. All sides understand the high stakes involved.

      • bfast

        “which, by the way, I find fascinating and misunderstood by most” I sooo agree with you. Petroldragon was working, potentially revolutionary technology. Rossi was railroaded, not the other way around. The simplest answer isn’t always the right answer.

      • Roland

        The more likely pathway to a finding of fraud will occur when Woodford seeks the return of their $50million, in part or in whole, as this payment to IH was predicated, in part, on IH’s contention that they were in contractual possession of an assignment of the IP for the E-cat.

        Several posters, with backgrounds in patent law, have concluded that the contract between Leonardo and IH does not legally assign the IP to IH but rather gives IH complete access to the IP for purposes of validating the efficacy of the IP; hence the claims made by IH to Woodford that IH was the recipient of such an assignment of IP and that IH was free to sell an interest in said IP are, in fact, fraudulent.

        • right, IH have access to patent IP (license to manufacture).

          about the way they filed applications, what Dewey seems to say, and which is natural in an ecosystem between partners, is that IH filed temporarily what was published in Lugano test and various post in JoNP… with the sincere intent to give it back to Rossi later.
          anyway, this would not reduce the due royalties which are relative to “E-cat and derivative”, and whose amount does not depend on the proportion of patent used…

          this seems hard to swallow for people here, but IH tried to help their partner.

          Note that recently Dewey reported the postion that i’ve heard many time among busionessmen and innovation experts (Michel Vandenberghe first of all, it is his key statement), is that nobody can lock LENR, that IP is very temporary and that sucess will be about developping faster than competitors…

          Assuming Rossi have something real that work, he live in the 19th century of innovation.

          Rossi have said many nice things about In Mercatu Veritas, and need to flood the market, but he seems to do the opposite.

  • Rossi Fan

    Nietzsche: “only the weak seek justice”

    Whoever comes out with a public demonstration or device that can be reproduced easily by others will be the de-facto inventor.

    • Buck

      Quoting the Super Man who had a lifelong incestuous relationship with his sister Elizabeth doesn’t strike me as strong foundation for evaluating another’s character.

  • US_Citizen71

    When the loan company repossess a car do they give back the previous payments?

    • roseland67

      If the contract says they have to, yes.
      I do not know the terms of the contract.

      IF Rossi cancels their license, what exactly
      Does IH have for their $10 million?
      Can’t imagine people like IH are just gonna
      Shrug their shoulders and say “oh well, we just spend $10 million and get nothing in return”, can you.

  • bfast

    This definitely looks like good news. Let IH rot. Bring out the technology. Don’t get lost in silly lawsuits.

    • LilyLover

      First of all, Congratulations to Rossi. This declaration is a lot braver than declaration of independence against the British.
      The patent offices of the World will tread very very carefully on this issue and Rossi will emerge the Victor.
      Darden’s doomed. Cherokee’s Chimpanzified.
      Happy days ahead.
      Viva Rossi.

  • cashmemorz

    From my world view it was the investors of Cherokee that had to be kept satisfied about a redoubtable highly speculative investment that LENR at this point is too risky. Especially when no other inventor is so far ahead as Andrea Rossi’s claims. Since too risky then get out, so Cherokee listened to the investors and bailed out while the losses were still tolerable. $86 million more would have represented too much of a “possible” loss. Investors take risks but beyond a certain point they are a conservative bunch as shown by the actions of Cherokee/Industrial Heat/Darden.

    • Roland

      IH putatively spread Woodford’s $50million amongst every publicly known entity in the LENR space that appeared to have a viable technology.

      Should it be discovered that IH acted as a boat anchor (by using the position newly taken up in these enterprises to immediately council delay, delay and more delay as they did with Leonardo) with the rest of Woodford’s money, in these other projects, Woodford might legitimately start thinking about what IH’s agenda actually was when they ‘took’ their money.

      Alternatively Woodford & Friends could still be way long on carbon derivatives in some secret off balance sheet entity that will crash their world when the air leaks out of it; hence the desperation moves we’re seeing now.

      Speculating on motivation is always a two way street; as is deliberately sowing dissension amongst the opposing ranks.

      Sorta interesting actually, you know, to just let off a couple of arrows and see who bleeds red ink.

  • e-dog

    Its been years and years… lots of bluffing .. I think. Rossi got nothing

    • Gerard McEk

      Well, this is what could have be expected after faling to pay 89M$. If 1MW plant really worked then this is a vast loss for IH. Jus wondering if the timing of this announcement is linked to the QuarkX test in progress.

      It is clearly also the end of IH’s cooperation with AR.

      • Roland

        There’s speculation to that effect down page; not, in my opinion, misplaced.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Even if what you say were – against all evidence – true, the merit and credit goes to AR to have kept the debate and interest alive. So the issue of what he has could be superfluous.
      Many tests ongoing worldwide, is a tangible, inconfutable result. The debate, ditto.
      Personally, I am grateful even only for the hope, and look forward to surprises; Ian Walker indicates October…

    • DrD

      If he’s got nothing, how can he be selfish with it?

      • Roland

        Canines experience severe cognitive dissonance when you expect binary reasoning from them that are beyond their capabilities; they do have feelings though so let’s not become too demanding.

        And, after all, nervous puppies have a way of pooping unexpectedly, and nobody wants that.

  • Publius
    • Settlement here we come.

      What is this case even about any more? Rossi doesn’t need IH’s $89M any more and isn’t going to commercialize through them. IH isn’t going to get their license rights back for their territories, even if they wanted them. Darden is not going to get his $11M back (well, maybe some); that was the price of the IP that was transferred even if it wasn’t all of it.

      Seems like both sides will be motivated to settle. IH will officially relinquish all license rights (but be allowed to keep IP already transferred) for some fraction of the $11.5M sunk. Rossi won’t see any part of the $89M and he won’t care as long as he’s legally free of IH and his new partner has access to those lucrative markets.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Proposed Second Amendment § 3 (emphasis added). AmpEnergo, Inc. (“AEG”), a party to the License Agreement and the Proposed Second Amendment, never signed the Proposed Second Amendment. Id. at 3. The Proposed Second Amendment also addressed the testing of a “Six Cylinder Unit,” not the E-Cat unit alleged in the Complaint to have been tested.” (p. 3)

      This sounds fishy. Were these points left out intentionally or by mistake? And what would that mean in either case? It will be most interesting to see how the judge assesses this issue.

  • DrD

    Well at least one thing has finally become clear.
    The COP of >50 is not in dispute.
    Or is it.

    • Andre Blum

      They don’t get to that point yet. They are asking for dismissal first. This is not their complete defense.

      • Engineer48

        Andre,

        IH seem to be trying to avoid a jury trial & instead asking the judge to give them a indirect WIN by terminating Rossi’s complaint.

    • Not yet at least. And again, as for now I would see this as IH confirming that the E-Cat works and that the test result is valid.

      • I think ‘confirmation’ is too strong.

        At this request for dismissal stage, contesting the results may not be appropriate, though IANAL.

        • I missed this footnote, which is obviously important when discussing IH’s view of the one-year test:

          “1. Because Defendants are not permitted to introduce facts outside the Complaint and its Exhibits, this motion does not address, for example, the numerous errors in Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed Performance Test” that the Complaint purposely ignores (such as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).”

          • Yeah, I think this is just phase one in their multi-phased defense (which we should fully expect from well-funded world-class lawyers).

            At least we get a glimpse of their real defense: they don’t believe the measurements (at least not 100% — can’t believe we’re now arguing over 50x measurement errors) and something deviated from the test plan (though their people were always there so… what happened that couldn’t be corrected midstream?).

          • wpj

            …….and, IH also built the 1MW plant!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I guess they left this question out for now since insisting on the ownership of a technology whose value could not be “substantiated” might appear as a contradiction.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Right, but they will still try every trick they can to delay implementation of Rossi E-cat by continuing their attacks on Rossi. I firmly believe that was their objective in the first place.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Well technically it is in dispute. IH claims measurement errors and guidelines not followed. But 50 COP is hard to claim there was no COP. I don’t care what protocols you mess up. 🙂 That is like getting hit by a lightning bolt and saying it wasn’t exactly a million volts the meters showed.

  • Stranno

    What would IH’s intension be? Making money or producing pollution free energy for the comming decades?

    • Engineer48

      Or maybe to flip the IP (do a sub license) for a fast profit?

      • wizkid

        I think IH aspires to be the puppet master of yet another ENRON scheme, and to just steal as much money as quickly as they can from unwary investors, because they believe that money is free for the taking, and that they better hurry because it’s going fast. Eat drink and be merry, IH! They actually are on the game board, well past the point of where they smash and grab fortunes.

      • greggoble

        To KSA

  • GiveADogABone

    What is this case even about any more?
    It is really about who gets control of the IP, particularly that of the Quark and future developments. Is it any wonder that Rossi will not release a single fact about the Quark that could possibly help IH?

    The $89M is a proxy battle for canceling the License Agreement. Rossi wants the LA canceled by any means and IH wants it to continue, as demonstrated by Rossi’s offer to hand back money in exchange for cancellation of the LA and IH’s refusal to agree. IH has to invalidate the $89M claim to maintain the LA and Rossi has to maintain the $89M claim to invalidate the LA.

    Hence the footnote on pages 1 & 2 that deals with the Guaranteed Performance Test. Rossi did not include the ERV report in the original complaint, so IH has to use the footnote to get any information into the response. The GPT is labeled as “Plaintiffs’ purported” GPT. Not my understanding. The GPT was a joint venture.

    “the Complaint purposely ignores (such as :-
    1: departing from the purported test plan,
    2: ignoring inoperable reactors,
    3: relying on flawed measurements, and
    4: using unsuitable measuring devices). ”

    If the GPT was a joint venture, what responsibility did IH have and what did it do during the one-year test? What items under 1:, 2:, 3: or 4: would merit dismissal of the GPT, bearing in mind IH’s uncooperative behaviour?
    1: I have no information.
    2: I have no information.
    3: As we now know, the E-cat output steam was superheated, so the only measurement needed for calculations was the steam flow. This measurement could be checked, although not contractually, by measuring the condensed water rate by weight or volume (said to be about 36m^3/day) or by duplicate flowmeters.
    4: Two thermocouples and a flowmeter with IH representatives in attendance
    for a year? Shared responsibility?

    Will Rossi release the ERV report in his reply and will the jury believe the GPT?
    Arguing about the IP falls if the jury believe the GPT supports Rossi and the LA is quashed. That completely removes IH from the games, although de facto they are already out.

  • Charles

    The E-Cat will likely die a slow torturous death in the courts.

    Exceptable (whatever that is) evidence will be excluded from the battle.

    • lkelemen

      Do you mean IH’s e-cat or Rossi’s or both?

      • Thomas Kaminski

        It is highly likely that if fraud was committed, the SEC will view IH’s investment prospectus as fraudulent. They would have brought in investors on false information. I do not think that IH wants to go there. It opens them up for a big hit from their investors.

        Besides, withholding technical information does not constitute fraud. It is a breach of contract. To prove fraud requires additional evidence. What specific evidence leads to is fraud in this case? Is it that IH was given adequate information but were too stupid to apply it? “I’m too stupid” seems like a poor path to follow. Saying the contract is invalid because Rossi did not pass enough information, but IH employees constructed a plant that produced a COP of 50 is a stretch.

        I am sure there is going to be a countersuit because the is the normal reaction to a suit. Whether a countersuit prevails is up the the judge and jury.

        Criminal charges due to the amount of money? Ha! Look at the massive fraud that was committed in the US causing the last depression. Which specific bankers that caused the fraud have been charged criminally?

    • Engineer48

      Never happen.

    • DrD

      And the Phoenix will arise as a QuarkX

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have posted many critical comments on this blog whenever I thought it was appropriate. None of these posts have been moderated or removed. Maybe it is all a question of content and style?

    • Private Citizen

      The openness to debate has gotten better and made the site more informative and interesting, in my o.

  • sam

    You people can have this legal B.S
    I will concentrate on the 7 day test.
    I like the simple,so far so good.
    I am with her today,having trouble
    with her today.she passed the test,
    she failed but will try again.

    • sam

      Erik
      June 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM
      Dear Andrea:
      Happy Birthday.
      Andrea Rossi
      June 3, 2016 at 7:01 AM
      Erik:
      Thank you!
      Warm Regards
      A.R.

    • Pweet

      I think that is precisely what Mr. Rossi wants you to do, and everyone else.
      Forget everything about the previous partner/s; forget about the 1MW test, and focus on the next shiny new thing. I’m sure that has been the whole purpose of the every day mention of the “How is going the Quack X today” requests on the Rossiblog. “She is going very very good,..” etc.
      For someone who doesn’t want to stir up the competition, this seems to be a lot of unnecessary stirring.
      I predict the results of the 7 day test will be “She is going very very good,..”, but all covered by total secrecy due to issues regarding IP protection.

      • Engineer48

        Yawn.

      • Omega Z

        One previous partner(DGT) who also defaulted on payment and tried to steal Rossi’s IP.

  • Frechette

    Good move on Leonardo’s attorney John Annesser, Esq. If IH believes Rossi’s tech does not work and they are honest then they should be unconcerned about not retaining the license. Otherwise they would be selling a product under false pretenses which amounts to fraud.

    • Eyedoc

      Yep

      • I believe it was somewhat painful for IH to use the legal tech. detail as a way to justify them not pay the $89M. This had to be done though to be able to not introduce the ERV report, which is dangerous to them since it clearly shows COP ~50 even thoug Weaver/Rothwell done their best to FUD IH out of it… They failed and they know it. Their only plan is to go all anti-LENR, but that is risky and they know it, especially with the ERV report still around… Watching IH operative Fred Zoepfl transform on ECN gives a hint. He is peddling settlement still using fraud threats though, now including Hydro Fusion in every other post, which gives a hint on what IH worry most about .
        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/ih-operative-and-alt-energy-tax-dollar-financed-fred-zoepfl-has-been-activated-again-on-ecn/

  • Sanjeev

    I’m a layman but I think the agreement cannot be terminated in such one sided way via a general press release.
    The agreement itself has no termination clause, which would say how the termination can happen. Either both parties need to agree on paper to terminate it or it may need a court order. A press release is then issued for the public stating that it has been terminated, not before that.
    May be Rossi needs to change his lawyer?

    • Engineer48

      Would suggest Rossi’s lawyer sent the termination notice to IH’s lawyer via couried with signed receipt.

      Termination is normally by causing a default action.

      I would suspect IH was sent a demand notice for the payment of the $89m, with an indication that if payment was not received by a certain date, IH would be in default & the license would be terminated.

      Just a guess but this is now it normally works.

      • Pweet

        In view of how previous partnerships have gone, I think by now Mr. Rossi would have a simple sheet which he can just change the name on top to the relevant entity and send off a photocopy. This is hardly new territory for him.
        It amazes me how many partners can’t recognize a golden goose when it flies in their window. Apparently all they see is a quick tasty meal of Kentucky Fried Ducky rather than the thousands of golden eggs it will undoubtedly lay. Gee! Venture capitalists must be so unbelievable short sighted. Unless, as they claim, they never actually managed to sight a single golden egg.

        • Engineer48

          Hey is that you Weaver?

          • Pweet

            Hardly seems likely does it?
            In case it does, the answer is no! Definitely not!

        • Omega Z

          You would be amazed at how many VC’s risk everything over a few dollars vs the rewards. People make no sense. Do you realize the number of wealthy Hollywood movie stars that have been caught shoplifting menial things. It boggles the mind.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        No, does not work that way at all.

        Unless the yearlong test is tied to the IP rights agreement, then maybe.

        I am not sure who wrote this press release for this for AR, but it is more of what Rossi wants to do than that of a legal position.

        Because there is some disagreement over payment for a test does NOT all of a sudden get you a free go pass in terms of saying the IP rights agreement is now null and void. That is really silly.

        I mean, you’re building me a house, and we disagree over the steps – that does not instantly toss out the agreement to build the house or allow me to terminate the builder and toss him out. (at least without some due process), or it is spelled out as to what is considered breach of the whole contract.

        And the response from IH states exactly this simple legal concept – that’s why they asking the lawsuit be tossed out.

        If the IP rights and transfer was tied to the yearlong test and agreement, then perhaps this makes sense. However, the IP rights were transferred and the 11 million were given to Rossi. The fact of different issue of a yearlong test and paying 89 million is a VERY different issue than that of the IP rights. The dispute over the test and payment is a separate matter then that of the transfer of IP rights. Because one has a dispute over the test and payment does not instantly give one the right to terminal the whole contract and take back the IP rights signed over.

        It possible that there are terms and clauses that state how termination
        can occur since I not seen the agreements – if such terms were spelled out,
        then failure of payment over some test might terminate the IP rights signed
        over and agreements as such. However the legal response from IH states that no
        such clause or termination rights exist. They further state that both parties
        had to sign off on the agreed starting test date (that did not occur).

        So the fact of some disagreement over a test and payment at
        the end of the test thus does not out of the blue allow one to terminate the IP
        rights and toss out everything agreed upon in the contract.
        IH claims that they purchased and received unlimited use and rights of the IP by transferring the 11 million. This also likely gave them rights to file patients. (and often because that patient has previous inventors – their names appear on that patient (and permission from that original rights holder is not required to occur in this case)).

        I not sure who’s giving Rossi legal advice, but the idea that failure of the test or some disagreement over the test does not instantly give Rossi the right to terminate the contract, and specifically the IP rights.

        And if termination is assumed to have occurred then Rossi would have to give back the 11 million dollars – until such time that 11 million is returned, then IH likely still has unlimited rights they purchased from Rossi.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Engineer48

          The contract required 3 payments to be made as the precursor test was passed.

          Rossi claims 3.2c was passed and after the 5 days payment time expired, sued for the outstanding money.

          I suggest Rossi’s solicitor also sent a demand to IH for the payment, stating that if the funds were not paid by a certain time, IH would be in breach/default of condition 3.2c, 3.1 and 1 and that this breach/default would trigger the contract being terminated as IH were not continually obliging the terms and conditions of the contract as stated in Clause 1.

          Of course that is just a “Bush Lawyer’s” view and we will await the outcome of the US Justice System.

          • Engineer48

            Everything granted in the contract is

            “Subject to the terms and conditions of this license”

            continually being obliged to, limited by and constrained by all the terms and conditions of the contract for the life of the contract.

            The payment condition in 3.2c did not happen nor did the total payment event condition of 3.1 happen, thus the Company did not follow / meet the terms and conditions of the entire contract and thus they were in breach/default and any grant was nullified as the Clause 1 obligations were then not met.

            This contract is a living thing. That a grant was executed in the past does not mean that grant is still valid once the founding terms and conditions of the grant are breached.

            Bush Lawyer 101 opinion.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0bd81aad90c3005780cfd89bd821a51becfb510255b28ea2124b5f8d131af09f.jpg

          • Albert D. Kallal

            All I’m saying is that breach of the 89 payment may not instant invalidate IH rights they acquired. And I 100% agree that the reverse may well be the case.

            However, IH acquired the IP rights long before the 1 year test was completed – it not a given that the rights are subject only to the 89 million payment. If the IP rights are subject to the 89 million payment, then Rossi case of withholding some IP is actually solidified.

            And if AR is going to walk away claiming they breached, then I suspect the 11 million paid to AR will be an issue. As noted, with more information, it may well be the case that failure to pay the remaining money does rescind IH IP rights.
            For sure, IH not paying could well place their IP rights in jeopardy.. I suspect IH wants to hang on to their rights and it kind of hard to do so if they are claiming that what Rossi has does not work.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Weaver wrote:
            Alan – The Gotcha Games ended at 5 zulu. IH has stopped research on Rossi’s NiH line – it didn’t work after years of trying. If a promising NiH track is created by an IH researcher or becomes available thru others for characterization, verification and replication then we have the money, the labs, the engineers and would be all ears as long as there is no scamasaurus past. We’re done with those.

            Of course IH has stopped research on Rossi’s NIH line.

            Rossi terminated their licence and they can no longer legally use his IP nor can they legally sell LENR reactors that use Rossi’s NIH technology.

            Of course IH will try to discredit Rossi’s NIH technology as Weaver is talking up the Brillouin LENR technoligy that IH invested in.

          • Allan Shura

            The best test is a functioning unit in service or even a working display. The results speak for themselves. Few grasp electricity but all of us use or depend upon it.
            The IP is cloaked in secrecy, legal positioning and on and on. I learned that deep pockets can
            utilize this approach, but the scale has to be massive in the industrial top down path to have an effect on the world market. The grassroots bottom up can be effective in co-operation with many small rather than few large.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Agreements usually specify terms under which they can be terminated. I have entered many contracts that can be terminated by either party unilaterally under various conditions.

  • cashmemorz

    A good risk at the time but not now. Too much going negative at least the court case that Leonardo started will likely slow the approach to market too much, so why keep money tied up in such a too long an investment before any expectation of returns. If I had money in the game It looks now a good time to get out and wait for more positive signs that it= Rossi’s or any one else’s LENR device is good COP and foolproof. But not yet.

  • psi2u2

    At this time anyway, this sounds more like some of Rossi’s critics than him. They sound selfish and have little to offer. I might change my mind, but really to me the notion that Rossi is playing poker and has nothing seems at this point very unlikely. I base this view on the recent court evidence as well as the behavior of major participants like the masked Mr. Weaver. At any rate, I think we will have a much clearer idea in the coming weeks about whether this optimistic scenario is real.

    One fact at least seems to me hard to deny: If Rossi really did get a cop of 50 for a year after that reactor, then things are going to unfold rapidly from here on out one way or another. The forces pushing for delay will be enormous and multifarious.

  • Eyedoc

    Of course they can, the contract was violated by non pay

    • Bruce__H

      If it was IH’s that actions violated the contract and thus terminated it, why does Leonardo say it took a decision to terminate the agreement? Wasn’t it terminated already automatically? Why is a decision needed?

      And if it wasn’t already terminated automatically, can Leonardo terminate it by just saying it is terminated?

  • Leonard Weinstein

    I have a suspicion that someone made clear to IH that the E-Cat or any LENR would be so disruptive to the world (loss of value in all other energy sources and thus cause economic chaos), that it had to be delayed at any cost. They may have been compensated to stop it, or just convinced to do this (even possibly threatened).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, when the MSM mentions the E-Cat (one of mankind’s
      greatest discoveries), it’s often an attempt to disparage it. And it’s usually presented with a condescending “being responsible” spin.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46342612/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/fraud-claims-over-e-cat-cold-fusion-machine-heating/#.V1IlJCFKXIs

    • kdk

      These clowns have already had so many years of warning. They play the public with the media they mostly own, and yes, people can be easily chosen for public roles because of their sheepish nature, in the media, by people well versed in keeping secrets in the government.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Now you have me thinking about Ian Flemig. In his novels, he was telling us how the powers that be maintain their hegemony. This Siamese fighting fish scene is a bit corny but it is instructive. Is this how they will take control of LENR?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gi0VDZzjtQ

      • Engineer48

        Nice.

    • Sam

      In the days just before the report was delivered there was a lot of unusual activity in Washington similar to that before the financial crisis of 2008.

      Could just be a coincidence, but it seemed to me something significant was happening, that the public was not briefed on.

      • SG

        Can you provide some more specifics? I didn’t notice anything but the usual Washington political pundits talking about Trump’s hair or Hillary’s cough.

        • Sam

          In April, the white house arranged emergency meetings with the (not) federal reserve. Both the president and vice president was attending at least one of the meetings. These two guys are not really supposed to spend too much in the same room as each other, it becomes a matter of national security.

          Maybe they where discussing the +100 billion US dollar bonds that China recently dumped, after all, media was not talking about it 😀

          • SG

            LENR and Bitcoin. Two topics that bring fear to the established powers, and potentially great freedoms to the people.

          • Engineer48

            As per the contract, if the Leonardo built 1MW ECat plant tested in Italy for the $1.5m payment and then shipped to IH at Raleigh did not pass muster at Raleigh, IH could ask for their $1.5m back. Yet they did not.

            Additionally if the passed to IH IP did not pass Validation, IH could ask for their $10m back. Yet they did not.

            Clause 1 requires IH to continually observe and be compliant to ALL the terms and conditions of the contract. To not do so is clearly a breach/default of the contract which could give Leonardo the right to terminate the contract.

            Clause 3.1 clearly sets out the total payment required under the contract and 3.2a, 3.2b & 3.2c define the individual payment events and what triggers each payment event.

            If you think not making the required payment of 3.2c does not give Leonardo the right to terminate the contract for a non payment generated breach/default event, well I would like to offer you a contract where you transfer goods, IP and territory to me and I only make partial payment to you. Bet you just might tell me my contract was terminated for non payment and sue me for the outstanding money I owe you?
            .

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Right, but IH claiming the terms of the test were not met – including a clause that says IH must sign off on the starting date – that according to IH did not occur.

          • Engineer48

            Lest we forget:
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/09/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works-pefectly/
            Slight reformatting was done to improve readability.

            AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH 2013:

            The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech:
            for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare, manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled, insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us.

            This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly.

            This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees.

            It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special.

            We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory).

            All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step.

            Back then we did not know IH was the partner that had achieved this result.
            .

          • It will be fascinating to see how Jones Day try to ‘reframe’ this rather damning (to their defense) event if the hearing ever goes ahead.

          • Or consider not all is true in what was said.

            note also that manufacturing heaters and boiler can be transfered to IH…
            once you don’t transfer powder that work, as Fulvio Fabiani said himself (Rossi controlled the powder availability, thus preventing 3rd party tests), manufactured by third party is just :
            “I transfered the technology for an electric boiler to IH.”

            I imagine that like me they imagined Rossi was just a bit strange, expecting a later move when he would give the real IP.. but the behavior of IH show they have nothings usable in hand.

          • Engineer48

            Alain,

            This statement by Rossi is in the public record and is dated as indicated.

            for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory (a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare, manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled, insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us.

            It was made 8 July 2013, predating the current issues by many years, so unless Rossi has a time machine and just rewrote the time line, why would it not be true? Back then he had nothing to gain by the statement not being true.

            The man was VERY proud his licensee, IH, had built a fully operational ECat module and neither he nor Leonardo did any work on it. IH purchased all the ingredients to make the fuel, prepared it and loaded it into the ECat module and the then completed ECat module powered on and performed as did a Leonardo manufactured ECat module.

            I would suggest Rossi has the data to verify that statement in court, which of course totally destroys the IH statement and court filings.

          • SG

            It seems that IH would have broken off the relationship with Rossi at the time if they disagreed with his very public announcement.

          • BillH

            This maybe proof that IH built an E-Cat, it’s not proof that it worked, or that it worked reliably. Otherwise there would be no need for a test and there would be no need for all this F8 uncertainty. They would simply have gone into full production. Clearly IH need further reassurance that the E-Cat worked reliably and AR must have agreed, as the 1 year test went ahead.

          • Engineer48

            If they didn’t work, then the IP failed the Validation and IH could request their funds returned. Please read clauses 3.2a and 3.2b as attached.

            The 1 year test and the $89m payment were a part of the agreement from the start and not something added on later. Please see clause 3.2c of the agreement as attached.

            What we do now know is IH did manufactured functional ECat modules back in July 2013, that were based on the Leonardo design.

            The 1 MW backup side wall mounted ECat reactor was designed and manufactured by IH as was the later designed and manufactured central island 4 x 250kWt slab reactor.

            Ask yourself why during the design and manufacture of 2 versions of the 1MW ECat reactor, if they did not work, would IH continue? Ih had ample opportunity to test the various modules and assembled plants in their Raleigh facility.

            As you say why would IH put 2 untested reactor designs (prime and backup), that they knew did not produce excess heat, together into a 40ft container, ship them to Miami and collect $1,000 per day from THEIR customer for delivering a faked 24MWht of energy to THEIR customer?

            And during that process bring various potential investors to the operational plant, apparently claiming it worked, while knowing all the time that it did not and was a fake?

            Look I’m sure an engineer but what I read from IH statement and from Weaver speak just does not add up.

          • Engineer48

            Oops didn’t do the 1st attachment which is below.

          • IH is essentially just a paper company used to isolate Cherokee from any liabilities arising, and to manage the investment money involved. It probably comprises a small office somewhere at Cherokee’s Raleigh HQ. AFAIK it doesn’t own any precision engineering facilities, although Cherokee might do.

            Do we know who was contracted to actually build the prototypes and to carry out various mods and repairs at Rossi’s behest? The options seem to be (1) Another Cherokee-owned company, (2) Leonardo or Ampenergo, acting as contractor, (3) A third party engineering company.

            This is a question that’s been bugging me for a while.

          • clovis ray

            LOL, smile

          • clovis ray

            wow, very interesting, and i believe correct.

  • Pweet

    He was originally in Europe and went scouting for a manufacturing plant in America so there would be no delay. Why will it make any difference to go back to Europe?

    • Engineer48

      Just maybe Leonardo will have a major new partner/customer who would like a QuarkX manufacturing plant nearby. Say in Sweden?

  • billH

    Where does it say who should provide the test site? In fact, why would AR agree to such a test without a customer already in place? There must have been an agreement between AR and IH at a later date, either written or verbal, that the test could be started at a later date otherwise the plant would never have been moved to Florida and IH staff would never have been on site. This indicates that at the start of the 1 year test that all parties were happy for the test to proceed. Building a different reactor configuration was clearly an additional cost, who paid?

  • Chapman

    IH built the devices themselves from Rossi’s plans, and already certified their operation, demonstrated them for investors, and used them to submit Patent applications.

    Your “What-if”s are specious, and your Kung Fu is weak.

    What is really bothering you? What do you fear, or detest, that has you clinging to any possible justification to continue your stubborn skepticism? I am not criticizing – I too believe in being cautious regarding ridiculous science claims – but I wonder what is really at the heart of your Rossi animus.

    You seem intelligent, and come across as having at least some education, so what happened to cause your intellect to be so overwhelmed by your emotions?

    • Bruce__H

      With regard to IH building the ecat units from Rossi’s plans…

      This may be so and I have misunderstood. Did IH build the units in Italy and then ship them to the US? The legal paperwork in the suit Rossi has brought against IH (see https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-0.pdf ) says “In or around August 2013, the E-Cat Unit was delivered from Fererra,Italy to IH at its facility in Raleigh, North Carolina, where preparations began for the final Guaranteed Performance Test” so I had thought that the units were manufactured by Leonardo and shipped to Raleigh.

      • Engineer48

        Leonardo has sold only 1 1MW ECat plant to IH, who paid $1.5m for it as the 1st payment under clause 3.2a in the contract, but after it was tested by the ERV in Italy and passed muster.

        Once it arrived in Raleigh, if IH found it did not then pass muster from their own inhouse tests, they could ask for their $1.5m back. But they did not.

  • Chapman

    I really was not trying to be snarky or rude.

    I understand, and appreciate, the hypothetical “what if”. But here is the problem. If the tech does not work, then it NEVER worked. Period. It was a pipe dream and fake from the start and IH is not a victim, but rather a co-conspirator. IH demonstrated devices of their own construction for investors, and generated funds FAR IN EXCESS of the paltry 11.5 million paid to Rossi!

    Please understand where I am coming from. The contract is a license agreement for the life of the Patent, for designated territorial rights. The total price for the license is 100 million. In addition, IH was to pay Rossi a small royalty on each sale – total royalties capped at 1 BILLION – after which IH would be free to market without royalties for the remainder of the life of the patent.

    Payments on the License, while broken up in increments to ensure performance by both parties of agreed actions and to allow IH to establish an investor base, were not rewards for individual achievements or partial purchases.

    REGARDLESS of the reason for IH defaulting on payment, the contract is now void, and NO IP rights exist for IH. IH does have the right to declare they were justified in non-payment, and has the right to demand a refund of invested funds if the fault is Rossi’s, but as Rossi already offered a refund if they were not satisfied it seems this is not IH’s intent.

    So, to sum it all up: I understand you trying to look impartially at this. I commend your attempt to be pragmatic and focus only on mechanical legal issues, but in so doing you are missing the BASIC legal issue. The contract is done – FINI – dead – as Cleese would say, “It is an Ex-Contract”.

    All that remains is the question of whether IH will demand a refund in court, and whether the court will award legal fees to IH for a judgement, when that settlement was offered voluntarily by the other party, and flatly rejected by IH, prior to the court action. You can not get legal fees for the cost of securing a remittance of funds that were offered and rejected pre-court-action!

    Also, IH can not – SIMPLY CAN NOT – claim fraud on Rossi’s part, as such would implicate themselves equally with Rossi. All they might claim is bad science in the ERV. PERIOD!!! And a dispute over the test is only grounds to refuse to pay, and to terminate the contract. Their only relief is “product return and refund”, just like Walmart or Sears. And they refused the refund…

    No matter HOW you spin it, or twist it, or muddle the facts – IH is up to no good.

  • malkom700

    Leonardo Corporation has received a $ 10 million, and has not transferred the whole IP included the ECAT-X. I think he may be obliged to do and they will pay huge compensation. A Rossi if he was part of the breach may even go to jail.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      This is a civil suit. No criminal penalties. Money only……

      • malkom700

        Yes, but this process can be just the beginning.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Just how do you get criminal penalties from what has happened so far? Breach of a contract is not in any way criminal.

          • malkom700

            Maybe you’re right, it does not matter to us, we only care to put on the market do not delay.

    • Omega Z

      (ECAT-X ???) Exactly how does one require IP to be turned over for something that is not even concluded yet. I’m certain that would have the Judge hysterically rolling on the floor.

      ->”Rossi if he was part of the breach may even go to jail.”
      This is purely about economic breach, However, if you want to go that route ->Darden if he was part of the breach may even go to jail.

      Fair is Fair—

      On a different note, If Darden worked in concert with other entities and shared Rossi’s IP with competitors, you could start looking at conspiracy and then charges to such could be considered against Industrial heat, Darden and others as that becomes a criminal act.

    • Engineer48

      If that was the case, which IH have never claimed, then why did IH do the Validation of the IP, once they received it and not ask for their $10m to be returned.

      Please read the attached which clearly shows that if the delivered 1MW plant or the ECat IP did not meet the contractual requirements, AFTER IH had paid for them, IH could get their monies back. Yet they did not ask for their money back.

      Rossi has publicly stated that he offered to return the $11.5m but IH had to agree to the termination of the contract. He is on record making this statement and that they refused, so he is legally liable if he is not telling the truth. That Weaver disputes this, is worth nothing as what he says has no value in a court.

      From what I see in the contract and from Rossi’s public statement, IH had 3 opportunities to exit the contract and get their funds back, yet they did not do so.

    • Engineer48

      Malkom,

      When IH breached ANY of the terms and conditions of the agreement, any binding requirements on Rossi / Leonardo were null and void, which would include transferring any future IP such as QuarkX.

      Additionally any earlier grant of IP use rights and territory by Rossi / Leonardo would be null and void.

      Bush Lawyer 101 opinion.

      BTW you might be interested in the conditions IH agreeded to be placed on them if the agreement was terminated. Basically they are out of the LENR business and can’t compete with Leonardo for 2 years. Wonder if they have told their investors?

    • Michael W Wolf

      There was no qark X IP. It was and is in R&D. Since Rossi and company has canceled IH’s IP rights. They can bring the quark X out of R&D and not have to give the IP to IH.

  • Chapman

    Agreed.

    (See! I CAN Agree once in a while! 🙂

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, first this is not a mortgage, and the resolution and rights due to a failure of payment is MANY pages long and is the result of years of legal postions by the banks. And even then, their recourse to forclose has a HUGE LONG list of things they mush do and achieve before they out of the blue take your house away.
    Failure of a mortgage payment on a mortgage agreement is a MASSIVE different then a general contract in business.

    Unless the yearlong test is tied to the IP rights agreement, then maybe.

    I am not sure who wrote this press release for this for AR, but it is more of what Rossi wants to do than that of a legal position.

    Because there is some disagreement over payment for a test does NOT all of a sudden get you a free go pass in terms of saying the IP rights agreement is now null and void. That is really silly.

    I mean, you’re building me a house, and we disagree over the building of the steps – that does not instantly toss out the agreement to build the WHOLE house or allow me to terminate the builder and toss him out. (at least without some due process), or it is spelled out as to what is considered breach of the whole contract.

    And the response from IH states exactly this simple legal concept – that’s why they asking the lawsuit be tossed out.

    If the IP rights and transfer was tied to the yearlong test and agreement, then perhaps this makes sense. However, the IP rights were transferred and the 11 million were given to Rossi. The fact of different issue of a yearlong test and paying 89 million is a VERY different issue than that of the IP rights. The dispute over the test and payment is a separate matter then that of the transfer of IP rights. Because one has a dispute over the test and payment does not instantly give one the right to terminal the whole contract and take back the IP rights signed over.

    It possible that there are terms and clauses that state how termination
    can occur since I not seen the agreements – if such terms were spelled out,
    then failure of payment over some test might terminate the IP rights signed
    over and agreements as such. However the legal response from IH states that no
    such clause or termination rights exist. They further state that both parties
    had to sign off on the agreed starting test date (that did not occur).

    So the fact of some disagreement over a test and payment at
    the end of the test thus does not out of the blue allow one to terminate the IP
    rights and toss out everything agreed upon in the contract.

    IH claims that they received unlimited use and rights of the IP by transferring the 11 million. This also likely gave them rights to file patients. (and often because that patient has previous inventors – their names appear on that patient (and permission from that original rights holder is not required to occur in this case)).

    I not sure who’s giving Rossi legal advice, but the idea that failure of the test or some disagreement over the test does not instantly give Rossi the right to terminate the contract.

    And if termination is assumed to have occurred then Rossi would have to give back the 11 million dollars – until such time that occurs, IH likely still has unlimited rights they purchased from Rossi.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Engineer48

    Rossi publicly stated Leonardo/Rossi supplied NOTHING for the 2 x 1MW reactors, prime and backup, other than technical advise, that were tested in the 1 year test. IH designed them, built them and loaded the reactors with the fuel they formulated and made.

    Weaver has never disputed that statement.

    Please also understand what Rossi says in public, he can be held to account for, while Weaver can say whatever he wants as his statement carry no real legal weight.

  • Allan Shura

    It has been at least 5 years since many were, with optimism based on forward-looking statements,
    looking to buy a home e-cat to be available within months. Mr. Rossi was looking to secure a
    head start in the world energy market. He had to work fast but the clock was ticking against
    advanced alternatives if this business model would succeed.
    There was an amazing revelation at the BEM open source global energy conference at the end
    of May few have taken notice. Marko Rodin and associates announced significant over-unity and
    gave a demonstration of the latest prototype of the Rodin coil. I was quite skeptical but I have a high confidence in some of the individuals contributing to this project.
    The open source movement recognized the prior art of Tesla, Moray and others. The technology did not arrive sooner because other inventors in the past could not cut a deal with benefactors to bring this to the world. No doubt there will soon be many replications and validations with a co-operative and open
    build under the oversight of RWG research. The Rodin coil (amplifier) will be available to all so we can
    grow food and clean up the oceans and everything else as we openly examine these claims.