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. JWA@silverlawgroup.com
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

  • 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.

  • 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.

      • Chapman

        Yep. Like Edison, Tesla, Bell, Ford, Frisbee.

        While IH will hold court with the likes of Maddof and Ponzi.

        And Godes will be remembered like, um, what was the name of that crazy guy who said he could run a car on a tank of water? Gee, I can’t remember the losers name… Well, you get the point.

      • HS61AF91

        yeah, you aint seen nothing like the mighty Rossi!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIQLIx2Onw

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Whoa. More pocorn! What will IH do now?

    • SG

      It seems the IH delay game is not going to prevail, because Rossi is going to go full speed ahead without them, it appears. But I would suspect that IH will countersue with all kinds of claims of their own. Be prepared to deal with some doubts about Rossi, because they will make him out to look like one terrible human being.

      • Ged

        At the very least, this -should- make them finally respond, and hopefully with actual substance instead of intangible vagueness.

      • Observer

        As with the Wright brothers, either the plane flies or it doesn’t. No amount of character assassination and innuendo will prevail over a working device in the market place.

        IH has been playing blindly by the venture capitalist’s playbook. Once AR determined they were not to be trusted, Rossi began the wheels in motion to cut them out. It is like watching a Chess master play someone who has memorized all the right moves for tic-tac-toe.

        • SG

          Definitely agree with your first paragraph. But don’t underestimate IH. They will come out swinging, and hard.

          • Observer

            I am not impressed with a group that names their company “Industrial Heat”. Now maybe if they had called it “Industrial Heat and Magic”…

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gunnar Lindberg

    IH/Darden must be happy they did not pay the licence fee.

    • Brokeeper

      Hmmm, 89M vs 890B potential?

  • Observer

    It will be interesting to see how IH responds. How do they argue that the E-Cat has no value, but its distribution and IP rights have value? Will they demand the contract remains in effect or demand repayment of the 11 million? Or is the 11 million forfeit do to not completing the payment of the 89 million? (non-refundable deposit?)

    • Ged

      I guess maybe the 11 million is written off since it was payment for goals and test milestones that were previously successfully met. Hm… but one good thing about this announcement is it should draw out IH. Maybe now we can get an actual response instead of nothingness. Or even a posting of the ERV.

  • clovis ray

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

      • Chapman

        AMEN Brother!

        I am so tired of “some folks” tossing out the conviction crap and expecting us to recoil in disgust. But Rossi was 100% right. His company was a success. His process is now proven science, but he was railroaded and screwed by the mob and his countrymen.

        Thank you for stating the truth. We keep letting that little zinger of a lie go without reply, but it is worth setting straight every time it pops up its ugly little head…

  • roseland67

    Nothing about returning the mucho dinero to
    Darden and friends?

    • WaltC

      If IH broke the contract, Leonardo has grounds to keep the $11M. If they didn’t break it, then I expect either the court will decide, or the 2 parties will settle the issue out of court.

      • steph har

        It may be that whoever the quark demo was for is so impressed that they’ve said “give Darden and chums the hoof, here’s the $11M give him it back.”

    • US_Citizen71

      When the loan company repossesses 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.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Why?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • US_Citizen71

    Rossi just cost IH thousands in attorney’s fees. That is if they are going to respond to the complaint.

    • Publius

      Rossi just cost himself and Leonardo Corp. some nice counterclaims for unilaterally terminating a license agreement.

      • US_Citizen71

        It has been more than 90 days since payment was due. IH is now in default, so the announcement is perfectly legal.

        • Publius

          I suspect IH will have much to say about who was in default. I remain open to the possibility Rossi may somehow be at fault. It’s not as impossible as many might believe here.

          • kdk

            18 volumes worth of information?

          • US_Citizen71

            Legally they are financially in default, 90 days behind, whether the court determines if they have just cause to withhold the payment is yet to be seen. They need to say something in the next 10 days or they risk a default judgement against them.

          • DrD

            They just said it. As far as I can tell their excuse is along the lines of “the test period over ran”. ALL because IH managed to delay it. I trust the Jury will see through that.

          • psi2u2

            When is IH setting up their production line?

        • kdk

          Hey, it doesn’t work right, so why bother (>.>)? They’re painting themselves into a corner.

      • NT

        I believe IH canceled their own contract when they failed to make the final payment, and have misused the license by plagiarizing Rossi’s IP and making outside deals with Rossi’s competitors without his approval. These are not good business partners that act in these ways against the inventor. They brought this hell onto themselves for reasons that seem inexplicable at this time – they had it all and BLEW it!

        • Publius

          Not everything Rossi says is true. The very easy to discover facts are is that Darden made a personal investment in Brillouin a few years ago and Brillouin has not had any contact with Darden since then and is not relying on Rossi IP. It’s also very apparent that Brillouin’s Robert Godes is not exactly impressed with Rossi’s methods and has been perfecting his own theory and control system for well over a decade.

          • NT

            You say Darden is not relying on Rossi’s IP, then how do you explain the patent application IH made last year naming Rossi as the inventor when he knew nothing about this and in fact never gave IH any approvals for same?

          • Publius

            My point was Brillouin is not relying upon Rossi IP in contrast to what Rossi has suggested a few times.

          • NT

            Apparently you have more reliable info on Darden and Brillouin than has been reported here. How about some qualitative links to back up your statements, please…

          • Publius

            Call Brillouin and arrange a meeting with Robert George, Robert Godes and David Firshein. If you don’t believe me, maybe you will believe them.

          • NT

            Common, get real. Give me something you are claiming I can find and read…

          • Publius

            I don’t care if you believe me or not, but I met with Brillouin’s executives face to face and believe them over Rossi spouting off on his blog about Darden/IH sharing IP with others, specifically BEC.

          • NT

            So now its, Godes say’s…

          • Publius

            At the end of the day, I tend to believe the Brillouin guys that a) have not been convicted of fraud and b) have SRI, the best in the business, confirming their technology.

          • NT

            I don’t agree with you about Rossi’s past, but to tell you the truth; I hope they both hit the market with products soon. That would be the best outcome for us all.

            See ya around the blogsphere…

          • Chapman

            You mean the technology they abandoned? Because I don’t remember reading where SRI certified their current “E-Cat Clone” tech.

            I could be wrong… Anybody else remember SRI testing and validating an E-Cat – either Rossi’s OR Brilluoin’s?

            How strange…

            Are you SURE you really understand any of this complicated “sciency” stuff, or are you just determined to ride that bus till the tires fall off?

          • Publius
          • SG

            Please provide substantiation of Rossi having been “convicted of fraud.” What you will actually find, is that he was acquitted of fraud, even after having served time on the alleged charge. Pretty fair huh? And isn’t it great that others add to the smear with alacrity and without basis.

          • Publius

            I don’t know how you put a positive spin on a conviction for income tax fraud and multiple charges of improper disposal of toxic waste, etc. The common denominator is deception which is an automatic red flag for me.

          • SG

            It is quite easy to claim someone was convicted of fraud, but altogether something else to substantiate the claim. Still no substantiation?

            From someone who actually dug deep into Rossi’s background:

            “four processes concerning criminal fraud were initiated but they all ended up with Rossi being acquitted or that charges were dropped. The last and crucial process of fraud lasted for a year in 2003 and 2004 in Milan. Rossi was charged along with three other people for what he was constantly accused of—illegally and knowingly having received and disposed of hazardous waste—but the court concluded that this was not true. On the contrary, it was shown that Rossi’s business really processed and sold the waste materials that were purchased.” https://animpossibleinvention.com/errata/

          • Publius

            Let’s stop the bickering. Rossi himself admits 5 convictions for the tax fraud for which he served time.

            http://ingandrearossi.com/la-capitolazione-fine-di-un-sogno/

          • SG

            Again, there is no substantiation. Here is the pertinent part:

            “Of the 56 prosecutions, all those which led to his incarceration ended with sentences of acquittal. Only 5 indictments (for income tax evasion, as a consequence of the bankruptcy brought about by the closure of Omar and Petroldragon) ended with convictions, which were used to justify the lengthy period of preventive imprisonment linked to the accusations that had led to his arrests. All other judicial processes ended in acquittals.”
            http://ingandrearossi.net/the-capitulation-end-of-a-dream/

            “According to his lawyer Andrea Ambiveri, four processes concerning criminal fraud were initiated but they all ended up with Rossi being acquitted or that charges were dropped.”
            https://animpossibleinvention.com/errata/

            Now, as the saying goes, a mere ham sandwich can be indicted. Allegations are easy to make. I challenge anyone to be prosecuted 56 times and beat them all. Something stuck, which isn’t surprising. But it wasn’t fraud. Okay?

          • Publius

            Okay. Maybe Rossi gets wrongly convicted in Italy. Maybe Rossi is somehow more ingenious than McKubre, Godes, Schwartz, Piantelli, and Hagelstein. Maybe Industrial Heat ripped Rossi off and lied about not being able to substantiate any of his results. Maybe this secret customer in Miami is legitimate. Maybe Rossi gets a 50 COP, far exceeding his competitors. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

          • SG

            I will admit, there are plenty of maybies going around right now. We are all trying to resolve those, one way or the other. But let’s try and be factual in our statements in the meanwhile and avoid the character assassinations.

          • psi2u2

            Maybe Rossi is somehow more ingenious than McKubre, Godes, Schwartz, Piantelli, and Hagelstein.

            Exactly. Maybe he is. I have great respect for those scientists, but their stature in no way guarantees that they should at the cutting edge of developments.

          • psi2u2

            You are taking these things entirely out of their significant historical and cultural context all of which are favorable to Rossi in the sense that his business was effectively destroyed by a crash in oil prices.

  • 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.

  • bfast

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Guy Thomas

      That doesn’t explain IHs patent applications

      • 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.

    • 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.

  • wonderboy

    So does that mean IH (darden) loses his 10 million?

    I don’t think this is the greatest development, but maybe it’s inevitable given the current situation. I was hoping they would reconcile and focus on commercialization.

    • kdk

      Honestly, in retrospect, I don’t think there was much chance of that once they decided to go the APCO route.

      • Roland

        The presence of APCO in this dispute should alert anyone with the most minor acquaintanceship, with the APCO corporate record, that things are not as they seem.

        Pretty soon the dots are gonna connect and the ‘wiz’ come into focus.

        P.S. Mr. Darden was offered his $11.5 million back some time ago. In writing, one would presume, as a completely diarized document trail is absolutely indispensable when doing business with some folks…

  • Steve Swatman

    Just as IH were getting ready to release their reply to Mr Rossi, his lawyer slaps this on the world stage. Did IH lawyers see this one coming? has APCO got got their desk jockeys ready to attack? are they all sitting back stunned and unable to respond, or running around like headless chickens?

    Ah to be a fly on the wall at all the meetings going on this morning.

    • psi2u2

      O yah. Heads were rolling.

  • 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.

    • Chapman

      “Chimpanzified”???

      I LOVE IT!

      I gotta remember that one. 🙂

    • help_lenr

      The lawsuites are not over yet. Might take years.

      I hope the the new partners, if any, in the June 2016 test of quarkx will support Rossi lawsuites.

      In the meantime IH and their partners will have hard time to get more investors in their LENR activity.

  • e-dog

    I will believe it when I see it….

    • SG

      Could you at least combine your musing into one posting rather than spreading them all out like that? 😉

      • NT

        He likes to see his avatar hogging up space, its cute, but not that cute – Grow up kid!

        • Roland

          Micro tactics.

          Proven to work on stupid people…

          • psi2u2

            Ya where’s your avatar? i can tell u live on planet rossi whoever u r u masked ‘Roland’. We are really gonna get him cause he’s a friggin ‘nventor and we don’t like no damned ventors and I want my money back. And besides I’ll shed where-ever i like because Rossi is immoral and he broke my heart. ; )

    • help_lenr

      Get a bone in the meantime.

      Rossi owes you nothing, he will sell his ecats to those who really pay for ecat, not to those who only rant in forums.

      Buying will be based upon positive feedback by the first buyers. Apparently orders for 3 pieces of 1MW have been placed in april 2016, maybe by the 1year tester, and will be installed until end of 2016.

  • e-dog

    I think you have nothing much Mr Rossi

    • Roland

      It’s ok Dog, no one here has great expectations for the intellectual acuity, or physics education, of canines; it’s not your fault, it’s just genetics.

  • e-dog

    It seems like a very big game of Poker to you… can you help the world???NO…. or you would< I dont think you are a bad guy but you have nothing to help our world.. other wise you would.. I think.

  • 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.

  • e-dog

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

    • 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, are 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.

  • e-dog

    I was a big supporter of Rossi and his ecat tech.. but now I dont like him because he is selfish.

  • e-dog

    or he has nothing and playing poker

    • Gorgo

      If I was Rossi, I would do exactly the same thing. Help the world. Get real dude. Who would help me when I was in jail who??? And who would help my family. Call it selfish…..you have nothing to offer in fact.

      • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Engineer48

    A potential partner/customer, like ABB, would require their QuarkX marketing, installation & maintenance arm to be able to operate world wide, with no territory restrictions.

    At this point in time, the QuarkX test for the potential partner/customer may be going so well that Leonardo decided to show their good faith & remove any territory concerns of the new partner/customer.

    My gut feel is this act has removed any potential roadblocks and how it will be full speed ahead with the new partner/customer be it ABB or who ever.

    Well player team Rossi. Well played.

    • Roland

      Exactly.

      Woodford…? Still MIA.

    • DrD

      I fear we can’t assume that as IH may well counter that announcement with a counter lawsuit or something. OR maybe even AR’s own lawsuit might do it for them. Unfortunately, it’s still in limbo IMO. I hate to be so negative.

      • DrD

        Does the QuarkX come under the same dispute? I think we don’t even know that?

        • Roland

          From a practical perspective IH is effectively locked out of the Quark because Rossi kept it from them, after IH’s early transgressions, and the Quark is forever lost to them already.

          From a legal perspective IH will continue to make any and every conceivable claim Day Jones can think up (the clock is running at $1,200 or so per billable hour) and we can expect this to continue into the foreseeable future.

          Possibly decades will pass in this fashion depending on who’s actually footing the bill.

          Leonardo, meanwhile, will wisely continue to operate as though the contract, in all its provisions, has already been dismissed.

      • Engineer48

        Would suggest Rossi’s new partner/customer’s legal eagles know exactly what is going on and have mapped out the potential pathways & likely costs to defend their territory.

        If it is ABB & they will go for global QuarkX boiler replacements in all the world’s existing and new thermal power plants, well that could be worth trillions of sales & profit to them. Maybe just worth fighting for?

        If it is ABB, will be IH’s worst nightmare.

        • DrD

          I certainly hope so!

      • Engineer48

        IH never fulfilled 3.1.

        3 (3.1) The total price for the grant of the License and purchase of the Plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,500,000).

        There was never a Grant of License event. IH don’t have a License to conditionally use the IP they received after the $10m payment event, nor do they have control over the desired Territories.

    • Pweet

      There is no way the “potential partner” will be ABB or anything like ABB.
      This is the same discussion we had three or four years ago when so many people were proposing the new partner would be some well established and reputable organisation like Siemens or National Instruments or the likes, with considerable technical expertise.
      My belief is that any new partner will be of similar technical capabilities as IH, that is, minimal. This would be consistent with the standing of all previous partners and licensees.
      This has been going so long now that it has established a well worn script which I don’t think this present episode will depart from.

      • Engineer48

        Then again your opinion may not be correct.

        With the termination of the IH contract, Leonardo can now offer a multinational partner/customer a worldwide agreement, which Leonardo could not do while IH held their license.

        I suggest ask yourself why Leonardo terminated the IH license when they did, in the middle of the QuarkX testing with their potential new partner/customer?

        Just maybe then needed a ck5ean slate to sign a planet wide deal?

        • Pweet

          Of course my opinion may not be correct, but I argued exactly the same point three or four years ago when people were proposing as partner all these well resourced scientific and engineering companies listed on the various stock exchanges around the world. My argument was that it could not be any of these because if it had been, the company would have to make an announcement to the NYSE or whatever exchange their shares traded on to inform the market on what they were doing. No such announcement was ever found and quite a few people looked long and hard for one.
          I also reasoned that any well resourced company would not hand over any significant payment unless they had done their own performance validations of the technology. Most of the companies suggested to be the partners had the ability to do this. I believe Mr Rossi would know that his device would not pass that sort of testing.
          Consequently the partner turned out to be IH, a shell company set up specifically to take on the ecat project, with almost zero in house technical ability and had to rely on the Lugano test to justify their involvement in the technology.
          All those points are still relevant today in the search for a new partner, hence I will be very very surprised if it turns out to be ABB, or anything like them. I can’t see anyone like that buying into it on the basis of a seven day demonstration by Mr Rossi. They would insist on a serious and critical evaluation of it all by their own people in their own labs and Rossi will never agree to that.

        • Pweet

          from above;-
          “With the termination of the IH contract, Leonardo can now offer a multinational partner/customer a worldwide agreement, which Leonardo could not do while IH held their license.”

          That was supposed to be the good thing about IH. They had operations and contacts in a number of places, including China, and they allegedly knew people in high places to speed up certifications etc. That’s why people accepted the dismissal of other licensees, on the grounds that IH would get a bigger territory and it was better for the rapid development of the technology.
          What was the end result of all that reasoning? Nothing at all other than the eater got eaten, and here we are kicking over the bones.

          Regarding;-
          “I suggest ask yourself why Leonardo terminated the IH license when they did, in the middle of the QuarkX testing with their potential new partner/customer?”
          I’ve already answered that earlier and in other threads on the matter.
          When it became clear to Mr Rossi that IH were falling off the bandwagon, announcements started coming thick and fast on the Rossiblog of the miraculous new device discovered virtually overnight which allowed the new ecat X to produce heat and light and electricity, a truly amazing discovery to be sure. I believe this was to entice IH to cough up with the next payment so they could remain in the partnership and thus be part of the next big thing. However, since IH now say they had not been able to substantiate the results of the previous ‘next big thing’ they opted not to make the payment. So Leonardo terminated the IH license when they did because that is when it became apparent that IH were definitely not going to pay him any more money. What else could he do?
          By the terms of the agreement IH had access to any further developments of the hot cat technology and Rossi has said that the ecat x is a derivation of the hot cat technology. Terminating the agreement cuts that link so he did.

  • Rinus

    So the starting date for the currenttest was not a coincidence, but well chosen.

  • IH answersto Rossi’s accusation by a motion to dismiss
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossi-vs-Darden/20160602-Darden-et-al-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

    few on th test itself

    it mostly say the accusations are void

    there is something i don’t understand on the requirement to test the 6 cylinder unit, and one that Ampenergo did not sign a change in testing protocol…

    if someone can reread

    • SG

      Motions to dismiss are standard and expected. Will be interesting to see how the judge rules. If dismissed without prejudice, then Leonardo can refile suit.

    • SG

      One interesting tidbit, IH are claiming that the agreement gives them “the right to have the ‘Licensed Patents with respect to the Territory” assigned to IH or IPH.”

      This is completely false. The language in the agreement did not include the language “hereby assigns.” And as is well-known among patent practitioners, an assignment (i.e., transfer of ownership) is ineffective without those words. I’m afraid IH’s argument here will fail.

      • Roland

        I somehow doubt that IH’s argument is intended for the judge’s ears; some folks might be calling in, from time to time, about the status of their investments…

      • Engineer48

        The grant of the licence condition are clear.

        3 (3.1) The total price for the grant of the License and purchase of the Plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,500,000).

        This payment never happened so there was never a Grant of the License event.

    • Gerald

      Difficult to read, Lawyer talk and not an native English reader. But aren’t they saying,

      Rossie started to late witch the test so he didn’t deliver the guaranteed proformance a certain time period. (why did Rossi in 2015 start a all the 1 year test if he already had breached contract?)

      The interlect for the e-cat was ours so we can do with it what we want.

      Rossi has to thank us we filled in patent with his name on it, its a lot of work and expensive so we helpen him with that.

      Rossi can’t proof we did breach confidentality and btw Rossi did not suffer from it.

      So nowhere they say the e-cat doesn’t work, they just don’t want to pay the 89 mio because the test started to late and the test unit was changed without proof that ih agreed on it.Strange behaviour, I must think about this situation.

    • Barbierir

      I find interesting the following part:

      “[…] Plaintiffs have failed to fulfill their obligation regarding Guaranteed Performance, the fulfillment of which is a condition precedent to IH and IPH’s obligation to pay $89 million under License Agreement § 3.2(c). The License Agreement states that […] the 400-day Guaranteed Performance period begins “on the date immediately following delivery of the Plant to [IH].” Id. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the Plant was delivered to IH in August 2013. Compl. ¶ 59. Therefore, by the terms of the License Agreement, the Guaranteed Performance period must have ended in either September or October 2014. See License Agreement § 5. By Plaintiffs’ own admission, however, they did not even start their “Guaranteed Performance Test” until February 2015 and it was not completed until February 2016. Compl. ¶¶ 66, 71. Such testing was undeniably untimely (by a wide margin) and thus unable to satisfy the “Guaranteed Performance” condition of the License Agreement.”

      No complain about the test results, but this claim sounds ridiculous when, by Weaver own admission, IH wasn’t interested in the 1MW test and Rossi himself had to look for a customer. Now it remains to see if IH will make further actions against Rossi by initiating fraud charges or it was all trolling and disinformation.

      • wpj

        Doesn’t the litigation documentation state that they mutually agreed to abandon the origin specified date? Moreover, IH was the party responsible for organising the 1 year test which they failed to do! Hmmm

        • DrD

          I believe it did but was it a legally binding, agreed, deviation?
          AND what would failure (by IH!!!!) to complete on time mean anyway?
          Also, Note how IH cleverly but incorrectly say “their” (meaning the plaintiffs) “Guaranteed performance test”.

        • Andre Blum

          They say that amendment to the contract was not valid as it missed signatures from AEG and IPH. (they apparently did sign themselves, so they were okay with it).

          • Engineer48

            Mssing signatures are not critical if the parties moved forward an executed as if the signatures were there. Which they did.

      • wpj

        Seems that they are saying that, as IPH (one of IH’s subsiduaries) and APG (previous licensee) did not sign the document for the delay, then AR was in breach because the test was not do immediately!

    • Wow! It sort of proves that IH only wanted to keep Rossi in a tight leash as long as possible … to keep him handing over IP while doing R&D for “free” in a container but believing he would be paid $89M.

      IH knew they were not going to pay a dollar more than they had as soon the plant was in Releigh in 2013 using dirty legal tricks. Obviously their only aim was to steal as much IP as they could using delays. Nice guys …

      ERV talk by Weaver et al. is of course only a diversion as I said the whole time. ERV shows 50 and they know it.

      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/does-ih-admit-they-wanted-to-delay-mw-test-to-steal-as-much-ecat-ip-as-possible-with-legal-tricks/

      • So I guess what they’re simply aiming at is keeping the license (the question Torkel/Sifferkoll was consistently asking Weaver). Which Rossi just stated that they lost. Interesting.

        BTW, if they don’t dispute the test result, and if they don’t accuse Rossi of fraud, basically they confirm that the E-Cat works. Then there should be good reasons for me to re-propose the New Energy World Symposium after summer 🙂

        • Barbierir

          I agree. It remains to see if there are more and harder blows to come, as Weaver
          has been hinting. I don’t know how such thing works… but if that’s all, they make a very poor impression to me.

        • georgehants

          Mats, yes how different everything would be if we had clear indisputable, (by reasonable people) exceptable Evidence that Mr. Rossi’s technology performs as he claims.
          5+ years and as you state you cannot hold your World Symposium because that reliable conformation does not exist.
          The time will hopefully come when talk on this Website is about the best and most worthwhile practical uses of Cold Fusion, with an end to the reams of speculation and opinion.
          It will be interesting to read how you handle this delay in your next book —-An Impossible Invention Becomes a Reality.

        • Ooops —missed the footnote in IH’s motion to dismiss:

          “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).”

          • Barbierir

            I missed the footnote too but how does it make sense? If they have strong evidence that the ERV result is flawed or, worse, intentionally forged (as Weaver and others have been repeating all along), that seems a far stronger defense than claiming it just missed an agreed upon deadline.

          • If I get it right, the defendants cannot pick up new arguments in their dismissal. So this is only a response the the claims in the lawsuit. The footnote indicates that there’s a next step, maybe with a counter lawsuit for fraud. I would expect the total attack to be very strong.

          • Barbierir

            Probably so, Weaver just wrote this: “This is a multi-step process. The MTD is a technical response to Rossi’s civil filing […]”

          • Exactly.

          • psi2u2

            Right on cue.

    • OK, IH, here I am only listening to what you say directly.

      Industrial Heat inserted language into the agreement that required the test to be completed by a certain date… then they refused to set up such a test in a timely matter… then tried to steer Rossi into a shorter test that would not have satisfied the requirements in the agreement… then tried to buy Rossi out… then had people working all year in the test plant providing daily reports, one of whom claimed clear success and stands by those words… then received quarterly reports of a working plant… then ignored the positive test results and refused to pay the $89M… then got sued…

      Then claimed in court that they shouldn’t pay the $89M because the test was not completed on time.

      Did I get that right?

      Unless this is all just a legal hail mary and your real grounds for not paying are that the test failed and you believe you are being defrauded… YOU SUCK.

      • roseland67

        G

        I am under the impression that Darden et al are suing because the Ecat does NOT work as stated? Not because the test was completed on time, is this correct?

  • pg

    -4!

    • kdk

      So, what are we counting towards?

      • artefact

        The end of the one week test of the quark x-cat.

  • 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.

  • 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?).

          • 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.

  • Here’s a link to IH’s motion to dismiss in original version without watermark, if someone would prefer: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

    • Michael W Wolf

      Right off the bat I see IH did breach the contract by not finding the test site in time. If IH claims that the test site that Rossi found was invalid because all parties didn’t sign the agreement for a new date, then IH admits to breaching the contract and the contract ends right at the point when IH’s deadline passed. So IH didn’t meet the deadline and the contract has been breached. Period. Which is why Leonardo issued that press release taking away IH’s license rights for that admitted breach. IH has a problem with Rossi switching out the 100 reactors for the 4 250 kw reactors? You have got to be kidding me. It seems IH didn’t have the money to pay, and now are groping at straws.

      • wpj

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

      • 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?

    • Engineer48

      Mats,

      Despite what Weaver says, the contract requires:

      3 (3.1) The total price for the grant of the License and purchase of the Plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,500,000).

      and not the $11.5m as Weaver quotes.

      • As we say in Sweden: ‘Klart som korvspad!’ (~clear as sausage broth).

        • Engineer48

          Thus:

          There was never a Grant of License event.

          IH don’t have a License to conditionally use the IP they received after the $10m payment event, nor do they have control over the desired Territories.

          • Sanjeev

            See clause 1.1 and 3.2(b).
            The license commences as soon as Rossi receives the $10M.
            Just saying what I see written there.

  • 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.

  • Honestly, I think Industrial Heat is poised to win on most of these counts and may get the whole thing dismissed completely.

    I think they have clear wins on the IP-related issues. On the non-payment of $89M though their whole defense so far is technicalities that, ironically, portray them as acting in bad faith all along (signing but not really signing… not making good faith efforts to resolve problems during the test and instead storing up gotchas for later legal action… etc.).

    What remains unknown is if that’s just the lawyers talking and their real objection is non-performance of the plant. They hint at measurement errors and violated protocols. That remains the crux of the issue for those of us concerned primarily with whether the plant worked or not. I hope this motion fails and we get to see their real objections.

    • Michael W Wolf

      I agree, IH heat has some technically valid claims. If IH’s goal was to bring the world a new energy source, they are acting counter to that. This would change the world and they should bend over backwards to get to this end. But they didn’t, they are being underhanded and deceptive at every turn. Signing that amendment to extend the date of the test and now claiming it is not valid, makes them scum bags of the first order. Good thing Rossi referred to his quark X as R&D. IH has lost any opportunity to get that IP. IH is bitten by their own technicality game. Cause as far as I am concerned, the IP that may be granted to IH by the court is now obsolete. Now I know why Rossi kept saying his quark X would not obsolete the ecat. A fib any smart man being screwed would tell. Bravo Dr. Rossi.

    • Michael W Wolf

      OH, and if IH didn’t own the reactor, why did they accept the 1000 dollars a day for its operation? I mean do you rent something that is not yours? That reactor was own by IH and those payments they accepted are proof. Also it is evidence that they viewed the amendment as valid. IH are vultures for sure in my mind.

      • Engineer48

        IH built the 2 reactors, prime & backup, as used in the 1 year test.

        They are IH property as was the customer an IH customer.

        The IH owned plant supplied 24MWhs of heat every day to the customer who paid IH $1k per day for the heat energy delivered.

    • doug marker

      Am not sure on what you base your belief ?. I can’t see the slightest evidence they are going to ‘win’ on all points.

      Do you have a crystal ball, perhaps you are a district court judge ?, or a lawyer – surely one of these ?.

      Cheers DSM

      • Michael W Wolf

        No man. If you read the contract and read their dismissal request, they have valid technical issues there. Sure, they don’t act like they are trying to get a new energy source to the people as they claim, and a judge may or may not rule for them. But they have claims that could be ruled in their favor.

        • doug marker

          I’ll leave it to the lawyers & Judges 🙂 – they get paid for it.

          Cheers DSM

      • I base it on my layman’s reading of the agreement, Rossi suit and now IH’s motion to dismiss. Plus whatever nuggets are shared in these discussions that flesh out various points.

        But as I said I am not a lawyer.

    • Engineer48

      IH pre agreed that the ERV reported COP was the ONLY decider on the payment of the $89m or some part thereof.

      If IH can’t discredit the ERV’s reported COP, they owe Rossi $89m.

      Now because they failed to pay the $89m, Rossi says they are in default & has terminated the rights granted to them in the contract.

      • BillH

        The counter argument as stated by IH’s lawyers is that the 1 year test was not completed within the agreed time-scale and an extension to this period was never agreed by all the parties involved. They also contend that the test was not carried out on the stipulated plant. This is the first time that mention of a 6 cylinder plant has been introduced. If any report is to be allowed to be entered as evidence AR/LC must establish the 1 year test was entered into in bad faith on IH’s part, because they knew that regardless of any results it would be invalid. The judge is likely to conclude that as the test went forward IH had tacitly agreed to the rescheduling, regardless of any other parties. IH personnel having been involved on site gives credence to this assumption.

        Damn, I’ve been infected by all this legalese.

      • Pweet

        The 1MW test was not the only part of the agreement signed.
        The first part and the part for which the first 11 million was paid, was that all IP relating to the ecat was to be made available to IH to the extent that IH should then have everything necessary to produce the reactors and make them work. Originally Mr Rossi claimed he had done this and he said IH had made a reactor and it worked. IH have now claimed they could not get it to work. I think they did make a reactor but it only worked if Mr Rossi was there to “work” it. My opinion is that Mr Rossi is the ‘secret sauce’.

        In their acknowledgement of the legal action they say;-
        “Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success.
        Leonardo Corporation and Mr. Rossi also have repeatedly breached their agreements.”
        The “results” relate to whether the device made worked or not, not to the actual building of it, and I would assume the breach of agreement IH mentions relates to not handing over the IP sufficient to make the reactor work.
        If that is true, and I think it is, the agreement was breached long before IH refused to hand over yet another 89 million dollars. The handing over of a further 89 million would be insane if they had still not managed to produce anything workable to justify the payment of the initial 11 million dollars.
        About a year before all this blew up Darden made the comment that he did not find Rossi a credible person. I think this can be taken as an early indication that IH were having trouble verifying the ecat performance claimed by Rossi. That would certainly make his claims non credible.

        When all this talk of electric ecat x’s started to emerge, Darden was reported as requesting that the wildly optimistic announcements being made should not be taken as fact unless verified by IH. Some people thought that must be relating to other investments of IH, but it was obvious the wildly optimistic announcements were almost certainly those of Rossi.
        While IH does have other investments in LENR, all other players say very little. if anything at all.
        Keeping all this in mind, I don’t think the legal case, if it actually does get to the courts, will depend on whatever the results of the 1MW test were, bogus or otherwise. I think it will mainly focus on whether Rossi breached his agreement to hand over all IP to IH sufficient for them to make it work. IH claim he did not. It’s a simple claim and should be quite easy to prove, one way or the other.

        • Engineer48

          If you read the contract, if IH found the Leonadro built 1MW reactor that was 1st tested in Italy, then delivered to Raleigh, did not deliver a min COP = 6 or the transfered IP did not produce the desired results they could ask for their $1.5m & $10m to be refunded.

          It is there, in the contract as atrached.

          Don’t you find it strange IH never asked for their money to be returned, then later denied Rossi’s offer to return the $11.5m & have the contract terminated?

          What I see here is a man, so sure of his plant & IP, that he offers his licensee the in contract option, no need to sue, to back out of the contract & have their monies returned.

          As Rossi told Mats, the $11.5m is sitting untouched in Rossi’s bank so he can do the return as stated in the contract & as stated in publuc, on his blog. All IH needed to do to get that money back was to agree to terminate the contract. Now that opportunity seems to have passed with Leonadro termination the contract due to IH breaching the payment clause 3.2c.

          They had ample ways to get their money back, but no they refused to give up the contract, yet claim the plant & IP don’t work.

          I find that action very difficult to understand, if the plant & IP really do not work.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/114dc4a05048d7c4302aacd3445b9341d7c8f4bcabd240175b00f960e207f605.png

          • Pweet

            I find it very difficult to believe Mr Rossi ever seriously offered to pay back the money paid to IH. Property transfer records indicate much of it was spent buying condos in Miami, and some of it was spent on buying back other licenses which were not able to be exercised due to Rossi’s inability to supply the ecat product to which the license related.
            I would want to see proof from someone not related to the Rossi enterprise before I believed there was ever any serious offer made to repay anything to IH. Also, I don’t believe the money is being held in any escrow account. If it is, where did all the money come from because he previously said he had to sell his house to raise the money needed to finance the ecat development.

          • Engineer48

            You have proof that you can share to support your expenditure claims?

            As for the payback, it is in the contract that if after the $10m payment, the IP didn’t pass validation by IH, the money paid would be refunded. Maybe read the contract. Maybe ask yourself way ifbthe IP didn’t work as claimed, IH didn’t just ask for their money to be returned?

            Again you have proof to supoort the license buy back claim?

            BTW who are you to seemingly have so much inside information?

          • builditnow

            Pweet, many interesting statements, like you are an insider, or, just making things up. I agree with you that the contract appears to have been in default for a long time, by Rossi not handing over some key secrets. I favor you being an insider 🙂

          • builditnow

            Engineer48, think you nailed it. Rossi withheld some secret IP in order to boost his power. It’s little Rossi vs a 2 billion fund. If all Rossi has is a contract, he leaves himself in a weak position. So, he withholds something so that IH can’t get a reactor to work. IH states “they” can’t get a reactor to work. IH is now wanting the secrets before they hand over the $89 million.

            What does the court case do. For both sides it produces a “US federal court tested contract”. i.e. a much more bullet proof contract with a judgment that can only be challenged by appeal in the US. The opportunities for overturning in appeal are very limited. It could result it a very strong contract. My read is that IH knows that Rossi can make reactors that work and IH want’s a piece of that pie. Rossi will likely let them have their piece of the pie via the court case.

            IH on the other hand, could keep the upper hand if they can dismiss the court case so they keep the existing weak contract and try to squeeze Rossi for his secrets, possibly knowing Rossi could run out of money and be “brought to heel”.

  • 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

  • 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

  • Devlin Kinkade

    I believe when IH says that Rossi did not meet the requirements of the “Guaranteed Performance”, that could mean one of two things. On one hand, they may be claiming Rossi did not satisfy the guarantee because he did not satisfy the requirements within the date window, which we now know was due to a late start. If the claim is correct about all parties needing to be in agreement, it would appear Rossi is wrong, and this should be dismissed. On the other hand, we must remember this is a motion to dismiss, so if IH believes Rossi has not substantiated proof of operation regardless of time windows, you would not see that verbage here in this motion to dismiss. That issue would be left to a lawsuit/countersuit brought on by IH, which I believe will in fact happen. I have a feeling that lawsuit/countersuit will bring to light much more than just the IP issues.

    This portion of the motion to dismiss is going to be very interesting as well, I believe Rossi is going to have some serious claims to answer to regarding this part in a lawsuit/countersuit by IH.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    “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).”
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    This is about to get even more interesting!

    • Mike Henderson

      “Because we cannot introduce outside facts we put them in parentheses (hoping nobody notices we introduced facts we cannot introduce).”

      • Devlin Kinkade

        Mike, this is actually quite standard practice in situations like this. A motion to dismiss has no legal mechanism to deal with IH claims, so they are mentioned but not allowed as material finding. What this typically points to is a lawsuit/countersuit that will follow after the motion to dismiss has been addressed. This is just a process that has steps like a chess game, after the motion is dismissed or granted we will know more about IH’s likely suit or countersuit.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Charles

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

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yep, the ecat is dead, long live the quark X.

    • lkelemen

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

    • Engineer48

      Never happen.

    • DrD

      And the Phoenix will arise as a QuarkX

  • literate-R

    A real disappointment, that cautious critics are not posted on this page. Instead just abandoned.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • timycelyn

    I think a lot of us would have a wry grin at the amazingly euphemistic “Cautious critic” description.

    There are other more accurate and succinct descriptions. To the relief of most of us, moderation on these pages encourages informed, balanced, non-repetitious comment.

    This therefore excludes “cautious critics”.

    Happily, however, there is a lovely place for them to play over on whatever’s left of ECN.

  • 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.

  • 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/

  • 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

  • Bruce__H

    I wonder if Leonardo Corp actually can terminate IH’s license unilaterally.

    • 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?

    • Chapman

      Gee, I wonder if Bank of America can unilaterally terminate my mortgage, foreclose on my house, and have me evicted by law enforcement if needs be, simply due to my failure to make scheduled payments on my home purchase – EVEN THOUGH I was initially allowed to occupy my house and exercise the rights of ownership immediately following the transfer of the down payment and signing of the contract.

      Can failure to make scheduled payments as per a signed contract REALLY be used so heartlessly by one party against the wishes of the other?

      What do you think Bruce? May I suggest that you participate in the Open-Science movement and perform said experiment, and report back to us on your housing situation?

      • Bruce__H

        What if it turns out that, for whatever reason, the devices Rossi sent to IH don’t work? Can Leonardo Corp unilaterally terminate the license agreement?

        • 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

            I pose a hypothetical. It seems to me that your reasoning regarding what Leonardo can or can’t do is based on certain assumptions. I am asking what would happen if your assumptions are wrong. Treat it as a mental exercise.

          • 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.

          • clovis ray

            well said Chapman.

          • Chapman

            A bit wordy.

            I am not as frugal with words as you are!

          • clovis ray

            LOL, smile

          • 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.

          • Chapman

            Bruce,

            It is interesting, to me, that I see no one pointing out the REAL elephant in the room.

            Just to show that I am not some Blind Rossi Devote, let me point out the other side of the argument, in IH’s FAVOR, that WOULD carry merit in the court.

            1. The contract requires Rossi to provide technical support and oversight as needed for the duration of the 1 year test. This indicates that the 100 million included Labor Compensation for that time. This is KEY.

            2. Rossi posted repeatedly that he had accepted a title of “Lead Scientist and Head of Research” or some such within IH’s ranks. The specific nomenclature is irelevent, but the HOLDING of a title represents an employment relationship.

            3. It has been repeatedly insisted by Rossi that “The customer” was a customer of IH, not of Rossi and Leonardo.

            4. All daily energy payments made by the customer went to IH, demonstrating that all equipment, services, and labor at test site were IH property, and it was an IH project.

            5. Aside from Rossi, the other test site staff were IH employees, further solidifying that the test was a function and service of IH.

            6. During the 1 year test, Rossi maintained a seamless daily record of his actions and work on his website, establishing a clear timeline of events, including the research on, and development of, the Quark device.

            Conclusion?

            While acting as an employee of IH, acting as “chief scientist”, at an IH facility, and working in an IH provided lab space, Rossi developed, planned, tested, and even prototyped a new and unique variation on his previous E-Cat tech. At the time, IH’s license to the E-Cat tech was valid, and they had every right to pursue “enhancement and improvement” upon the core tech. Such research would be solely and uniquely the property of IH. But Rossi did it for them – as an IH employee, on IH’s dime, in IH’s lab, at an IH job site.

            All research and tech discoveries made by an employee on company time are, BY DEFAULT, the property of the employer!

            IH has no need of the E-Cat license. They have a claim to the ownership – LEGALLY AND WITHOUT ANY UNDERHANDEDNESS – to the far superior Quark tech, which Rossi is even now shopping around to potential customers, and is actually doing IH a favor by generating demand for the product.

            IH should not be contesting the contract termination. They should be using the court action to have the timeline and relationships legally recorded and recognized, then drop the bomb and claim Quark ownership. Legally, this is called a Slam-Dunk, and Rossi really has no defense.

            The only glitch? Allowing the default on the existing contract invokes the non-competition clause, which would legally prevent IH from marketing their Quark for what, two years? This may be fine with IH, as long as they can block Rossi from THEIR quark patent. They can wait two years, and let expectations grow. Rossi could only sell his old E-Cat reactors, which HE has declared inferior to the new Quark and an obsolete tech.

            GOD Knows I should delete this post and never seed the idea out there, but I am just being intellectually honest about the situation. Sorry Rossi. I am hoping and PRAYING you thought ahead and made provisions to prevent this interpretation of U.S. Labor definitions and Research Ownership laws.

          • Bruce__H

            This is all assuming that the ecat devices really work.

          • Chapman

            Agreed.

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

          • Engineer48

            Only fly in the ointment is we have no idea what the legal arrange between Rossi and IH was when he has the title “Chief Scientist” for IH.

            Until we see that document, the above is just guess work.

          • Chapman

            I freely admit that it is guess work, based solely upon the publicly disclosed facts of the relationship, which are most certainly not complete. I was only demonstrating the profound absurdity of most of the arguments being made concerning the contract, while acknowledging that there may, in fact, be some path ahead that is troublesome for Rossi – again, just being intellectually honest and playing devil’s advocate – but that it sure as heck ain’t cause the 1 year test missed the original deadline “by this much”…

            I can actually see two other perfectly legitimate legal arguments IH could justifiably pursue, but I’ll be damned if I am throwing them out there. There’s honest, then there’s Honestly Stupid! Screw IH…

            Oh, and THANK YOU for reading and Responding to my post. You are one of the only remaining reasons I keep coming and checking in each day! Most of the other recent drivel puts me on edge like nails on chalkboard, but I can always count on seeing SOME nugget from you that makes logging in worthwhile!

          • 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.

          • Bruce__H

            Continuing to find out about who built the ecat devices eventually tested in Raleigh, NC:

            I find the following in the agreement between IH and Leonardo … “on the terms set forth herein, Leonardo wíll manufacture and sell and deliver to the Company a 1MW E-CAT unit”.

            The “Company” here refers to IH in one of its forms.

            Where does your information come from that it was IH who built the devices used in the 1-year test?

          • 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.

        • 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?
          .

          • Bruce__H

            You are right, IH hasn’t asked for its money back … yet. It’s only been about a month since the whole thing came apart. I think a lot has yet to play out.

          • Bruce__H

            I think you may have misunderstood my point. I think it was either the nonpayment by IH or nonperformance by the ecat device that terminated the agreement. I don’t think a simple announcement by one of the parties terminates the agreement.

          • 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.

      • 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

        • Chapman

          You obviously have not read the contract.

          The territorial IP license was for a purchase price of 100 million. WHY must you and others continually repeat the absurd statement that they paid 10 million for the rights, and were to pay 89 million for the test. Either you HAVE read it, and are deliberately misrepresenting the contract verbiage for God only knows what reason, or you have NOT read it, and are simply repeating the most asinine drivel. Why waste time posting nonsense? How long would it actually take you to pause and READ the thing???

          If the contract is too complicated for you, may I suggest you at least review Engineer’s posts of late before making an ass of yourself. He has been doing a wonderful job of breaking it down for the slow-readers.

  • 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.

  • 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 agreement”

            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

    • 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.

  • 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 wonderful people 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. Why do you think they’re more okay now with throwing Saudi Arabia under the 9/11 bus?

      Don’t think for a minute that billionaires are benevolent if they have their money stashed, and don’t do anything good with it. That is greed, plain and simple.

    • 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.

  • 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/

  • Hi all

    Termination of the License is a statement needed as part of the court case, to show intention of the Plaintiff.

    Kind Regards walker

  • 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?

  • roseland67
    • kdk

      Probably a good half or quarter of the world’s problems.

  • 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.

  • 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.

          • Devlin Kinkade

            If fraud is found. then there is a high probability of criminal charges due to the amount of money involved. You can be sure that there is going to be a countersuit.

          • 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?

          • great post Thomas

          • Devlin Kinkade

            I don’t agree. It is very possible a countersuit will expose fraudulent behavior on the part of Rossi/Leonardo. If there was any fraudlent behavior within the one year test, there will be consequences. I think we are going to see alot of surprises after this motion for dismissal is addressed.

          • 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.

          • Omega Z

            If IH/Darden shared Rossi’s IP with competitors, then conspiracy comes into play and that is a criminal act….

    • 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?

      • clovis ray

        Nice one, E man, thats a keeper, smile

        • Engineer48

          It gets worst. Here is the term of the agreement clause. Basically IH, all of it’s affiliates, employees, officers, directors, etc can, in effect, NEVER engage in the LENR business as a competitor against Leonardo.

          • clovis ray

            Thanks,now that is what i like to see, some initiative ,action,and content, that is actionable.——GOOD JOB

          • Chapman

            This is why I have been pointing out that Godes must be FURIOUS! He and Brillioun ARE the above mentioned “affiliates”, and as such they are royally screwed if IH is found in default of the contract.

            For Darden, LENR is just another business opportunity: another fat merchant ship to be plundered. But Godes used to be a respected researcher and man of science. Now he will be publicly hung at the docks with the rest of the pirates…

    • 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.

  • 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 the year, 2013, added.

    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.
    Sure seems Rossi did it fact transfer all the IP to IH and that the IH manufactured ECat module performed as expected of a Leonardo manufactured ECat module, IE, it produced excess heat as required by the contract.
    .

    • 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 then the 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 would totally destroy the IH statement and court filings.
        .

        • clovis ray

          Agreed

        • 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.

          • clovis ray

            very convincing,

        • 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.

      • Chapman

        The Lugano test was the equivalent of the Wright Brothers test flight at Kitty Hawk. It was proof that the science involved was sound.

        The 1 Year test was equivalent to Lindbergh’s crossing of the Atlantic, and was a test of the Engineering of the Plant design, not of the underlying physics. There would be no 1 Year test of the plant without already having established confidence in the underlying science.

        Do you remember the Ford Vega? Or the Subaru Samurai? Nobody questioned whether “Horseless-Carriages” were viable at that point, but a robust Engineering Test Protocol might have prevented the manufacturers from putting a flawed design on the market that eventually cost them Millions in settlements, fines, and lost business.

        The 1 Year test was validation that Rossi had delivered not only a working laboratory testbed (phase 1 of contract), or a successful LENR recipe (phase 2 of the contract), but an Industrial scale Reactor design that was Robust enough for commercialization and distribution (phase three of the contract).

        • roseland67

          Chapman,
          Not a very good analogy now,
          As we can see airplanes everyday and have been able to for the last 100 years.
          Seeing an Ecat? Not so much

    • clovis ray

      wow, very interesting, and i believe correct.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Unless IH can quickly come up with a commercially ready LENR technology, they have nothing to go to market with.

    • 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.