Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Thanks to Mats Lewan for posting a newly filed motion to dismiss the case that Andrea Rossi has brought against them. The full document is here: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Here’s the introduction:

The various claims pled in the Complaint all revolve around two central contentions – that IH and IPH were required to pay Leonardo $89 million under a License Agreement and that Defendants were limited in their use of certain information they received from Plaintiffs. Attached to, and incorporated into, the Complaint, however, is the License Agreement. The plain language of that Agreement, coupled with the admissions in the Complaint, demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ central contentions are incurably flawed: The License Agreement required
performance by Plaintiffs within a specific time period, which Plaintiffs acknowledge did not occur within that time period, and the License Agreement permitted IH and IPH – after having paid Plaintiffs over $10 million (which Plaintiffs admit was paid) – virtually unlimited usage of information they received from Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ non-contract claims, brought in an effort to bring parties into this litigation beyond IH and IPH, suffer from additional fatal flaws. Plaintiffs’ misconceived fraud claims are simply efforts to recast breach of contract claims as fraud claims, but this is clearly impermissible. They are not predicated on the breach of any duty independent of contract created obligations. The Complaint also fails adequately to allege facts in support of Plaintiffs’ non-contract claims, and further suffers from an impermissible lumping together of Defendants without identifying how each Defendant allegedly committed each claimed infraction. For all of these reasons and the additional reasons set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety

The crux of the argument surrounds technicalities.

There is clause in the License agreement which states that IH would pay Leonardo the $89 million payment “contingent upon the Plant operating at the same level (or better) at which Validation was achieved for a period of 350 days (even if not consecutive) within a 400 day period commencing on the date immediately following delivery of the Plant to the Company.”

There was an amendment included in Rossi’s filing which “formally eliminated the requirement that the Guaranteed Performance test period be commenced immediately upon delivery of the plant and instead requiring [sic.] that the Guaranteed Performance Test period would commence on a date agreed to in writing by the parties.” IH says in this motion to dismiss that Ampenergo, one of the parties to the License agreement did not sign that document, making it invalid.

The motion does not address the performance of the E-Cat; it does not discuss the ERV report (which has still not been published), but it does have this comment:

“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).”

Further points made by IH in response to Rossi’s Complaint:

“Count I Fails to State a Breach of Contract Claim . . . because the Complaint and its Exhibits demonstrate that 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

“Count II Fails to State a Breach of Contract Claim . . . because it fails sufficiently to allege specific provisions of the License Agreement that were breached

“Defendants’ statement about their “ownership” of the E-Cat IP is not a breach of the License Agreement . . . Plaintiffs have failed to point to any provision in the License Agreement that forbids IH or IPH merely from stating that they “own” the E-Cat IP. In fact, the License Agreement expressly required that, after IH paid
Leonardo $10 million, “Leonardo and Rossi w[ould] immediately transfer … to the Company [i.e., IH] all E-Cat IP.”

“Listing T. Barker Dameron as a co-inventor in a U.S. Patent Application is not a breach of the License Agreement . . . Plaintiffs have failed to point to any provision in the License Agreement that forbids IH or IPH from listing people as co-inventors on U.S. patent applications. Indeed, the License Agreement contemplates and accepts that such co-inventors might exist in connection with inventions or ideas derived from the E-Cat IP after its transfer to IH”

“Count III Fails to State an Unjust Enrichment Claim.

“Count IV Fails to State a Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim . . . By the License Agreement, Plaintiffs permitted IH and IPH to disclose the ECat IP and did not protect its secrecy against IH or IPH’s use or disclosure . . . . Defendants did not use improper means to obtain the E-Cat IP . . . The specific acts alleged by Plaintiffs do not constitute misappropriation.”

“Count V Fails to State a Civil Conspiracy Claim . . .Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law because their misappropriation of trade secret claim fails”

“Count VI Fails to State a Fraud and Deceit Claim . . . Plaintiffs’ fraud claim fails because it does not allege any tortious conduct by Defendants independent of the conduct that serves as the basis for the alleged breaches of the License Agreement.”

“Count VII Fails to State a Constructive and Equitable Fraud Claim . . . Count VII fails to state a claim for constructive and equitable fraud because Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts demonstrating that Defendants owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty”

“Count VIII Fails to State a Patent Infringement Claim . . . Contrary to Plaintiffs’ belief, filing a patent application is not an act of patent infringement.”

” IX. Plaintiffs Impermissibly Lump Defendants Together in Several Counts . . . Plaintiffs are not permitted, particularly with respect to their fraud claims, to merely lump together all of the defendants in their allegations.”

  • Andrew

    From what I have read, IH isn’t disputing the ERV reports. They also probably never had any intention of paying for the licence agreements, all they wanted was access to the IP.

    • Gian Luca

      I agree.
      The ERV false is been a “mirror for larks”.
      The really intentions of IH is the Rossi’s effect IP.

  • peacelovewoodstock

    I have not had a chance to read motion yet, but it is Contracts 101 that absence of a signature on an agreement does not invalidate the agreement, if the parties to it proceed and operate as if it was in effect. A signature is not a necessary element for a contract to be valid. I do have a JD degree, although I am not a practicing attorney.

    • Ged

      Be great to hear your take on this once you if a chance to look it over, if you are willing.

    • Andre Blum

      nice one. I don’t have the text at hand, so cannot check, but is your statement also true when (as is stated in this defence) there is an explicit line saying that it is not valid unless signed by all parties? That seems one level up?

      • Ged

        Here is the language used specifically, to wit: “[t]his Amendment may be executed in counterparts, none of which need contain the original signatures of all Parties, provided that one or more counterparts collectively shall contain the signatures of all Parties to this Amendment.”

    • Sanjeev

      I agree, its a weak argument, as the amendment text clearly says that all the parties need not sign.
      But the main issue is that Rossi agrees to test the 6 cylinder ECat plant there. Which most probably he did not.

      • Ged

        That could be a real, actual sticking point if true. Could hand IH a win on pure technicality–but that’s how the law do.

        • Sanjeev

          Actually if thats the main point (not testing the 6C hot cats), then its a simple issue. Just test it again as required by the amendment. The ECat stays real, Rossi gets the money, everyone is happy.
          But it appears (from the footnote#1) that IH is bent on proving that the ECat didn’t work. That will be unfortunate.

          • Curbina

            And by what Weaver has been hinting, they have strong proof of Rossi attempting to manipulate things. Does this means that the plant did not work? No. But it can cast doubt about Rossi’s transparence. I insist: when and if the court focuses in the 1 MW test, the only way for Rossi out clean is that the customer is real and supports the ERV report and with their own energy billing data. Otherwise Rossi will be very damaged, unless, of course he start selling other working products in Europe.

          • Omega Z

            If Rossi starts selling a working product before this goes to court, Darden inc are finished in the legal arena…

          • Sanjeev

            I guess, it will be difficult to convince people just from “customer says…”, given the customer is a “friend” of Rossi’s. Bills will show the energy consumed, no evidence for energy produced.
            There is only one way, to do an open test of the ECat, where anyone, including the jury can go and see it operating at a COP of 50. Then its done, Rossi wins…..
            Or if a miracle happens and many customers in Europe report positive about the Quarks…

          • Curbina

            I was thinking on a real customer without ties with Rossi, and also, with their own test data to show. Of course is the customer is not real, then Rossi got himself painted in a corner, unless of course he starts selling Quarkx and everyone purchasing them is happy.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “But it appears … that IH is bent on proving that the ECat didn’t work.”

            IH is bent on prevailing in this lawsuit. This is just the first response in a layered defense that will go 3+ years before payment or dismissal.

      • Observer

        Question: How many months have 28 days in them?
        Answer: All of them!

        How many cylinders were in the 1MW plant?
        More than 6 includes having 6.

        • Sanjeev

          Good joke Observer…
          I hope the jury gets it.

          • SG

            Actually, I think Observer makes a good point.

          • cashmemorz

            If lawyers depend on success by fiddling with basic concepts,like 6 being part of a larger number, or the strategy of “what is the meaning of the word ‘is’ (President Clinton) is a weird way of wielding law. How far can a lawyer go with such strategy before it is obviously nit-picking? I’m not a lawyer.

          • psi2u2

            I depends how good the opposition is. You need a team that can expose these sorts of evasions and distractions by refocusing on the clear points of fact and law that the flim flammers are trying to avoid.

    • Sanjeev

      Btw, can you comment on the one sided termination of the agreement by Rossi?
      There is no termination clause in the agreement, therefore it may not be legal to terminate it just by a press release.

      An agreement without a straight tunnel out of it is a trap, I’d never sign something like this.

    • psi2u2

      Thanks. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s what I would think the law would say. The alternative, as the Duke in Measure for Measure would say, is to make the law a scarecrow.

  • US_Citizen71

    So it appears that Darden and Cherokee intended to be theives and pirates from the beginning.

    • Andre Blum

      why does it give that impression to you? any specific text you derive this from?

      • US_Citizen71

        The failure of IH to provide the venue for the 1 year test in a timely manner combined with claiming that the test was not done during the contracted time shows to me IH did not provide the venue on purpose. Doing so, it appears that IH acted in a cold and calculated manner to defraud Rossi/Leonardo of their IP. They never intended to pay the full price from the beginning, typical corporate thieves. Their actions should be a warning to any municipalities that consider doing any type of remediation business with Cherokee.

        • Sanjeev

          Does the agreement say that IH will provide the customer?
          (Sorry I read it one month ago, so can’t recall)

          • Omega Z

            IH was to provide everything, but drug their feet and Rossi had to devise the test.

          • Sanjeev

            Couldn’t find that in the agreement.
            Rossi was made responsible for “guaranteed performance test” – the 1 year long test.

          • Robert Dorr

            I’m betting that I.H. will file an injunction against Rossi using any of his IP related to the e-cat and that includes any derivatives which includes the QuarkX any where in the world. They will claim that they are now the sole owners of Rossi’s IP and they will file a cease and desist order. I’m not saying they have a leg to stand on, I’m just saying that is what they might try.

          • SG

            “They will claim that they are now the sole owners of Rossi’s IP”

            And if they try this, they will not prevail. (See my comment below this one.)

          • Robert Dorr

            I tend to agree with what you say, but I.H.’s law firm is a major one and you never know what they might pull out of their hat. They can be very clever.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            With this I am now 99% that the E-Cat works and that IH never intended to pay Rossi the 89 M. Im afraid that Rossi was naive and filled a contract with a lot of loopholes wich IH now wants to use to get the IP without paying.
            If this confirms, they are worse than scum.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Doesn’t matter, the ecat is already obsoleted by the Quark X, which is now out of R&D. But since IH breached the contract, they have no claim over ecats replacement tech, the Quark X.

          • wpj

            It was only ever a license to use the IP of the ecat in certain regions, not a sale of the IP…… They seem to think differently for some reason.

          • Omega Z

            The contract was poorly written, but if I were on the jury, I see the contract for specific countries of use. For me, that is a clear intent of Licensed to use. Not being given ownership of the IP…

          • Engineer48

            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 their desired Territories.

            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).

            All IH have are the Leonardo built 1MW plant they received after the $1.5m payment and the IP they received after the $10m payment.

            IH have no license.

          • Sanjeev

            See clause 1.1 and 3.2(b).
            The license commences as soon as Rossi receives the $10M.
            So there was a grant.

          • Ged

            Oh man, courtroom drama already ;).

          • Sanjeev

            Well I saw that Engineer48 wrote the same comment at least 20 times.
            Why would anyone do that? I checked the agreement and found he is wrong. I let people know what I see without taking sides, that’s all.

          • Ged

            Oh, I don’t mean that in a bad way, just that this is exactly the stuff they will argue in court, and you are beating them to it.

            From my reading, one could argue for it both ways and be both right and wrong. It’ll make for exciting day time TV

          • Sanjeev

            I totally saw your wink, so no issues. Just making it obvious that I’m not taking sides, even if I sound like that simply because I point out some mistakes on either sides.

          • Michael W Wolf

            It doesn’t matter. IH did not meet the deadline for the test site. They even claim the amendment saving them from the breach was invalid. Case closed. Nothing else in the contract matters.

          • Engineer48

            Apologies but not 20 times. Was 3:30am. Long day. Tired.

            IH need to continually oblidge ALL of the terms & conditions of the agreement & always act in good faith as per the overall intent of the agreement.

            If as Weaver claims, IH believed the contract was finalised with the $10m payment, well they were in default from before receiving the $10m as they had no intention to continually oblidge all the contact’s terms & conditions as was required of them.

            If as Weaver claims the 1st Leonardo built plant, the IH built HotCat or the IH built 1 year test plant or the delivered IP never delivered a COP >= 6, then IH could simply request the $11.5m be repaid as in the contract & Rossi’s offer. Yet they did not request their money be returned.

          • pg

            -3!

          • Mats002

            This must be a biological count down clock! The accuracy is correct in days but not on the hour. The internal clock must be drifting but that is compensated by the emotional expression. I like it! Wonder what it will do at zero…

          • Andrew

            When the timer hits 0 there will be disappointment as nothing will have changed.

          • builditnow

            Smells of an attempt to suppress LENR / Cold Fusion. The problem with the arguments presented is that experiments in the 10s of 1000s or likely much greater have failed to produce the claimed mini nuke explosion, ever. Rather, it’s been really difficult to get LENR effects to occur, generally at very small amount of power.
            The worst that has happened is the metal melts and the reaction cannot continue with molten metal.
            Scare tactics?

          • SG

            Are you claiming to have inside information?

          • artefact

            AR said the test takes one week and it started on Monday.

          • US_Citizen71

            +4 ÷ 5 – 7

          • Mats002

            I think pg is a chemist, be careful using advanced math. I am in IT, know only AND and OR logic but you must be a physiscist – am I right?

          • Steve Swatman

            Could be IF-Then-Goto

          • Alan DeAngelis

            If it is true, there would be no need for a Nobel Prize. The E-Cat would be its own prize.

          • Steve Savage

            True, maybe?, But, does that grant END when they fail to fulfill the balance of the agreement? It seems that Rossi strongly believes that it does. I agree with Rossi.

          • Sanjeev

            Funny thing is nothing in the agreement says anything about when the agreement can be considered null and void. Its a one sided agreement, favoring IH 99% of the time. Somehow Rossi signed it, probably without understanding any of it (as apparent from his complaints). Why? Probably he needed the $100M desperately.

          • Engineer48

            All contracts have terms and conditions, which if not honoured generate a breach or default.

            Read the attached.
            .

          • Michael W Wolf

            Well not only that, they did not meet the test deadline. That breach cancels the entire contract with no refund. They even say the amendment saving them from the breach is invalid. I don’t see a way out of this for IH. They are done.

          • Engineer48

            IH had multiple ways to ask for their $11.5m back, both in the contract and from Rossi’s offer to them they tried to cut the 1 year trial short at a reduced payout.

          • Engineer48

            Read clause 1. All of the conditions & terms of the contract need to be met.

          • Engineer48

            Why would IH want to be the sole owners of IP they claim doesn’t work and worse still they had multiple opportunities to get their $11.5m returned?

          • Steve Savage

            IH seems to put substantial weight on the fact that the year long test was delayed from starting. Rossi has indicated that he was concerned with IH dragging their feet in finding a customer for the test. It seems to me that IH may have been responsible for the delay, if so, does this invalidate their claim?

            It also seems that IH’s reliance on arguing the technicalities of the contract and not addressing the underlying performance of the test is a very weak approach. It probably indicates that they have limited reason to challenge the actual results. I do note that they also seem to be laying some groundwork for non-performance in case their motion to dismiss is dismissed. Even with those arguments, they do not directly challenge the results but only some seemingly small technical issues with the test. This seems especially true given that they seemed to be fully involved with the
            selection of the umpire and the exact nature of what was to be tested
            and how it would be tested.

            Does IH believe they now know the secrets of the e-cat and have been assigned the IP regardless of the outcome of the test? If so, it certainly seems to go against the spirit of the agreement but maybe not the legalities of the contract.

            All in all, it seems to me that at some point and, for some reason we still do not know, IH decided to end their collaboration with Rossi. Did they not have the money? Did they feel Rossi was holding back the e-catX IP and they felt damaged by that? Did they see a legal way forward without paying Rossi? Did they understand from the beginning that the agreement was particularly slanted in their favor and they could get what they wanted without paying?

            Their motion to dismiss indicates to me that they may not be reliable and honest partners and are now looking for legal ways to avoid their obligations. They are certainly not honoring the spirit of their partnership.

          • Billy Jackson

            if the fight was over the delay then yes it would be a point of contention. but the fact that IH showed up, produced their own tester to take measurements, had meetings with outside clients to show the plant and all the other details that involves invalidates any argument that they did not accept the testing grounds. If you didnt accept you wouldn’t show up or have anything to do with it. .once they proceeded with the test they lost the ability to argue that point.

          • Steve Savage

            I agree, it seems that IH is just throwing up whatever legalities they can think of and seeing what will stick. Very weak!!

          • Andre Blum

            such values as you know from daily social interactions do not apply 1:1 to those in a legal case. It’s pretty normal to use these technicalities as defence and no judge will tie that to weakness or guilt.

          • Engineer48

            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 their desired Territories.

            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).

  • Ged

    Wow. This is the weakest of all possible defenses. It is most like what many commentors expected with a focus on IP, but it is all technical hits on the complaint’s language rather than any counter evidence. Not even a counter suit or an actual defense, just attempt to dismiss!

    Their last bit is a complete red herring since the complaint brings up the performance, so they could have submitted info on that–it is relevant and fair game contrary their claim.

    Seriously, did not expect something so weak. IH keeps on surprising; though maybe later they will give some real info?

    Also, where did Rossi’s complaint allege fraud on IH’s part? That I don’t recall, and they say they are only answering points from the complaint, so I missed that part.

    • Andre Blum

      Why do you think this a weak defence? A defence can have stages. In no way are they closing off their path to future, more meaningful defence options, so why not first try this?
      If a man walks up to you with a knife, a very good first response to me seems to show your hands and say “please put that knife away” and try to reason him out of his action. If that doesn’t work, you can still pull your own knife.

      • Ged

        Your analogy is wrong; IH isn’t trying to make a deal with Rossi, but run up to Mom and say “no, I didn’t hit him!”

        You’re right that it could be part of a larger strategy, as I too note; and you’re right that it makes sense to go for the lowest hanging fruit. But that also means this is the weakest defense move. Even if more is to come, it doesn’t change the fact this is as least involved a defense you can make at this stage–poking at language but offering no counter data to actually refrute.

        Maybe they will make a stronger defense after this, as I already said, but this is very disappointing for all of us wanting meat after that flimsy PR statement. If Rossi is in the wrong, IH needs to do us all good by blowing him out of the water with clear facts. We see none of that so far.

      • Curbina

        Weaver has made some comments that clearly imply they are prepared to take on the report if and when needed. If what he comments about is true, Rossi will be in a hard position to defend himself. I really hope the customer steps in at the right Moment.

        • Sanjeev

          I think it will be good for the ECat fans, because the reality of it will be proven in court (if it really works). No one can then deny it. It will be good for Rossi too.
          The other scenario will be that Rossi will fail to prove it, again good for all, we can return to serious lenr.

  • Robert Dorr

    I think that this is just a Hail Mary stalling tactic that I.H. is throwing out just in case by some stretch of the imagination the judge will agree with them. They are just delaying the inevitable. This will give them more time to respond. I especially like the additional comment about the flawed equipment, which they agreed to and had a year to raise any objections to their use. They are just hoping to poke a few holes in Rossi’s complaint and my guess they may make a few points that Rossi will have to address but all in all Rossi’s main complaint will stand and that is that I.H. owes him 89 million dollars.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “I think that this is just a Hail Mary stalling tactic”

      Nope. This is standard procedure for the deeper pocket defendant’s attorney. It takes time and money for plaintiff to now respond to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has no choice but to do a professional job at the defendant’s quality of work or they will lose through bad form. That’s 10 man weeks right there, assuming they have or can get the piece work staff to respond.

      Defendant expects that they will get a percentage of plaintiff’s claims dismissed through this tactic. If they get 50% dismissed, they have increased the probability that they will prevail overall.

      We should not read too much into the lawsuit about IH and their motives. This is just professional law defense 101, IH has deep pockets and hence, it is a very professional legal response. IH clearly wants to prevail and this is how they increase their probabilities.

      Rossi made a mistake by not trying to settle. He may have realized the extent of his mistake now as this will be a long lawsuit that he has only a small chance of prevailing economically. Rossi in my opinion believes in his position, but going to court with a judge makes one re-examine the cost and benefit of such an approach based on “principle”. I think this lawsuit was a big big mistake from the beginning.

  • Curbina

    I think this answer says a lot about what were IH’s intentions from the get go, and also, I think It shows Jonesday lawyers are good. As I said when It was known this was the firm that IH hired, “good lawyers” could not care less about the truth, they care about winning for their clients.

    • Ged

      Will have to see what the court thinks. Wonder how long till a decision.

      • Curbina

        The use of previous cases, otherwise known as jurisprudence, is a pretty strong strategy, that’s why I say Jonesday lawyers are good. Perhaps that’s why Rossi asked for a jury, but good lawyers are also good at profiling and cherry picking jurors. Another completely different thing is what will be the judge’s take on this, we will see, but so far I see IH’s having the upper hand if this is what they pretend To stick To.

        • BTW – the work to search large amounts of cases for similar situations and use them as precedents, as a basis for a lawsuit or an answer to a lawsuit etc, is something major law firms believe is their strength—tailor made services worth high fees. The reality is that this, and other legal work, will soon be performed by AI systems and will cost almost nothing.
          As a result, ordinary people and small firms will be able to fight for their right. On the other hand, courts will be overwhelmed by cases, and they will not be able to handle this inflow, unless they start using AI based systems themselves.

          • Freethinker

            … and in the end a global AI will govern us all, if we are not careful.

          • Curbina

            That could be as bad or as good as the program behind the AI.

          • Freethinker

            True. That is why we need to be careful.

          • cashmemorz

            Some or many of the actors in gov’ment act like robots when confronted by lobbyists. So which AI is better/ or worse? Whether real people who govern or the artificial AI seems to have potential to keep us from reaching Utopia.

          • Curbina

            As always technology advances create new opportunities, and new challenges. At the moment IH has the advantage of having the old style in its favor. I see Rossi is honestly claiming what he sees as his rights, but honesty and truth are rarely what wins in courts.

          • Omega Z

            Which is why Rossi asked for a Jury trial.

          • Curbina

            Jurors can be cherry picked, also, unfortunately.

          • Omega Z

            Most of the time, cherry picking the jury doesn’t work out so well unless it’s a made for TV show..

            Jury selection-
            The judge and the parties involved have unlimited challenges for cause of bias and such.

            Beyond that, the plaintiff and defendant have a limited & equal number of jurors they can challenge for anything they so choose. Perhaps you don’t like the color of their eyes.

            So both parties can cherry pick.

          • Curbina

            I know that, but normally the profiling done before the cherry pick is only available to the party with money to pay for the army of background researchers and psychologists that will analyze each and everyone of the potential jurors to pick the ones best suited to their cause, and also to know which ones to challenge in advance.

          • Omega Z

            Big money against no money.

            In a legal case such as this, both parties have I think 5 +/- 1 (For any reason) challenges each for a jury of 12 plus 1 or 2 alternates.

            Miami(Dade county) has about 1 million registered voters. That is your jury pool. Your not going to be checking out jurors beforehand. Nearly everything you learn about a potential juror will be by questioning them in the court room during the selection process.

            From Rossi’s attorney’s point of view, Any potential jurists who would be predisposed to side with Darden will be challenged by the judge. This would greatly narrow the jury pool to former/retired and/or blue collar worker’s, small business people along with a few white collar workers Possibly some programmers who feel cheated of their IP.

            You now have a supposed unbiased jury pool that is actually 98% favorable to the little guy and both sides have 5 whatever I don’t like challenges. Ask McDonald’s who the odds are stacked against. Note-The little people also have issues with high powered lawyers used against the little guy. They are biased by the mere perception that big money thinks they can buy the law.

            This is precisely why Rossi asked for a jury trial and precisely why Darden/Industrial heat want it thrown out.

          • Steve Swatman

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/parking-tickets-teenager-creates-website-allowing-motorist-to-them-in-minutes-10484200.html

            Something like this, More and more of these programs will be written, AI will speed it up, the lawyers will fight the use of such programs and programming tooth and nail.

            Courts will employ AI to deal with the increase in small cases, while only major cases will make it to actual human courts and judges.

          • Steve Savage

            “unless they start using AI based systems themselves.” Which of course, they will. It will be automated within 20 Years. Will we still need lawyers? Probably, they are harder to get rid of than bedbugs.

  • Frank Acland

    I have tried to pick out the key points from the Motion and added them to the post above.

    • Ged

      Thank you, Frank! Keeping life interesting around here!

    • jaman73

      Thanks for this summary.

  • pg

    Welcome to Jones Day technicality fair.

  • How much investment money did IH take in the mean time?

    • Sanjeev

      Barry, I think you know 🙂
      As far as I know, the investment money was not taken exclusively for the Rossi’s ECat. IH invested in a diverse portfolio of lenr and other techs.
      Such documents are mostly public, I wonder why no one has a copy of their investment portfolio.

      • Ged

        Very good and useful question. Would answer a lot of questions.

  • Engineer48

    Would appear to this “bush lawyer” that IH are attempting to win the Rossi case by the action of the judge dismissing the Rossi action, thus avoiding a jury trial and turning it into a trial before a judge.
    .

    • Andrew

      agreed! By asking for this 1 person can make the decision the judge. If it goes to a jury then IH has to woo 12 people and as we all know from previous litigations in the states (McDonalds hot coffee) jurors are more unpredictable.

      • SD

        The hot coffee case was actually quite justified from what I’ve read.

        • Ged

          Yes, actually. What happened was McDonald’s had its coffee at a temperature well above the industry standard (dangerously so). That is what got them in the end.

          • Omega Z

            What got McDonald’s in the end was stupidity.

            As in- someone that’s stupid enough to put a flimsy Styrofoam cup of hot coffee between their thighs while driving does not exclude that someone from being compensated for said stupidity.

            And to think my parents sent me to school with the argument that being stupid doesn’t pay very well.

          • cashmemorz

            It all depended on turning the coffee cup users stupidity to good use when scaleded. Alarm can drive one to creative thinking, as in “I’ll get the B******s for doing this to me”, “Oh I know a good lawyer…”

          • Ged

            Sad thing is, if they had their coffee within industry specs, they would have won. But then how does one differentiate a product if you gotta hide within “industry standards” to avoid lawsuits? It makes for some great classroom discussion points.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Simply another delaying tactic, the judge will simply grant Rossi 90 or more days to reply, and then grant IH 90 more days to reply to Rossi answers etc, etc for the next two or more years.

  • Steve Swatman

    And so it begins, a step by step guide through US law and lawyers Speak to slow down a process by many months or years.

    The whole 18 volumes of Mr Rossi’s record keeping, the millions of points of data, the ERV report, the counter from IH’s report, then Rossi’s personal report, the counter from IH on site staff, fun and games and lots of pay for the lawyers.

    I am going get very fat on popcorn, and all the while Europe will be (hopefully) producing quarks by the million and IH will be mired down in their own lawyers manure pile. Sounds like this might be fun in the end.

  • Sanjeev

    Can someone or Frank ask Rossi, why he did not go with 6 cylinder hot ecat as he agreed in the amendment#2 and instead kept testing the old plant?

    • wpj

      Presumably, in the time that it had taken to set up the test, things had been improved in the operation/design of the plant. Additionally, this was testing a plant that IH had manufactured rather than Rossi.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Are any investors suing IH yet?

    • Andrew

      They can’t really. IH still has the IP in their hands.

    • Sanjeev

      IH still has the invested money kept safely. The 11M were paid from TD’s own pocket.
      I don’t see a reason to sue.

      • Ged

        Out of pocket? That is interesting. Were we given proof of that? Or reliable source?

        • Sanjeev

          Sorry Ged, I completely forgot where I read that. Perhaps someone got a link?
          I guess that was in infinite energy magazine interview?

          • Ged

            No worries. It would be useful for IH’s defense, that is for sure. So much stuff and claims have been slung around, no one can keep track of it all at this rate.

          • Sanjeev
          • Ged

            Amazing the amount of praise singing back then, which wasn’t that long ago.

          • Sanjeev

            Well, TD pumped us all with so much hope. Didn’t he? And now this….

          • Omega Z

            There were 14 entities linked to Industrial heat LLC filing, but Darden indicated the lions share of the $11.5M came from his pocket. Of course that may be deceptive. It could be he paid in the largest single sum among the 14, but not be the lions share.

          • psi2u2

            I read it too but I don’t know how strong the evidence for it was.

      • Ophelia Rump

        My thinking was that they were entrusted to secure the investment in LENR and have failed to fulfill that obligation. There is every indication that the LENR is real and they are bailing on a technicality because the intent was never to succeed.

        Leo Bloom: Let’s assume for a moment, that you are a dishonest man.

        Max Bialystock: Assume away.

        • Sanjeev

          There are risks associated with every investment. There is usually a fine print, which ensures no one can drag the fund owners/bank to the court. Its all common knowledge. This is how capitalism works, rich make the rules.

  • Omega Z

    Haven’t read it all yet, But,

    Presenting Rossi’s claim’s to a Jury- Followed by Darden inc’s argument for dismissal presented to the Jury- An intelligent Jury could only come to One Conclusion.

    It was Darden / Industrial heats intent from day 1 to swindle Rossi out of his Intellectual Property.
    ————————————————————-
    One point from Darden inc’s view. The $10M payment gives rights to the IP as Darden claims, However, the $10M payment is part of the Greater Contract which requires the $89M payment.

    By not paying the $89M, the contract has not been fulfilled. Therefore it is breached and can be declared void in it’s entirety by a jury.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The part of the contract regarding the payment of $89M for a successful 350-day test looks absurd. Nobody pays such a vast amount only for a technical validation. Undoubtedly, this sum was thought to be an additional compensation for the acquired IP. In some countries one can challenge a contract if it goes “contra bonos mores”. However, I do not know if this is possible in U.S. law.

      • Andrew

        The $89M was for the licensing rights to the Western Hemisphere, Russia, China and parts of the Middle East.

      • Steve Savage

        I strongly agree with your observation !!

      • Engineer48

        The cost of the License was $100m plus $1.5m for the 1st 1MW plant bought from Leonardo.

        Clause 3 details how the total price of $101.5m was to be paid and on what conditions of validation.

        This is what IH agreed to pay.

        • Michael W Wolf

          $100.5m total.

    • psi2u2

      Good point.

    • Engineer48

      Yup.

      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 their desired Territories.

      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).

      All IH have are the Leonardo built 1MW plant they received after the $1.5m payment and the IP they received after the $10m payment.

      IH NEVER had a license as they failed to honour clause 3.1 of the contract, which is where the Grant of License occurs.

  • Billy Jackson

    All i am reading here is them going after technical details of the contract. This is starting to seem like the intention was to steal this technology from the beginning through legal manipulation. This is detestable. If this was the intent they should have their business license stripped from them, and if they are lawyers disbarred from where they are registered. This right here is 100% of the reason people dont trust lawyers.

  • LuFong

    Not sure in contracts which holds sway: the letter or the intent? Clearly the Guaranteed Performance Test did not confirm to the letter of the Contract/Amendments. This is the argument that IH is using. But clearly they both proceeded with the Guaranteed Performance Test as evidenced by Rossi’s and IH’s participation (assuming no protests were filed). Which will hold sway?

    I hope we see something about this from David French.

    • Omega Z

      According to Rossi, IH held up the 1 year test.

      However, Rossi arranged said test anyway and it was signed off on by IH. Now, IH says in this motion to dismiss that Ampenergo, one of the parties to the License agreement did not sign that document, making it invalid.

      But according to others, the contract didn’t require all parties of the agreement to sign off on this, but only someone from both sides of the agreement.

      • LuFong

        If you read the contract it seems to imply that the burden of performing the test is on Rossi and Leonardo (“Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their best commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved, including making repairs, adjustments, alterations to the Plant as needed to achieve Guaranteed Performance.[S5]”) There is no requirement for IH to help with the test so I don’t see how they held it up and it appears it’s on Rossi to set up the test. There is no requirement for a “customer” either.

        IH would love to have the entire suit thrown out so they are saying whatever they think might work.

        • Sanjeev

          I agree with you and as I replied below to Omega, IH has no responsibility to arrange the test. The word “customer” does not appear there (clause 5 etc). The 350 day test was to be arranged by Rossi and team.
          Somehow some people are spreading very strange rumors. I say what I see. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          • LuFong

            From my reading of the contract the Plant was to be delivered to IH after Validation and it was. Given the short time frame (the GPT was to start immediately following the delivery to IH) it sounds like that is where the GPT was to be performed. Maybe it is implicit here that IH would have the test ready to go.

            Instead the thing sat for while, probably was modified, and maybe even rebuilt and finally sent to a “customer” found by Rossi where both IH and Rossi (but mostly Rossi) paid for, ran, and monitored the test. In the meantime the contract went out the window.

            What happened in between and what went back and forth remains to be seen.

          • Sanjeev

            We don’t know why Rossi did what he did, but it seems that IH agreed.
            IH agreed both for customer and location, and also for the ERV and test method. They let it happen for one year for some reason. Probably they became doubtful only after one year.

          • LuFong

            Yes, which is why I was wondering the letter of the contract versus the intent.

            It might be possible to interpret the Contract such that it was IH’s responsibility to setup the GPT since the GPT was to start “immediately” following the delivery of the Plant (after Validation) to the Company (IH).(Section 5.)

            It’s a very poorly written contract.

          • Sanjeev

            It couldn’t be done immediately, that’s why we have the second amendment. It enabled flexible dates. But it also changes the type of ECat to six-cylinder hot cat.
            Probably it was available and Rossi was confident that he can test it instead of old ecats. I guess it never happened.

          • LuFong

            I’m wondering why it could not be done immediately? That’s what the contract seems to require! Why didn’t IH have a giant indoor pool (or something) ready to be heated instead of relying on a mysterious customer accessible through hole in a partition? Did Rossi request a change realizing that what he had may not work?

            I’m not impressed with IH. I wouldn’t invest a dime with them. They participated in a poorly written contract and did not administer it very well. Rossi could very well be correct about IH merely just wanting to flip the IP. That’s how investment firms tend to work–spread the risk.

            If I were the judge I would throw the whole thing out as if the contract never existed. Rossi would get to keep $11.5M and his rights. IH would end up with the Plant and they could do whatever they wanted to it including testing it on their own.

          • Steve Savage

            IH employees were present and working with Rossi throughout all of these challenges, at least that is what my understanding is. If this is indeed the case, then how is it possible for IH to say it is not what they wanted. Changes often happen on the fly and we have no evidence that IH objected to any of it. If there was evidence I am sure it would have accompanied the request for dismissal. There is no evidence to support IH’s claims. Neither is there any compelling reason to believe IH will prevail in it’s dismissal attempt! It seems clear to me that IH failed to live up to it’s end of the bargain, while Rossi meet his burden. There is nothing here that contradicts that conclusion that I can see.

          • LuFong

            All’s I will say is we don’t know everything and we may never hear of everything.

          • LuFong

            You do know that IH employee’s were Rossi associates?

    • psi2u2

      On the basis of general principle long established in things like equity law, I don’t think IH has a leg to stand on here. I’m not a lawyer but I know something about the history of law and legal concepts, and the notion that given the facts you indicate that a sound minded judge could uphold IH’s position strikes me as highly unlikely. Sure, the timing was different from what was in the contract, but if those other elements such as IH receiving reports or sending inspectors etc. are true, then this is a move of desperation on their part, which if true I would conclude means that the COP of 50 is probably true.

      • LuFong

        Yes, I think much of IH’s MTD is a stretch, probably like much of Rossi’s civil suit. I was just looking for basic principles to apply here. Unfortunately this all looks like it’s going to take a while to figure out.

  • SG

    Despite what IH claims multiple times in the MTD, IH has no ownership interest in the eCat IP. For example, IH claims that “The License Agreement allows IH and IPH . . . have the ‘Licensed Patents’ assigned to them.” That is simply false. The license agreement does no such thing. The language in a patent assignment must be precise, and must include the words “hereby assigns” to be effective. Business attorneys often draft crummy IP assignment clauses because they do not consult with a patent attorney. IH’s claim to ownership by assignment of rights will not prevail, and they rely on this in multiple sections of the MTD. Rossi’s attorneys should not miss this. Assuming Rossi has at least one patent attorney looking at this matter, the issue won’t be missed.

    At most, IH have an exclusive license to the IP in certain territories. But even that is now up in the air.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      We should try to help Rossi giving him any advice and hint he could use agains IH in this lawsuit.

      Every little bit of advice would be very useful as IH is trying to use legal tricks to evade the payment without resigning on the IP.

      • LookMoo

        My advice to Rossi is not to listen to any advice, unless it comes from the lawfirm he have hired.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          I have to strongly disagree with you.

          My experience in lawsuits is that the lawfirm usually are closeminded and they only focus in the facts they see.
          Sometimes there are facts they can use but they are unable to see them.
          If Rossi talks to them about key things he reads here, most of them, they would probably be aware of, others, they probably would dismiss due to being a bad approach, but there are others wich they may have passed by but in fact be important.

          I made my lawyer win a case hitting the exact point on a thing i realized but he didnt a lot of years ago. It seemed unimportant at first but when the event took place and my lawyer asked it to the other side he was unable to explain it and the judge used that point to accept my claim and that was stated in the conclussion.

          And in another recent case the lawfirm didnt ask two things i suggested them in the court and at the end, as they didnt do it, the judge stated that as they didnt made concrete mention to these facts, he couldnt use them even having proof of the counterpart failing on these.

          And this is because, a lawsuit is not only what you claim, it is more how you claim.

    • psi2u2

      Looks like maybe the fact that Darden et al normally don’t deal that much with IP might be showing in some bad legal constructs for their team.

    • Engineer48

      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 their desired Territories.

      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).

      All IH have are the Leonardo built 1MW plant they received after the $1.5m payment and the IP they received after the $10m payment.

      IH NEVER had a license as they failed to honour clause 3.1 of the contract, which is where the Grant of License occurs.

    • Josh G

      Agreed. When I read that in the MTD, I thought “what?” and looked through the license agreement trying to find that. The only place where it says that is if Leonardo is going to abandon an application, then IH can insist on having that application assigned to them.

      The problem is that even though the license doesn’t grant them ownership, it basically allows them to do pretty much whatever they want with the IP they’ve licensed…

  • So reading the comments below I gather that the consensus is no longer that IH was tasked under contract to find a customer for the 1MW test (and dragged their feet) but rather LC was supposed to do it and it took a long time – but not for lack of trying.

    Is that now generally agreed upon? I always like to get the basic facts sorted out so we don’t regurgitate mistaken information a few weeks+ down the line.

  • HS61AF91

    So this nonsense is what they pay high priced lawyers for. Shame on ’em

  • LuFong

    Here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/12/30/is-cherokee-rossis-partner/
    Please note: ” The connection can be made through Fulvio Fabiani, whose title on his LinkedIn page is ‘Tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI – FL – USA’.”

    So now tell me why do you say Fabiani is not a Rossi associate?

    • Michael W Wolf

      Because in his interview with Matts, he stated that it took him a while to get into Rossi’s head to understand how to make the control systems that Rossi was asking him to make, which Fabiani deemed impossible because of Rossi’s lack of understanding of engineering concepts. He finally got to know the direction of Rossi’s thoughts over time to engineer the controls systems Rossi needed. All while under the employ of IH. Which tells me the working relationship began without knowing Rossi.

      Now if you want to accuse Fabiani of lying, you are becoming a conspiracy nut. There is no reason to call all these people who say ecat is a miracle, liars other then that is what you want to believe.

      Fabiani’s interview with Matts is NOT hearsay, it is conformation, until someone proves otherwise. You just can’t go around libeling people without direct evidence of malfeasance.

      And if this lame dismissal request by IH doesn’t scream to you that the ecat is a new energy source, and IH are a bunch of money grubbing welchers, then even if the judge rules against them, you won’t believe it. Death to the ecat long live the Quark X.

      I’d rather be duped, then accuse people of fraud without knowing. With such an important technology at stake, we all must give it the benefit of the doubt.

  • kenko1

    yawn…snifffle…yawn…harrumph………….yawn..

  • Brokeeper

    Ever since Tom Darden’s speech on LENR at the ICCF19 conference, April 13th 1915, I became suspicious of his commitment to Andrea Rossi. Only one reference to Rossi in his pontifical environmental delivery: “We funded two of these (LENR) groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology. Since then we’ve made grants to university groups exploring research in this space, and we continue to fund additional teams. We envision an ecosystem of collaboration with great scientists who work together to develop the many systems and technologies society will need to shift away from polluting fossil fuels.” My question is this, was Rossi informed or aware of Darden’s/IH plans to ‘fund additional teams’ and ‘collaborate scientists to work together’ prior to the signing of the IP contract?
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/14/tom-dardens-speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/

    • LuFong

      It’s possible as others have pointed out that IH has their own R&D facility. They could be cherry picking the best of the technology for themselves. As this thing progresses I am becoming more suspicious of IH (independent of Rossi’s statements and actions).

      • Observer

        So was IH’s IP shopping spree an effort to corner the LENR market, or was it an effort to buy good will with the rest of the LENR community before they stabbed AR in the back?

        • LuFong

          It’s possible each is gaming the other, Spy vs. Spy style. Somehow I feel that Rossi either didn’t turn over all IP or doesn’t have the IP he claims (maybe only COP of 1-2) but attempted to scam IH out of $89M. IH maybe only wanted to get the IP as cheaply as possible and never intended to pay Rossi $89M and certainly not after finding out that Rossi’s IP (as turned over) is not what he claims. IH certainly put together a sh*tty contract and appeared to act in both an incompetent and inconsistent manner. They are only now scrambling because of the suit.

          I am not claiming to know where the truth is but I will claim that it’s not yet possible to know where things are.

          • Observer

            It is a classic Venture Capitalist / Inventor conflict. One wanted to sell product; the other wanted to sell dreams. Rossi wants to manufacture and sell products in order to validate his invention. IH prefers to sell dreams because they have a higher profit margin.

  • Eyedoc

    So does it still look like a plan to delay of the IP, or is IH trying to
    steal it ? ……I think if either occurs successfully ….. AR might be just
    the guy to go ‘nuclear’ on their butts (release all IP to
    public…….which would toast IH’s plans either way)

    • bfast

      And potentially toast Rossi’s well deserved retirement plan.

      • Eyedoc

        Hence my qualifier ……’if either occurs successfully’…….the retirement is already toast……then why not

      • Andrew

        At his age $11.5M is more than enough to retire on

        • bfast

          Um, I think he spent the 11.5 on robotic factories, etc.

          • Axil Axil

            The law suit will cost over a million.

          • Engineer48

            According to what Rossi told Mats, the $11.5m is sitting untouched in a bank account.

            Rossi did offer to pay it back to IH in exchange for a cancelled contract.

          • Andrew

            If retirement was his plan than building a factory was a silly move.

      • Observer

        Andrea Rossi retire?

        How long have you been following this story?

  • Billy Jackson

    nope just an opinion based on experience, best guess, and hopefully common sense. but in the end it is nothing more than an opinion.

  • bfast

    Let the lawsuit be dropped. Let the relationship between Rossi and IH be terminated. Let Rossi have the freedom to seek business opportunities in the Americas. This is the best for LENR, this is the best for Rossi.

    • Chapman

      IH could humbly admit that they do not have the 89mil for the payment and accept the default conditions as stipulated.

      Rossi would be more than happy to withdraw the suit for the 89mil, and shop the territorial license to an alternative partner, if IH complies with the contractual default restrictions and immediately withdraws, or signs over to Rossi, all currently active Patent applications based on his IP.

      Rossi is not the one being recalcitrant. Darden is in default, but is unwilling to be honorable in his failing.

      On the other hand, if IH HAS the money, but thinks that Rossi is a fraud, they could claim insolvency and follow the above course simply to extricate themselves from their involvement with Rossi and the ownership of a license for what they consider to be worthless tech.

      Either way, the onus is on IH to end the dispute. Rossi was ready to either accept payment and move forward, or acknowledge default and move on.

    • Observer

      The purpose of the lawsuit is not to get the $89 million. (IMHO IH does not have it.) The purpose of the lawsuit is to terminate IH’s licence agreement. If IH maintains the E-Cat does not work, then they should not object to giving up IP and distribution rights that they claim have no value. What IH really wants is all of AR’s current and future IP for $11.5 million. Even going back to the Defkalion Green Technologies deal, Rossi’s price has always been $100 million. When Defkalion failed to pay, Rossi terminated that agreement too.

      • Engineer48

        Leonadro has terminated the IH contract/license due to default on clause 3.2c, failure to pay the required $89m.

  • Barbierir

    Fulvio Fabiani has published on Facebook a photo of himself inside the Ecat container, nice view of the interior with many racks of Ecats. Both he and Barry West (who wrote a comment with another pic of an open electric box) sound upbeat and confident that it does works. FWIW

    • Engineer48

      Interesting that it appears each of the older backup reactors had a water level gauge to determine the boiling water level inside the reactor.

      The air space above the boiling water is where, in the wet steam space above the boiling water, the heated fins of the reactor turned the wet steam into dry/superheated steam.

      Clever design to both boil water and superheat the steam in one unit. Nice design.

  • Engineer48

    So it seems.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    Also the movements wich IH is doing shows that they dont want to be limited to the territories covered by the LA. They applied for patents at Europe wich are outside the LA.

    Skeptopathics can tell whatever they want but this is clearer each day that IH is the one trying to scam and that the E-Cat works.

    Now, for these people wich says, Rossi should make a proper demonstration and all these things. Seeing the development of the things he does better not showing anything else until the product is in the market. Just show us the finished product when you start to sell it. That would be what we really need, because any test wich he could perform, the people wich have been criticising about the measurement just did it to make it feel like all was a big scam.

    If these methods are valid for normal testing of COP in coal or nuclear plants, it is true that in determinated circumstances one could get bad measurements, but it is almost impossible that this would happen in every one test that has been made so far. The only way for all these to be wrong should be a big scam and with the facts we currently have, with IH behaviour that possibility is as low as 0.
    Every time that people says, the measurement method was flawed, they are helping IH with their scam, and IH should have thought that with a near 6 COP like lugano they could argue against the result, claiming a lower COP and they getting the LA for a bargain price.
    But they failed to realize that with Rossi making improvements each day, a undisputable COP of 50 changed all their plans. So we are here now, with IH trying to use excuses to deny payment and retain the IP.
    So, Rossi lawyer should take every hint of advice he can to fight agains this.
    At least here at Spain there are some things one cannot do.
    if you allow a test for a plant through a whole year to be done, you absolutely cant argue after the test ended that it started late or things like these.
    If you allowed the test to be run all these time and you made no objections then, you are allowing that. I hope that Rossi lawyer hits that poin with the precise wording and with references to previous sentences in that way.
    If IH disagreed with what happened then he should have stated before the start of the test something like – The start date failed to be acomplished.
    Later on, we dont agree with the change of the desing.
    We dont agree with the measurement method.
    Any written letter to Rossi stating any of these points would do a big case for them, but the fact is that they just waited silent until the test finished and then claimed again all these, not against the ERV report.
    And it makes me laugh when i read – The results fail to count unoperating reactors. In a multi reactor plant, if you manage to deliver the required energy, even if one of the boilers is shut for manteniance, the true result is that you managed to deliver the energy, that is what counts, nothing else.

    Final words, as IH doesnt seem to be creating their own manufacture it seems that they are just trying to delay the E-Cat to the market as much as they can, and of course, with the current state of things it feels like they just would wait until the case is solved to make it feel like the E-Cat doesnt work. And I wont be surprised if we see a movement on Brilloun Energy just after the case is closed, with reactors ready for the market.

    Rossi should be careful with this movement, and if the case reaches court, his lawyer should be clever enough to prevent further damage if they lose (as a legal trick may be used for that purpose). But even losing they could make the jury to prevent IH or any related company from using the technology.

  • georgehants

    It is interesting that neither Mr. Rossi or anybody in the World has yet to receive a patent on the most basic repeatable Cold Fusion.
    Mr. Rossi etc. seem to be very confident that somebody else cannot find the secret.
    ——–
    The Enablement Requirement [R-11.2013]
    The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C.
    112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
    that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) t.of the particular application or patent
    The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the
    invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention.
    However, to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
    112, first paragraph, it is not necessary to “enable one of ordinary
    skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d
    1333, 1338, 68 USPQ2d 1940, 1944 (Fed. Cir.
    2003) (an invention directed to a general system to improve the cleaning
    process for semiconductor wafers was enabled by a disclosure showing improvements in the overall system). Detailed procedures for making and using the invention may not be necessary if the description of the invention itself is sufficient to permit those skilled in the art to make and use the invention. A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.

    • Ciaranjay

      I am guessing here that the patent process takes a long time to bake. Perhaps it is useful to generate a basic patent to get things going and put down a claim, then later in the process amend it to put in the special sauce.
      Maybe someone knowledgeable could comment.

  • Mark Underwood

    That’s a question I’ve wondered myself. Rossi says that he currently has a ‘team’ and I would conjecture that some are originally from Industrial Heat. Given this is true, then when Rossi’s relationship with IH started going sour those individuals may have been faced with a difficult decision: to stick with Rossi and his work while parting from IH, or not? Surely there has been untold personal drama behind the scenes that will sooner or later be revealed.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Probably just lots of misunderstandings there. To get a realistic, physics-based introduction to nuclear explosives, I recommend Carey Sublette’s “NWFAQ”. Digesting that, one probably understands why mini-nukes are unlikely to exist in the real world. By mini-nuke I mean very small critical mass, not just an inefficient explosion where most of the material fails to react.

    Given nuclear material, it’s easy to get a chain reaction which emits dangerous amounts of radiation, but does not really explode. In Los Alamos, such early experiment was called “tickling the dragon’s tail”, they dropped a uranium cylinder through a hole made in another uranium piece or something like that. While in the hole, critical mass was briefly exceeded and the cylinder became warm by the chain reaction. However, to get a real nuclear explosion is much harder and is all about speed: how to compress the mass into criticality very quickly. If one does it even slightly wrong, one just gets a dirty bomb whose explosive power does not much, if at all, exceed a chemical explosive of the same size.

    The speed of the neutron-mediated chain reaction depends strongly on the density of the fissile material. When the chain reaction has started to produce energy, the material heats up which causes thermal expansion or melting and evaporation which tends to stop the chain reaction. The bomb has to be massive enough for two reasons: 1) to prevent too many neutrons from escaping, to reach criticality in the first place, 2) to have enough inertia to prevent the thing from expanding too quickly. This is, in a nutshell, why making mini-nukes is hard and probably impossible.

    If one replaces neutron-mediated chain reactions by something else (I mean something currently unknown that happens in CF), that something else had better not be slower than neutrons or else the chain reaction grows too slowly in comparison to how quickly the mass disintegrates during the explosion. For example if the mediators are ionised nuclei themselves, they move through matter only at the speed of a thermal shock i.e. the same speed at which the mass is already expanding.

  • Barbierir

    on may 28, the same photo twice, the second one cropped on the sides

  • Bear1145

    I am a Rossi believer, I have also followed this for 4 years. I would like the option’s of those of you to the following questions. Donald Rumsfeld stated , there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. What this means as to how this relates to the e- Cat -Known unknowns result from phenomena which are recognized, but poorly understood. On the other hand, unknown unknowns are phenomena which cannot be expected because there has been no prior experience or theoretical basis for expecting the phenomena. This is a common issue in NASA and within the computer industry. Unknown unknowns are risks that “come from situations that are so out of this world that they never occur to you. For example, prior to the invention of the personal computer, manufacturers of typewriters probably didn’t foresee the risks to their business.” The terms “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” are current in project management circles. Known unknowns refers to “risks you are aware of, such as cancelled flights.

    1. Is the this the cause of IH behavior, the known knowns–E- Cat is real.

    2. The known unknown is why did they not pay Rossi ,why did they continue to file IP’s and why did they solicit money and business on the e-cat?

    3. IH’s unknown unknown is did it not cross their minds before their contract with Rossi that the e-cat would over night totally devalue the other green environment holding?

    4. Could it also come down for us and IH what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but what we do not like to know?

    • I have little time for Rumsfeld as a man but I’ve always felt that he was unjustifiably derided for the interesting and actually quite profound analysis you quote. To an extent of course the question of known/unknown depends on who exactly it refers to – something can be known to a small ‘insider’ group that is unknown the world at large – and this is very much the case for the e-cat story.

      We’ve recently seen a bit more of what lies behind the curtain than has been usual, but in terms of who is involved I suspect that there are still at least 50% ‘known unknowns’ (to us outsiders) yet to be revealed, and a possibility at least of a few ‘unknown unknowns’ (to everyone) in the science of cold fusion that will require some fundamental paradigm shifts in many areas.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Guys, tomorrow, the MFMP will be asking if we baked a cake in Padua as the first independent TOF-SIMS analysis of the Padua cell ash (very first independent 100% Parkhomov fuel test) is in – and it is interesting.

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Alan DeAngelis

        I’ll be looking for an increase in silicon-30.

        H(1) + Li(7) > 2He(4) 17.3 MeV

        The 8.7 MeV alphas from the above reaction could go on to react with Al(27).

        He(4) + Al(27) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.37 MeV

        • Mats002

          Alan, why Li7?

          Li comes in two stable flavours; Li7 is 92.5% and Li6 is 7.5% on earth. Large amounts of Li6 has been separated out for hydrogen bombs because it is one of only three stable isotopes with a spin of 1 and has the smallest nonzero nuclear electric quadrupole moment of any stable nucleus.
          Li6 ‘bites’ better than Li7.

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Mats002

            Nice coin! However I would say this is hot fusion, not LENR.

            Walton and John Cockcroft were recipients of the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics for splitting the atom, they had built an apparatus which showed that nuclei of various lightweight elements (such as lithium) could be split by fast-moving protons.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah Mats, I like that coin but even though it’s an excuse to use that pretty picture, according to my feeble minded interpretation (or misinterpretation) of a Density Function Theory paper, lithium hydride, LiH my have some covalent bonding characteristics. I was thinking that the infrared stretching oscillations of that covalent bond in a confined nickel pocket might allow the nuclei to get close enough together to tunnel and fuse.

            You’ll find an even bigger pile of bovine feces here.
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/07/mats-lewan-proposes-possible-e-cat-mechanism/#comment-2567220958

        • Ged

          Best part, if that reaction is the main pathway, it looks like it’ll “regenerate” the hydrogen (or actually make more), meaning the hydrogen becomes a catalyst in that two step process while Li and Al are the actual fuels. Pretty wild.

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Alan DeAngelis

        Pardon me, tomorrow GMT.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Not in California!

          After all it was Alan’s baby.

          Look above.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Padua Cell – did we bake a cake?

        The very first 100% Parkhomov supplied fuel reactor the MFMP ran was the Padua cell. It was heated 2 times, once in Padua, Italy and again at me356’s place. In total, it ran for far more than 1 week live and for a large proportion of that, over 1000C.

        Whilst there were signs that the “active” side ran hotter than the null side, the point of the experiment was to cook the ingredients with a view to seeing if there might be any transmutations and if there were, would they be in line with Rossi’s or Parkhomov’s related claims.

        The first 3rd party analysis of the ash in its raw form is here:

        http://goo.gl/FCfHWo

        For more details and to discuss the data or put forward questions to be presented to the testing party, please visit our main blog here:

        http://goo.gl/wuncJq

        • roseland67

          Dang,
          Was kinda hoping that the isotope mass changes would be more blatant.
          Appears to my untrained eye that some of the
          Ni58 > Ni61,
          But not enough to be out of the tolerance limits?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The analysis points in the direction claimed by others ( skew to 62Ni and disappearance of 64ni ) – but if true, we’d either have to have a VERY long run or be successful with stimulating a faster burn rate to see something unequivocal.

            For me, the more interesting stuff could be buried in the rest of the data – which is why we have asked for the raw data. It appears that the other elements present may be in line with claims and expectations (assuming effect real).

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Ah yes, the oscillations of the symmetrical infrared stretching of nickel-64 hydride’s bonds, H~Ni(64)~H causes the protons to tunnel and fuse with the nickel-64, Ni(64) to become zinc-66 in an excited state, Zn(66)* which in turn fissions into nickel-62, Ni(62) and an alpha, He(4).

            H~Ni(64)~H > Zn(66)* > Ni(62) + He(4)

            11.8 MeV

            See my comments here:
            http://coldfusionnow.org/nobel-laureate-brian-josephson-affirms-support-for-e-cat-ht/

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            This is just a spinoff of an old idea I had about how you could get helium from a F&P cell without getting a 24 MeV gamma ray.

            (D = deuterium)

            D~Pd~D > Cd* > Pd + He
            24 MeV (no gamma ray)

            More of my BS in the comments here.
            http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

          • Gerard McEk

            Why would 66Zn fission into 62Ni + 4He? It is stable.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah Gerard but it would not be in its stable ground state. That 11.8 MeV has to be released.

  • GiveADogABone

    Back to the MTD and LA.

    1: … the License Agreement permitted IH and IPH – after having paid Plaintiffs over $10 million (which Plaintiffs admit was paid) …
    [Fine. The money was paid in accordance with the LA and everybody agrees about that.]

    2: … during a 24 hour test period the Plant consistently produces energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed by the Plant
    [Why would IH pay $10million if this CoP of 6 or better was not achieved?]

    3: the ERV will measure the flow of the heated fluid and the Delta T between the temperature of the fluid before and after the E-CAT reaction.
    [The ‘six times’ in 2: depends on these measurements in 3:. If the measurements for 24 hours and the first ERV report were good enough to pay $10million, then why were they not OK for 350 days?]
    ___________________________________

    It seems to me that the payment of $10million under the LA is strong evidence that IH were satisfied at the time that a CoP of ‘at least six’ was achieved as measured by flowmeter and thermocouples A CoP of six then becomes the target for the subsequent GPT, having already been achieved in the 24 hour test.

    What evidence would IH have that a CoP of less than six was achieved over the 350 days in accordance with the contract?
    None at all is the most likely answer. Everything points the other way.
    What is left for IH to cling to?
    Totally discredit the 350 day test procedure and blame that failure on Rossi alone. Note that there are two elements to that last sentence.

    Now read footnote 1 of the MTD ( very slowly and carefully ) :-
    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
    … [even that page break is carefully placed]
    “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)

    and extract :-
    the numerous errors in Plaintiffs’ purported

    “Guaranteed Performance Test” that the Complaint purposely ignores

    What do you see?
    I see an attempt to start to totally discredit the test procedure and blame that failure on Rossi alone. The MTD is simply a ruse (28 pages of legal whitewash) to introduce footnote 1 as discreetly as possible. The 12 June reply filing should be read in this light. The core issue is now highlighted and most of it must be about engineering argument and test data. It could also be noted that pinning the blame for the failure on Rossi enables IH to say to their investors that IH were blameless; all fraud issues for investors are hereby passed to Rossi.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting read:

    https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/

    IH actions may have exposed their agenda.

    • Very interesting analysis, well worth reading despite the sometimes rather mangled English, as are the various other posts linked out of the document. One of the latter makes a good case for this affair being far larger than has been assumed to date, and suggests that it may well involve large scale conspiracy to suppress, delay or usurp e-cat technology.

      https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/lenr-technology-impeded-by-american-fortune-150-energy-companies/

      • georgehants

        Morning Peter, it would seem that any conspiracy begins and ends with Mr. Rossi unless he is being forced by some authority to act the way he has.
        He has for over five years now totally refused to share details of even the most basic repeatable Cold Fusion, for a religious man he must have great faith that his god is a practicing capitalist and the welfare of the World is of little worth or consideration.

        • Engineer48

          George,

          Rossi is a Capitalists, that has been taught the hard way the only way he will see his dreams delivered is by tightly protecting his IP. We can see the effect when he openly shared his IP with IH.

          It is his ball and he can play the game the way he chooses.

          Besides as I have told you many times, it is corrupt politicians and business people that cause the suffering in the 3rd world. LENR reactors will not help that situation and will probably just make the corrupt politicians and business people very rich as LENR reactors deliver into their hands are a very powerful tool to gain even more control over their countries cash flow via tight control of the energy availability.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, thank you, you are confirming just what I say, corruption everywhere, what do you suggest in this democracy that we do to end this sad state of affairs.
            You say —— “Besides as I have told you many times, it is corrupt politicians and business people that cause the suffering in the 3rd world.”
            A strange way of giving your opinion that is incorrect in that it is everyone of us that allows those ” politicians and business people” to continue in their corruption.
            They could not take unfair advantage if the people did not blindly or with awareness allow it.
            As I clearly state above, my opinion is that Mr. Rossi personally is wrong to withhold information that then harms others.
            Change must start somewhere and it is no excuse to just say that is the way things are or we would still have black slaves and colour prejudice etc. etc.

          • Engineer48

            George,

            Rossi’s IP will destroy the investment portfolios of a lot of very wealthy individuals and destroy the share value of a lot of very large worldwide energy controlling companies. You think they will do nothing as all the money & power, their money and position earned?

            They will not go silently into their graves.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, it seems that we both wish to see a more equal and fair World.
            Best.

          • Engineer48

            Maybe ask yourself why Rossi is building a QuarkX reactor plant in Sweden?

            How does the Swedish gov view personal rights? Do you think the Swedish view of the rights of the individual and of the responsibility of gov/business might just extend to Rossi’s new partner/customer, which just might have asked Rossi to build his factory in their home country?

            I believe Rossi thought he had found a match to his desires to help others when he aligned with IH but then learned to his dismay that what he was sold was not the reality he sought.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, yes I understand all of your points, congratulations to Switzerland for having a referendum on a minimum wage, truly Wonderful that their authorities allow such true democracy.
            Such a shame that the population voted against it, but at least the politicians etc. fairly tried.
            We differ in that I believe it is up to everyone of us to make our own decisions, in America the people have a free choice of the kind of government they want and we are seeing the choice that they are making.
            Mr. Rossi has a choice of releasing the method and let the World freely improve and work on his Wonderful discoveries or keep the secrets for personal profits, we can only agree or disagree if that is right or wrong and I can only give you my personal opinion that it is wrong.
            Nothing is forcing Mr. Rossi to choose his path (that we know of) besides his own personal choice.
            That is his right as a free human being.

          • Engineer48

            To do what is needed, Rossi need a friendly and supportive government, legislature and business community.

            The coming QuarkX rollout will almost totally reshape the political landscape of the planet, destroying trillions of dollars of fossil assets, opening up trillions of new doors to make trillions of dollars for the global company and government behind the rollout. Imagine Sweden having a multi trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund in say 10 years? You think just maybe the Swedish gov can see value in Rossi building his plant in Sweden and aligning with a Swedish global power industry manufacturer?

            That company just may need the support of their home country government and for the manufacturing plant to be located in the country of their home base and main political influence. Why? Both physical and political defense walls.

            There is a war coming as those who stand to lose trillions will not go easily into their graves.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, many thanks for good chat, I think we are both looking forward to the positive benefits that will hopefully, eventually come from Cold Fusion.

          • Unfortunately Sweden is too closely aligned with the US for comfort. The Assange affair indicates that (like the UK and France) their government will do what it’s told by Washington.

            I would have thought that Germany was the better bet, as they desperately need to fill the energy vacuum left by closing down their nuclear power stations. Germany is also bigger and much more powerful than Sweden, and so in a better position to tell the US to bog off if they try to intervene.

          • Engineer48

            One could suggest Assange was not worth a fight with the US over but a Trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund just might be considered as something worth doing it their way.

            BTW ABB is a hybrid Swedish & Swiss company:

            http://new.abb.com/about/abb-in-brief/history
            ABB is the product of many acquisitions and mergers, but primarily the 1988 coming together of ASEA of Sweden and Switzerland’s BBC, formerly known as Brown Boveri, two of the proudest and best known names in European electrical engineering history. In subsequent years, the combined business, which once included products as diverse as turbines and railway engines, was streamlined to focus on today’s priorities of power and automation.

            Each country has a strong history of independence and neither country likes being told what to do.

          • Mats002

            Yes and ABB have a nuclear division as well. They have any kind of skill needed to take on LENR. 135 000 employees worldwide.

            Not a company you can mess with easily.

          • Observer

            Rossi wishes to become a multi-national corporation, with each foot in a different jurisdiction. His past exploits in starting businesses reinforces this strategy.

            There is currently a power struggle going on between Nation States and Multi National Corporations. (Think Europe vs. Google, etc.) We assume the Nation States are more powerful than the corporations, but are they? It is only a matter of time before corporations declare sovereignty (independent authority and the right to govern itself) and demand that all interactions between them and Nation States be established by treaty (with, and signed by them).

          • Looking from the outside it seems to many observers that the US is already a corporatocracy, run by the multinationals for the multinationals, and representing their interests abroad. The coming TTIP ‘trade deal’ is adequate indication that corporations can always find many traitors in nation states (or in this case, the EU) who will sell them out from within.

          • kdk

            Yes, also, Greece is in the middle of a fascist feeding frenzy. That’s their plan for all States, if they could.

          • Pweet

            Regarding “Rossi needs a friendly and supportive government, legislature and business community.”
            For the last two or three years Mr Rossi has said that exists in the USA. He has worked there before over many years now, so that opinion must have been formed on the basis of personal experience.

          • Pweet

            When I ask myself “why Rossi is building a QuarkX reactor plant in Sweden?” I hear myself replying it’s probably because it is one of the few places he hasn’t previously announced he was building a robotized reactor plant already.
            Why on earth should I take this latest proclamation as being any more significant. Why should I have even a little bit of confidence that something might come of this when the company which might have been able to finance this has just backed out of the door?

            Furthermore, I believe it has always been, and still is essential that an ecat of any form not get out into the open marketplace where it can be truly independently tested and reported on. So it is absolutely certain that if a factory is set up anywhere, including Sweden, it will not be producing an ecat, in the same way that no ecat has reached the open market from any USA factory. And that’s very strange since it is known that at least one licensee has tried to buy one and failed.
            Is there any reliable evidence at all that this is set to change? If there is then please tell me.
            Just for future reference, I confidently predict there will not be a factory set up in Sweden producing ecats.

          • Pweet

            At this point I really don’t think any ‘wealthy individuals’ or ‘worldwide energy controlling companies’ see anything Mr Rossi has done so far as being in any way disruptive to whatever industry they might be in.
            Had Rossi made even one incontestable demonstration proving the capabilities of the ecat, that would be different but he has not.
            In five years he has not! When simple faults which would be so easy to rectify in a repeat test were pointed out it was always claimed they were not necessary because he knows the ecat works, he says. Well he might but the so called worldwide energy controlling companies do not, and they will certainly not be convinced by the word of Mr Rossi. If they did, they would be beating a path to his door to buy into it, and clearly they are not. He has had to coax the involvement of some hapless venture capitalist to finance his work and he has not even been able to ho;d their interest.
            After allegedly heating his factory for some years with his ecat, and claiming and advertising he had ‘products ready for market’ and yet not actually selling any, the worldwide energy controlling companies would by now be regarding any claims of his as a joke. ‘Worldwide energy controlling companies’ did not get to be worldwide or energy controlling by jumping at shadows. They react to real events in the real world, and so far the ecat only exists in the world of hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.
            Now, while corrupt politicians and business people might not be contributing as much as they could to alleviate conditions in third world countries, so far Mr Rossi has contributed even less. And that’s pretty shameful considering that if he has what he claims he could have made some big inroads into giving third world societies cheap heat, light and electricity, and that would be a lot for people who have to cook their food over fires fueled by sticks and dried camel dung. But, he chooses to give them nothing and has made that choice daily for five years now.
            I would ease up on “corrupt politicians and business people that cause the suffering in the 3rd world” until such time as they are lagging significantly behind Mr Rossi in providing assistance, because so far they are streets ahead.

          • your posts are very unconvincing and you seem quite frustrated.

        • kdk

          And again, you know the sorts of tons of bricks these people drop on others who try to get things out into the open about all sorts of things from chemtrails, 9/11, all the false flags, and especially if you have good evidence. They wouldn’t blink an eyelash after killing tons and tons of people to scoop up the patent for themselves, and sue the pants off, literally, of anyone getting in the way of them making money from their more lucrative, to a simple mind, oil schemes. Unless somebody passionate about getting the technology out there has the patent it will sit and rot or be abused like so many other patents.

          Thank God Rossi isn’t stupid enough to give away his secret to them, and expect it will somehow turn out different than the storm of garbage we are subjected to every single day for decades now.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Ah yes, all Rossi has to do is reveal his secrets.
          Then the blackmailable pedophiles in office will come out in droves to support it, the United Nation’s diplomats will give up all their
          hookers and blow to promote it, rock stars will have fundraisers (and pocket 99% of the money) and we’ll all live happily ever after.
          https://bursarts.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/img_20160227_130816.jpg?w=640

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, I read it also, found it via EgoOut. In the same blog Abd-ul Rahman Lomax gives a totally different view. See: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.nl Saturday 4. We will see where it ends.

  • Hi all

    It appears IH’s motion to dismiss has failed:

    Kind Regards walker

    • pg

      How do you know?

      • Hi all

        In reply to pg

        Read the post below this and follow the link.

        The judge is gathering information and expertise on the issues and readying for trial.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Andrew

          I read the article and while it does sound like LeoCorps prospects are good but the article is opinion based on facts and nothing is set in stone.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            I hope that the article hits the point and it has its own basis.

            I would be glad if that happens. Because I truly believe that IH is trying to steal Rossi’s IP.

            Sometimes justice doesnt deserve that name but I hope it does in that case.

            It would be unfair to get a result where we see – Hey, I dismiss your case, you lose 89M because the contract reffers to Rosi not to Rossi (that is a simplified example)

            Most of what IH claimed is not supported in the fact that they allowed the test until the end without saying anything.
            At least here at Spain, there is a rule, formal verbal contracts and agreements are valid, the problem with these is to get the proof that they were really made.

            The fact that IH built the plant, waited until the test ended and now with the ERV report wich shows a COP of 50 and wich makes them pay 89M they go back to some things that they sould have claimed before.
            So, the lack of objections before should be taken as no objections in these matters, they should have raised the complaint about these before and not now.
            And the judge should then take the test as a proof of the agreement between IH and Rossi, and at this point, the only thing wich matters is the ERV report unless they claim fraud.
            And trust me when i tell you that if IH didnt make any mention against the ERV report was because there was nothing to argue about it.

            The – unoperative reactors – doesnt matter as it doesnt affect to the final COP, in fact if these reactors were operative when they werent the final COP would have been better.

            The – unsuitable methods – is a lie, but they should have raised an objection to these before or during the test, not after it. They built it.

            So, I hope that the judge crushes IH due to their bad behaviour. And the last developments of IH and Cherokee the last months shows a big bad faith on their side.

          • These counter claims were thrown in as an aside – basically just to muddy the water They are weak and largely irrelevant.

            If that is representative of the defense Jones Day will be putting forward, I’d want my money back. Not that it’s too likely that IH is actually footing that particular bill.

  • Engineer48

    The opening statement of Clause 1 is interesting as it implies ALL the terms and conditions of the license must be continually met or someone is in default.

    If IH believed they only needed to meet the payment requirements of clause 3.2a and 3.2b but could ignore clause 3.2c, then they are in default of clause 1 and of clause 3.1 and thus they have no rights to either the IP nor the territories despite the $11.5m payment.

  • DrD

    Is this reasoning flawed:
    IH claim the contract was not fulfilled.
    Therefore, they do not owe the oustanding $89M.
    Therefore, not having completed the purchase contract they no longer have rights to use the ip and license.
    The failure was probably at the door of IH but all that matters is that it wasn’t completed for what ever reason, even including the other accusations that IH have touched on.

    Also as Engineer48 pointed out, they may even be excluded from competing in the LENR field.
    Is that flawed?

    • Engineer48

      DrD,

      The contract specifies a proportional payout which if the COP = 6.0 IH pays the full $89m, with proportional payout between > 2.6 & = 6.0 and IH owe Rossi the full $89m.

      Please note that in the IH Motion To Dismiss, IH are claiming $100m damages. So they too have stepped it up.

      • DrD

        Yes but IH claim the contract wasn’t fulfilled because the amendment wasn’t valid and therefore the test wasn’t completed in the defined time period. If so, the COP isn’t relevant.
        Therefore, I suggest that the contract wasn’t fullfilled. IH owe Rossi nothing (maybe?) but more importantly to AR, IH don’t own the IP. (maybe?) since the contract wasn’t completed.
        If this interpretation is correct (I’m not convinced it is) then i think it’s in Rossi’s favour except he loses a mere $89M.

        • Engineer48

          DrD,

          As I read clause 5, attached, IH and only IH can extend the period of the Validation as they did in signing the 2nd amendment to the contract.

          Any other signatures on or missing on the 2nd amendment mean nothing as only the IH signature has effect (has the power) as per clause 5 to extent the Validation period.

          As a Bush Lawyer, it seems the IH legal eagles are on a fishing trip to see what they might catch and hoping the judge does not read clause 5.
          .

          • DrD

            I have to say, that’s also how I interpret it.
            I’m just trying to imagine what’s the consequence of IH’s “counter” being accepted (contract not fulfilled). Do they lose the license? In which case it’s an own goal IMO.
            I think AR isn’t worried about the 89M so much as IH controling the market.

  • Engineer48
    • Engineer48

      Domain registration info attached.

    • SD

      You probably don’t need a website to use a domain as an e-mail address.

      That domain initially linked to their press release btw

      • Engineer48

        SD,

        Understand that. What I saw was the blogger called Weaver revealed an IH email address to give his identify some credibility.

        • Gerald

          First I thought it was a typematch the .co extention. But it real. There’s also a mail domain for it.

          What I found interresting, Industrialheat.com is registrered in 2000 and the .co and .org are registrered on 7-feb-2013.

          So in that period they where going to use and protect their .com domain I Think. It probably dates just before the 24 hour validation test?

          Quit anoying the use of .com and .co Probably just good for godaddy’s pocket. 😉

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Sure hope their email server has a massive spam filter and good bandwidth, cause Weaver just opened himself and that server up to LOTS of massive junk emails.

          • Gerald

            Its hosted at google, i quess thats no problem for them. Must be atronomical how much junk mail their server must handle.

  • Hi all

    4 More days before IH must give a formal answer. A motion to dismiss does not stop the clock.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Engineer48

      Ian,

      From my reading of clause 5, attached, it is ONLY IH that can grant an extension of time to the Validation period.

      As IH signed the 2nd contract amendment, granting the time extension, it would seem the existence or not of the other 2 contract signatories on the amendment should have no bearing that IH did agree to the extension.

      Also by IH’s actions, they showed that they had granted the time extension.

      Just maybe the IH lawyers are hoping the judge does not read clause 5?

    • SD

      Dewey Weaver claims the opposite: “June 12 went away with the MTD.”

      • Engineer48

        Weaver often “Gets” things wrong.

        Like not understanding 0.0 barG is really 14.7 PSI and that you do not pressure test a steam boiler by reducing the internal air pressure from 14.7 PSI down to 2 PSI. Steam boilers cause water to boil, turn into wet, then dry / superheated steam and EXPAND 1,700 times the dry steam volume versus the liquid volume.

        • SD

          I agree, but wouldn’t he know if the folks at IH were scrambling to get a response within the next 3 days?

          • Engineer48

            With Weaver who knows?

            I have started archiving everything he posts. Who knows what fun that may bring in the future?

            What is that old saying about giving someone enough rope to H##G themselves?

    • Gerald

      what does this line in the case bucket mean?
      MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint: Latest line –

      Responses due by 6/20/2016 (Lomax, Christopher)

      Is it the IH attorney gets an answer on 20 june on the motion of dismiss? And so the date 12 june still stands for the formal answer of Darden and IH?

      I also see that by 30 june, the judge must have time schedules an certificates?

      A little hard to follow, maybe a siple timeline with key dates would help some.

  • Engineer48

    Peter Gluck has just disclosed, on his blog / newsletter, some very interesting new statement from Rossi. Well worth the read:

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/june-08-2016-lenr-who-has-started-war.html

  • Engineer48

    Interesting:
    https://legaleasesolutions.com/lawstoreblog/motion-to-dismiss-for-failure-to-state-a-claim/

    Introduction

    Motions to dismiss can be big winners or big losers. Filing a motion to dismiss in virtually every case is a bad habit, but probably not as bad as the habit of never making one. Generally, a motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Failure to state a claim is often raised as a sort of a defense to a plaintiff’s complaint. A defendant may move to dismiss a cause of action if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    ….
    Conclusion

    To sum up, to win a motion to dismiss, the defendant must now show that the plaintiff did not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible” on its face. Though there are still differences of opinion about construing Iqbal, as such, Iqbal brings clarity for addressing both pleading standards and the standards for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in all civil cases in federal court.

    .

    • Hi all

      Hence why Rossi ended the IH license. For IH’s motion to dismiss to hold water IH inherently have to accept that IH no longer have any rights to either the manufacture or sale of E-Cat’s in the US, Russia, China, the Arab states etc and Rossi is now Free to license anyone else or to make E-Cat products himself.

      If they try to claim the contract still subsists their motion to dismiss fails.

      Rossi has them neatly skewered on the horns of the Dilemma.

      Kind Regards Walker

  • Engineer48

    My opinion, for what it is worth on the release of the ERV report by either party;

    Rossi:
    Will not release until he can see the whites of their eyes as then IH will have very little time or room to move to avoid his data blast. Rossi knows how to engage the enemy and win.

    IH:
    Will not release the full ERV data as then folks like me and other engineers can tell the ERV COP calcs are correct, which will destroy the IH case. If IH release altered or Cherry picked data, then Rossi will counter with their data does not match the ERV data and they will be toast.

    What we have seen so far from Weaver is initially released data that was not representative (ie 100.1 steam temp and not understanding that 0.0 barG means sea level atmospheric pressure and talking about the reactor containers failing at 2 PSI, which should never happen inside a water boiling container unless you sealed the boiler and let the boiling water cool down to ambient, which is not how a boiler works.) and then only partial data that has been Cherry picked.

    Jed, who also claims to have some data, will not reveal. From my readings he has never stated he has ERV data but said he has seen other IH data. On the Jed statement, please correct me if I got that wrong.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting photo which should clear up how the returned water & steam from the heat exchanger is turned in condensate that has very little steam in it.

    Basically the fluid return from the heat exchange is run into a vat of water at room temperature, which removes the higher heat from the steam and turns into back into water. Then the reactor input pumps suck up that condensed water to feed it back into the reactor as steam less water. With this system, which is the standard way to handle the returned fluid from the heat exchanger, there is no way anyone could feed steam from the customer’s site to create a false COP. People who suggest this just maybe have never visited a steam boiler that has a condenser for the returned fluid.

    I’m very sure the ERV measured the reactor input fluid temperature and if it was below 100C, well there can not be any significant steam content as the lower temp fluid will absorb the higher steam temp energy and turn it into water.

    Also interesting to see who was testing the original Leonardo Hot Cat before IH designed their DogBone version that they submitted to the Lugano team to test. Is that Darden and Vaughn I see?
    .

  • cashmemorz

    What Industrial heat and their boys are all about is taking IP for themselves at whatever cost it may be to the actual inventor. Its just business. This is aptly shown in the way Trump does business. Basically not paying for work done. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/hundreds-allege-donald-trump-doesn%e2%80%99t-pay-his-bills/ar-AAgRKiu?li=AAggNb9

    • Engineer48

      Hi Cash,

      Well as Weaver has shared, IH is no longer doing any work with Rossi’s IP, which is correct as Rossi terminated their rights to do so.

      That he claims it doesn’t work and that Brillouin’s does is just talking down a now competitor and taking up the investment they made in Brillouin.

      • cashmemorz

        What gets to me, in a psychic way, is that this is how successful business can work to the detriment of society. As the Trump example goes so far as to get this Trump guy, I can’t call him a person, he got so far as to get nominated as Republican main candidate for pres of the states. Unbelievable! This is how so many in the world measure success.

  • Engineer48

    Hi All,

    Why if as Weaver claims, IH never measured any excess heat, would they build the HotCat Dog Bone reactors & ship them to Lugano, then build 2 x 1MW reactors and ship them to Miami, if they knew before they did not work?

    For IH to ship reactors they claim they knew did not work, to external to IH tester who would publicly publish the test data, is simply not believable by anybody.

    No business works like this, shipping their manufactured products, that they claim do not work, into public trials.

    I suggest any jury hearing of these actions would very quickly stop believing anything IH says.

  • jrainearwills

    Well, the motion seems sufficiently reasonable. It makes me wonder if Rossi is representing himself in the lawsuit. Otherwise, perhaps IH’s legal team would not have effortlessly picked apart his claims, as they have.