Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/10/statement-from-andrea-rossi-on-ih-patent-application/']The following statement was submitted by Andrea Rossi. I have not yet been able to find the patent application he refers to. Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to Industrial Heat, without my authorization. This […][/feedquote]

  • Interesting statement from Rossi!
    Which patent papers is he referring to?



    Any of these?
    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio
    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search//iasr?ia=US2015016897&PAGE=HTML&ACCESS=screen&TOK=k2aa0QPv6uBd4CObHf9DtchnG0o
    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2016/0051957.html


  • Claims appear to be same(? I read only first) so same paper/basic "invention".


    Patentend only very specific device, can do/construct many diffrent ways so very weak patent (low value).
    Rossi will lose game before it even start if he have only that paper.

  • It seems to me that the whole clash between IH and Rossi is not about patents or test results but about progress that Rossi has been made (and probably still is making) which is not clearly included in the agreements. The original agreement was made when Rossi was concentrating on the so-called 'hotcat' technology. In case the hotcat concept would work within the boundaries of the agreement IH would pay Rossi the remaining millions. This included the trade secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the patent applications. All this includes a working concept based on hotcat technology able to work with COP => 6.


    Meanwhile Rossi has made significant progress in understanding how his hotcat process works and can be improved. He calls this the x-cat technology, the next generation e-cat technology. These insights and progression makes hotcat methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not.


    Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are still met (implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore should fulfil the agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge transfer is not profitable anymore now Rossi has his x-cat technology in his pocket.

  • It seems to me that the whole clash between IH and Rossi is not about patents or test results but about progress that Rossi has been making (and probably still is making) which is not clearly included in the agreements. The original agreement was made when Rossi was concentrating on the so-called 'hotcat' technology. In case the hotcat concept would work within the boundaries of the agreement IH would pay Rossi the remaining millions. This included the trade secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the patent applications. All this includes a working concept based on hotcat technology able to work with COP => 6.


    Meanwhile Rossi has made significant progress in understanding how his hotcat process works and can be improved. He calls this the x-cat technology, the next generation e-cat technology. These insights and progression makes hotcat methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not.


    Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are still met (implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore should fulfil the agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge transfer is not profitable anymore now Rossi has his x-cat technology in his pocket.


    Very good comment! I think you may be right.

  • What are the positions of Rossi and I.H.?
    If Rossi is a worker inside I.H., or a consult payed by I.H., the property is at I.H.
    If I.H. only funds the Rossi's enterprise, and later is refunded, the property is at Rossi.

  • If this go to Court it will take years to Settle probably....


    Interesting info on Florida litigation process:


    "The Defendant has to answer within a certain time (usually about three weeks). The Answer says what portions of the Complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what the Defendant contests, what defenses the Defendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against the Plaintiff or any other party."


    "If the Defendant doesn’t answer the Complaint, the court may enter a default judgment against the Defendant. If the Answer contains a counterclaim or a third-party complaint, the party against whom that claim is made also has to answer within a certain time."


    "It’s hard to say how long all these steps will take in your case. The entire process can take from as little as six months, to as long as years. In the case of witnesses, you can be called to testify at any time from shortly after the event to the better part of a decade after it happened. Generally speaking, the less money at stake, and the more issues that can be resolved before trial, the smoother and faster the lawsuit will go."


    Ref.
    http://boyerlawfirm.com/practi…florida-civil-litigation/

  • robwoudenburg wrote:

    These insights and progression makes hotcat methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not.


    The license agreement prohibits Rossi or anyone he gangs up with competing with IH. Furthermore the long term test plant claims COP=50 (which I'm sure is what the test report will say). If you believe Rossi's tests then IH are contracted to have access to this technology - they could squash any attempt by Rossi to use it everywhere except Europe. They also are allowed to continue their own developments.


    But only if they keep the license. IH have chosen not to pay which means:

    • No license
    • Rossi can compete freely with them
    • No help from Rossi
    • Disaster-level PR for IH


    Remember Rossi's complaint is that he is not being paid the money. Otherwise he'd happily be CSO of IH (as he and they originally planned according to the license) and sit on his $89M worth of condos. He'd probably go on 'helping' them. It must be a hard thing to have this expectation of $89M for two years on the basis of 6 tests, orchestrate a tough 1 year test with a positive result similar to the first 6 as required to get the $89M, and then be denied the money.


    That is Rossi's view.


    IH's behaviour only makes sense if now they no longer believe any of those Rossi test results are real. But they would not themselves terminate the agreement - they would still hope at some point Rossi's claims could be substantiated. I can't see they would allege fraud from Rossi unless this were necessary to fight their case. That would be even more bad PR.

  • This all makes no sense, denying Rossi's stuff works and then going for a patent of the same. Saying that they have nothing off Rossi in 3 1/2 years also makes no sense but long cons like this have been known before. Where I am normally an optimist where these things go Rossi's previous history and MO really go against him. The thermocouple scam was outrageous trying to pull one over on the military and supyling badly made modules that made a few watts when they were supposed to make 1kw can be nothing other than a con that he was perfectly aware of ! The sheer brass of the guy which also says that he not beyond anything. Yet IH are closest to the action and you'd have thought they would be getting enough readings along the way to have stayed interested this long and not just turned round at the end and say that it dosent work unless they are playing a game of not paying a game of their own or they see a way to make something that is sufficiently different to avoid paying Rossi. It would amazing that Rossi could keep them at such a distance from the experiment throughout the year that they couldn't make an assessment of the experiment, it seems unbelievable but if so it could very well still be a long con by Rossi. There is after all no data I have not read everything but at the end of this test that is the mega 1 year test that everyones been waiting for and here we are still: no results no fanfare 1 year and 1 month and nothing. In fact we have IH claiming a null result Rossi claiming things are very satisfactry and yet still no data. Come on Mr Rossi where are the print outs...surely that is what you must have data on in out of all your] modules if you are the scientist that you say you are. I am sorry Mr Rossi I JUST cant take this seriously any more and if this turns out to all be a scam with vastly exaggerated COP's which I suspect is why there are no figures it will set back LENR years. So Sir where is the data your year and a month is up.


    Cooling regards


    Chris Blythe

  • Chris,


    I think IHs view can be more graduated than that. They came into the field wanting to advance research into LENR and exploit it. Like many they did not know whether Rossi's stuff worked, but thought it very interesting. After 6 positive independent tests they also thought it worked.


    The license agreement was clearly made when they thought it worked, and now they think it does not work - or at least that they have not been able to substantiate that it works (not quite the same). I bet they are a lot less sure about those independent tests.


    But they may still feel that aspects of Rossi's approach (which is similar to Piantelli's) might work, or perhaps could eventually be made to work, even if that is a long shot. Like MFMP. And specific patents take a long time going through the pipeline and therefore can have been submitted at a time when they were more positive. Companies will obtain patents just on the off chance they might one day have some use.


    It is easy to see the Rossi action as IH withdrawing from the license agreement. But all IH have done is refused to pay $89M now because they think Rossi has not yet met its conditions by giving them working technology. They would, I guess, be happy enough to go on trying indefinitely, with the $89M as strong incentive for Rossi to help them get stuff to work. But, I guess, for Rossi if they renege on the $89M they are snakes and he will go into full battle mode.

  • The license agreement prohibits Rossi or anyone he gangs up with competing with IH. Furthermore the long term test plant claims COP=50 (which I'm sure is what the test report will say). If you believe Rossi's tests then IH are contracted to have access to this technology - they could squash any attempt by Rossi to use it everywhere except Europe. They also are allowed to continue their own developments.


    Thomas, it all depends on interpretations. Reading the agreement, the term E-cat is not well defined, while the whole agreement is only based on the term E-Cat. If Rossi develops a different technology that he calls X-Cat he could in my view very simply circumvent the restrictions as defined in the agreement.

  • "The license agreement was clearly made when they thought it worked, and now they think it does not work"


    Not exactly. What Darden might claim is that although it worked as a "science project", it did NOT work as a commercially viable system.
    Proof: Rossi had to babysit his devices for 352 days. Rossi admitted on his blog that his health suffered as a result. The ERV report may indicate that much maintenance is required to keep a Rossi device working. If so, then the ERV report and Rossi's resultant poor health proves that what Rossi presented was NOT commercially viable.
    Darden might claim in court that Rossi presented his technology as a commercially viable system. Since it is not commercially viable, Darden shouldn't be expected to pay,
    If Darden wins/loses using this argument, he may have to pay some millions to Rossi, BUT the new and improved commercially viable version of the patent will be owned by Darden and if Rossi wants to produce units, he will have to pay Darden to use the commercially viable version of the patent. Otherwise every Rossi unit will have to come with a Rossi clone to perform maintenance 24/7.


    Robert Godes (Brillouin) may be the person or group who Darden has working on making an improved system which WILL BE commercially viable.


    d

  • Sorry this is off topic, it was supposed to be a reply elsewhere.....Even if LENR was fully understood tomorrow, it would take tens of years to kick in sufficiently to make any change, there is a massive inertia in the billions of tons of infrastructure, the sheer bulk of metal already tied up in engines for change to take place quickly or easily. Probably the first best place to effect change would be to retrofit power stations and reduce coal. Petrochemicals are so dialed into gazillions of uses that oil and the need for it is going to be around a century's yet. Farmers in the back of beyond aren't going to throw away their old tractor and that will be the same in industry unless it hits peoples pockets extensively. Not to mention the use for fertilizers and plastics. If anything remaining oil will be seen to be more valuable for these things rather than burning it for pence or cents in engines, the remaining oil will become more valuable. Just picture the sheer tonnage of metal that is tied up all over the world in long lasting equipment. Even if you wanted it converted straight away you just couldn't do it. Petrol is here for a long long time yet, a move to hydrogen and tech that converts power in all forms to hydrogen based fuel is the stopgap as it is a workaround for our storage. Gas pipes ad oil pipes are there already and gradually micropower can utillise the grid to sellback to the existing network and encourage people with the money to invest in small installations that would gradually input to the grid and eventually replace the need for power stations altogether. Lenr that can either run on or produce hydrogen could be key in a hyrdogen-electric power infrerstucture. Hydrogen being the'battery' in times of surplus production and feeding large fuel cells or lenr devices at times of peak demand. This all interleaves with and enhances our infrerstucture that has taken since victorian times to build.

  • First of all, you cannot file a patent with an inventor that doesn't sign the application - so Rossi signed the application.


    Second of all, assignment of a patent also requires signatures from all inventors - so if Rossi believes that the patent is assigned to ("claimed ownership") by IH, then Rossi signed that assignment.


    It is the inventor(s) that attest to the functionality of the device claimed in the invention, not the assignee.


    So Rossi's remark was specious and was designed to enlist "poor little me" support.

  • @David ... I have been away for a while trying to spend more time in the lab and less on the computer.


    First let me explain "specious" ... A statement that is "specious" sounds on the surface like it is true, but when closely examined it turns out to be false.


    Rossi is claiming that IH is "filing patents in his name", and while that may be true, these patents cannot be filed in the US Patent office without the inventor signing the application. This means that Rossi knew about the application when it was created and he agreed to file that patent the way it was written, or he would not have signed the application.


    Rossi is also claiming that IH is claiming ownership of the patent that was filed. If IH is not an inventor, then "ownership" comes as a formal assignment of the patent by Rossi (inventor) to IH (assignee). Normally someone who has paid for the research, or by contract has rights to inventions, will expect to receive assignment. However, Rossi would have had to sign an assignment agreement for the patent to be assigned to IH. AND, such and assignment must be signed for every patent that is going to be assigned. While IH may have a contract term with Rossi that says that Rossi must assign these patents, Rossi must still sign papers for each patent to enable the assignment to IH.


    It is not possible for IH to file a patent application or an assignment without Rossi agreeing and signing the papers.


    So, for Rossi to come out now and say that IH is filing these patents and claiming ownership, is a ploy to induce sympathy from those that read his statements. The truth is that Rossi signed the papers to allow IH to file each of the patents they have filed. If the patent is assigned to IH, then Rossi signed documents to assign it to IH. IH did not "steal" ownership of anything from Rossi, Rossi voluntarily signed papers for assignment of the patents in exchange for something (contracts require something of value to have been given and received to be valid).


    Lastly, it is the person(s) named as inventor(s) that is claiming that the technology in the patent works. That means that Rossi, by signing the patent application, was claiming that the technology worked as it was disclosed. There is no implied claim by the assignee of the patent (IH) to the US Patent office that the technology worked. However, by spending the money to pursue the patent, there is some evidence that IH believed the patent to be valuable.