To discuss the relevance of any 'verifiable evidence' that may be available which may be relevant to the Rossi et al v. Darden et al case.

1st Official Post

    The thread "Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)" is now closed due to a lack of 'calm debate'. I hope this will enable the proper continuation of this debate with the exclusion of all 'ad homs' 'assumptions' and any opinion which would otherwise not be acceptable in a court of law.


    As an example, I do not exclude Thomas's critique on Lugano or MFMP clarification of any Lugano testing and calorimetric discussion, or for that matter discussion on the ERV report when it becomes available, but I would hope that all conjecture or other opinion which aims to discredit contributors or other players be tempered, by a test (hypothetical though it may be) of it being accepted or rejected by a Judge in a court of law.

    The key evidence is the contract.


    https://www.scribd.com/doc/309…onardo-vs-Industrial-Heat


    Summary: (this is a cut down version of the early part of the agreement and for a proper understanding you must refer to the original document.


    (1) Grant of License and Sale of 1MW E-CAT Unit
    (2) Territory
    (3) Price and Payments ($100,500,000.00) which includes payment for the plant. (in the event the plant is not delivered or validation is not achieved within the time period set out in section 4, the full $1,500,000.00 will be refunded.
    (4) Validation of the plant - validation will be deemed to be successful and achieved when the expert responsible for such validation (ERV) certifies in writing that during a 24 hour test period the Plant consistently produces energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed...
    To make this measurement, 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.
    (5) Guaranteed Performance - payment of the amount set out in 3(c) above is contingent upon the plant operating at the same (or better) at which Validation was achieved for a period of 350 days (even if not consecutive) within a 400 day period....
    (6) Conditions Precedent -
    (a) receipt of evidence that all E-Cat IP is owned by Leonado and/or Rossi


    Leonardo agree to provide such information as may be reasonable to be requested ---- the company will be entitled to suspend its obligations until such 'conditions precedent'' are satisfied.

    (7) For each patent application and patent under the Licenced Patents, Leonado shall
    (a) prepare the file and prosecute such patent applications
    (b) maintain such patent
    (c) pay all fees and expenses (re patents file and preparation)
    (d) keep the company currently informed of filing and progress in all material aspects (re patents)
    (e) consult with the company concerning any decisions which could affect the scope or enforcement.....(patents)
    (f) notify the company in writing of any additions, deletions or changes.....status of patent application.
    (8) Leonardo shall bring suit or defend a declaratory judgement action and control the conduct thereof, including settlement, to stop infringement of any Licenced Patent......
    And it goes on.....


    Best regards
    Frank

    I think the case is rather simple, but also depends on IH's future perspective regarding the cooperation with Rossi/Leonardo.


    If IH intend to hold the contract in place, but don't pay the 89m$, then they have to prove beyond doubt, that they were intentionally defrauded by the ERV. Not an easy task.

    Otherwise IH has to refute the License Agreement as a whole.

    The context of the License Agreement is clearly "ALL E-Cat IP", not only some of it.

    At the time of the signing of the License Agreement, Rossi had warranted to be the "sole owner" of all "E-Cat IP" and that's the premise and main context of the contract.

    IH have to prove that these warranties never corresponded to the truth or that this is no longer the case.

    That might be done by explaining, that the term "E-Cat IP" includes obviously Rossi's patents (some listed in the contract) and particularly the "fluid heater patent" which is the primary US patent of the E-Cat IP.


    Bringing a reference to Piantelli's patent onto the table, will show "prior art" and do the rest.


    The court/jury will recognize, that the premise/primary context of the contract is invalid by now.


    The contract as a whole has to be regarded as insubstantial (possibly with retroactive effect).

    P.S.
    Maybe the court will decide that Rossi deserves a compensation with clearing against the 11.5m$ payed by I.H..

    Quote from license

    12. (m) All of the books, records and other documents delivered to the company pursuant to this agreement will be true, correct and complete in all material aspects.


    If that includes the test records Rossi would have not kept the contract.


    But, in any case, I believe that if any of the tests on which IH relied could be shown to be deliberately falsified that would mean Rossi would lose. That, though, might not be provable.

    Looks like the deadline for any answer that Darden et al may have has been put forward:


    Reset Answer Due Deadline: Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC response due 6/12/2016; Thomas Darden response due 6/12/2016; IPH International B.V. response due 6/12/2016; Industrial Heat, LLC response due 6/12/2016; John T. Vaughn response due 6/12/2016.

    Perhaps Darden et al's 'defence' will be more 'complex' than 'simple' as it appears to be taking more time to put together. But we will have to wait and see.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Just to recap in what Rossi is complaining about:


    (this again is a cut down 'summary' and should you wish to get a better understanding you must refer to the original complaint: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…sdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf


    (1) Darden et al defrauded Rossi and 'misappropriated Rossi's intellectual property.
    (2) Darden et al had no intention to pay the agreed price.
    (3) Willfully failed to disclose their intention to misappropriate the E-Cat IP.
    (4) Misappropriated and infringed IP illegally
    (5) Rossi is filing to put an end to IH continued wrongful infringement of IP.
    Patents in suit:
    15 Dec 2010, 2259998 European patent
    6 April 2011, 0001387256 Italian Patent
    25 August 2015 9,115,913 B1 US patent


    Further information:
    At meetings Darden, Vaughn and Cherokee fraudulently represented that if Cherokee were granted a licence they would 'protect' the E-Cat IP; that they were authorised to use funds managed by Cherokee to pay Leonado in excess of £100.000.000.00.


    It goes on ....


    Best regards
    Frank

    Rossi puts 'interesting fact' at the end of his answer in his blog (emphasis mine)
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=114#comment-1186667


    The latest file in the docket.


    (Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report and certificates of interested parties by 6/30/2016. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 4/18/2016.)


    This is a link to a 'blank' form but for those who are interested it shows the range of information required by the plaintiff (Rossi et al) and (Darden et al) as is relevant to the case, and the restrictions imposed thereafter.


    Notice, an early disclosure requirement is: "Disclosure of Expert Reports". This of course suggests the ERV report may be filed under this section. This information is required to be filed by 30th June 2016 unless this date is extended.


    https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/…_and_Scheduling_Order.pdf


    Best Regards
    Frank

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.