Nothing has changed since MTD. This is what the IH case is depending on - and this argument has already been dismissed by the court ... Thin ice it is.
Quote from "counterFUD"
62. Defendants admit that Industrial Heat and Rossi executed the proposed Second Amendment to the License Agreement (the “Proposed Second Amendment”), which is dated “October __, 2013.” However, the Proposed Second Amendment was not executed by Leonardo, IPH, or AEG. Defendants state that the Proposed Second Amendment speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 62 inconsistent therewith. Defendants admit that a copy of the Proposed Second Amendment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Defendants deny that the Proposed Second Amendment was valid to amend the License Agreement. In any event, the Proposed Second Amendment addressed the testing of “a six cylinder Hot Cat unit” (the “Six Cylinder Unit”), not the E-Cat Unit that was the subject of the License Agreement and the First Amendment. The Six Cylinder Unit in the Proposed Second Amendment is separate and distinct from the E-Cat Unit or Plant as referenced in the License Agreement, the First Amendment, and the Complaint. Photographs accurately depicting the Six Cylinder Unit are attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Six Cylinder Unit remains in North Carolina
Worth noting is that even if the amendment is ruled valid, IH is stating it was the wrong type of plant that was tested (eh?). And considering that they state that the ERV COP~50 report "speaks for itself" they have carefully made is sound as if the test failed, while actually acknowledge that it worked...
Quote from "counterFUD"
72. Defendants deny that the test referenced in Paragraph 72 was the Guaranteed Performance to be performed under the License Agreement. Defendants admit that on March 29, 2016, Penon sent his final report regarding the operation of the Plant to Darden and Rossi. Defendants state that this report speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 72 inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny that the Plant satisfied all of the performance requirements imposed by the License Agreement; see Ex. 5. Defendants also deny Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 72 regarding the amount of energy produced by the Plant during the testing period; see Ex. 1. Defendants deny the remaining llegations in Paragraph 72.
Interesting to note here is that their arguments against the test is
** the Murray flow meter FUD in ex. 5 (which nowhere close is able to explain a factor of 50).
** the USPTO comment on the patent in ex. 1 ... They are as I wrote about long time ago (see link below) going down the total anti LENR track ... not scientifically proved/independently confirmed ... they simply do not care if it really works ... totally disregarding the ERV report even though it "speaks for itself", which they know is valid.. http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…to-ditch-lenr-completely/
Worth saying again. This counterFUD is a goldmine of information strengthening many of my (http://sifferkoll.se) hypothesis considerably
This kind of blatant inconsistencies in arguing leads to the obvious conclusion that IH/Darden/Cherokee et al are panicing and decided to go all in and thereby likely are comitting a complete business suicide exiting as fools.