Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

I agree with IHFB about the intention of the licence. No idea if somehow Rossi screwed up the wording and somehow gave his IP away unknowingly.

My point is that Rossi used stealing IP as his excuse to bar Joe from entering. Yet Rossi was to give the IP to IH and even if he was "inventing" new IP in that shipping container, it was likely that IH had right to it via shop right laws. What was Rossi hiding from IH and specifically Joe? Why did he wait so late in the testing to tell IH that he was considering it to be the GPT? Why did they withhold the final report of the test? Will we ever know what is sealed in that container? Has Rossi opened the seal on the container to use materials on his Quark? Why is Penon hiding to avoid the subpoena? Why did it take Bass so long to come forward? What was really on the other side of the wall? Was there really steam and how was it verified? If Rossi really could make the 6 cylinder to make 1MW, why not just get it to work and use it instead of waiting years? What happened to all those other devices Rossi claimed to have sold? What about that industrial plant in Italy that he claimed to have fitted with a 1MW system? How is the robotic manufacturing of his systems going? So many questions!

Quote from Shane D.

I did not get the impression IHFB was talking about "intention". He sounded more exact, more contractually legal...like a lawyer petitioning the judge, than that. Nor have I seen much in contract law where "intent" plays a significant role...but I am not Abd.

In addition, I don't see anywhere in the court documents where Rossi denied transferring his secrets to IH. He also, as I said a few posts up, bragged about IH taking his knowledge (IP) and building a working Ecat.

Upon re reading the licence agreement, it's possible that Rossi has agreed to transfer the patents (and the future ones) after the $10million payment. We will see what the courts decide.

Shane,

The agreement is a license agreement. The license grants territorial rights in the license to IH. I'm not going to provide a complete lesson on this. But, as compared to an outright assignment of ownership, a license transfers a bundle of rights, which is less than the entire ownership interest. License rights may be limited as to time, geographical area, or field of use. Licenses may be revoked if certain conditions are met.

Quote from LENR Calender

Upon re reading the licence agreement, it's possible that Rossi has agreed to transfer the patents (and the future ones) after the $10million payment. We will see what the courts decide.

LENR Calender,

That clause was not drafted by a patent attorney. It is ineffectual in transferring ownership because it is not a present transfer, i.e., it does not use the necessary words "hereby assigns." It was likely drafted by a business attorney, to IH's detriment. In addition, when placed within the context of every other section of the agreement, it is a license not an assignment of ownership.

I noticed a couple of paragraphs toward the end of the original license agreement (as posted by ABD on his Compilation) that haven't been discussed here, AFAIK.
The summary below is from my notes, so please correct me if I got it wrong.

15.3 All rights to further development work derived from Leonardo IP by IH transfer promptly to Leonardo.
This may be relevant to the patent application filed by IH.

16.6 If the license agreement is cancelled or found to be invalid, all license rights revert to AEG (AmpEnergo).

Does this add any insight into the strategy of the parties? Look at the various possible outcomes and what happens to the IP and license rights:
* The IH license agreement is ruled valid and was violated by IH when they filed a patent and failed to assign it promptly to Leonardo, grounds for cancellation. License rights revert to AEG.
* The license agreement is ruled invalid because of fraud or non-performance by Leonardo. License rights revert to AEG.

Rossi may or may not be found guilty in the counter-suit. He may or may not be paid. AEG wins either way, and not being party to the case, has no legal burden or expenses. Just sayin....