Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • guest111

    I have little idea why he would choose this sort of strategy. It looks as if he's trying to delay filing non-provisional patent applications as much as he can, while keeping some sort of advantage (up to 1 year) in case he feels he is forced to for whatever reason. Maybe he prefers the information to be kept secret at the cost of patent protection.

  • guest111

    I have little idea why he would choose this sort of strategy. It looks as if he's trying to delay filing non-provisional patent applications as much as he can, while keeping some sort of advantage (up to 1 year) in case he feels he is forced to for whatever reason. Maybe he prefers the information to be kept secret at the cost of patent protection.

    Or it's all just a bunch of garbage that even Rossi knows will never be granted any patents, or he is too cheap to file non-provisionals (at thousands each in attorney and PTO fees). I would bet on the former, and the latter is just icing (he knows funds are better spent on condos and toupees. Filing patents on one of the greatest inventions of the century, surely must be a lower priority over condos and toupees.).

  • That's something to keep an eye on in any future Rossi deal: Whose responsibility will it be to maintain the patent portfolio? I doubt such info would be public so it could be difficult to trace.


    The first most likely explanation is that these patents were not worth pursuing so Rossi dropped them.


    The 2nd most likely is that Rossi didn't want to spend the money to prop them up and, per the complaint, kept IH from following them and it lent further to his strategy to pull a Fred Flinstone maneuver on them -- that is, once he decided they were propping up his competitors. But it puts him in a vulnerable position to any patent troll with a bankroll that could file all those patents again in their own name and throw a wrench into any future LENR development.


    A 3rd likely explanation is that Rossi is lazy. Asking a lazy person to spend money on a task that doesn't overtly help his cause might be something they consider very low priority.

  • guest111

    In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't defending Rossi.


    Rossi's "trick" is that he lets his provisional patent applications expire only to file them again as provisional, year after year. This is clear once you sort that list by patent title. That way, Rossi gets to never publish them unless really necessary. In the documentation of the world application for the US-granted "Fluid Heater" patent there is an example of such provisional patents. This one in particular isn't in the IPH-provided list (which is "non-exhaustive").

    That might make sense if he later on gets to file the patent and it becomes effective from the later date.


    I had an idea for a bypass switch with timer on a kitchen smoke detector. It's annoying that the kitchen smoke detector keeps bleeping about some small cooking smoke. I checked the patent filings and sure enough, it had been patented in 1986. But there were no products in the market at the time (mid 1990's). Sure enough, after that patent expired I saw Home Depot carrying smoke detectors with that exact same feature. So it was more beneficial for Home Depot to wait for the patent to expire than move forward on that technology.


    Rossi could file all those patents today. 20 years from now they expire, and the big dogs start carrying that technology forward without paying a dime in royalties. In fact, a lot of LENR patents have already expired.

  • Rossi could file all those patents today. 20 years from now they expire, and the big dogs start carrying that technology forward without paying a dime in royalties. In fact, a lot of LENR patents have already expired.


    This is an instructive point for all LENR startups (and any startup for that matter): 20 years from filing is when the patent expires, so the clock starts ticking when the application is filed. Rossi has already been at this (publicly) for going on 7 years already. Once you file a patent, there needs to be an immediate push into the marketplace, otherwise you risk losing any advantage your IP investment might otherwise yield.

  • can


    False - Ask DW.


    I recall reading elsewhere, long before that list was published, that perpetually keeping patent applications in a provisional state until needed was a likely Rossi strategy; it might have been a different context - I can't be sure since I didn't take notes about that and finding the exact source again is not going to be simple - but it's definitely not an original idea of mine. So, I find this 'false' reply surprising.

  • That might make sense if he later on gets to file the patent and it becomes effective from the later date.


    I had an idea for a bypass switch with timer on a kitchen smoke detector. It's annoying that the kitchen smoke detector keeps bleeping about some small cooking smoke. I checked the patent filings and sure enough, it had been patented in 1986. But there were no products in the market at the time (mid 1990's). Sure enough, after that patent expired I saw Home Depot carrying smoke detectors with that exact same feature. So it was more beneficial for Home Depot to wait for the patent to expire than move forward on that technology.


    Rossi could file all those patents today. 20 years from now they expire, and the big dogs start carrying that technology forward without paying a dime in royalties. In fact, a lot of LENR patents have already expired.

    It is not a professional or smart "strategy" in general, much less for "IP" related to the "greatest invention of the century". Priority dates are extremely important in many ways on patents, and related patents, continuations, etc. which reference each other. Giving up provisional patent application filing dates is risky since one can lose all patent rights to an invention, whether they were first to invent or not. Normally one would only do this (on serious patents), if one simply could not afford to file non-provisional patents (or, under Rossi conditions, too cheap, knows the applications are junk and only for propaganda are other reasons). Also, if anything related is publicly demonstrated that is also no longer patentable after 1 year. Most often, provisional patents are filed in ORDER to get a priority date, and have time to more thoroughly search prior art to see if it is actually worth pursuing, many are simply dropped and never resubmitted because prior art is found.

    Risks of filing multiple provisional patents include but not limited to:

    • Risk of Losing Your Patent Rights. ***A second (or third or fourth...) provisional patent application cannot claim priority to the first provisional patent application’s filing date like a non-provisional can***. Under the first to file system implemented by the United States in, 2013, losing your earlier filing date for the first provisional application could result in the loss of your patent rights in one or more of the following scenarios:
      • 3rd Party Files Before Your 2nd Provisional Filing Date. If a third-party files a patent application (provisional or non-provisional) before your second provisional patent application for the same invention, the third-party will be entitled to the patent on the invention (even if you were the first to invent).
         
      • 3rd Party Files After Your 2nd Provisional Filing Date. If you file a second provisional patent application that does not fully disclose your invention, a 3rd party can potentially file a patent application after even your second provisional patent application to acquire superior rights to your invention since you are only entitled to a filing date for subject matter fully disclosed. This is why it is prudent even with your first provisional patent non-provisional patent application filed sooner than later.
         
      • 3rd Party Publicly Discloses Invention Before Your 2nd Provisional Filing Date. If a third-party publicly discloses the invention before your second provisional patent application’s filing date, the prior public disclosure will (1) prevent you from receiving a patent and (2) entitle the third-party to receive a patent if they file a timely patent application within one-year of their first public disclosure.
         
    • Delayed Patent Rights. By filing a second provisional patent application instead of a non-provisional patent application, you are delaying examination of your patent application another year since a provisional patent application is not examined (the average pendency of a non-provisional patent application is approximately 30 months – by filing two consecutive provisional applications this pendency period is effectively increased to 54 months).
    • Lose Right to Stay on Old “First to Invent” System. If your first provisional patent application was filed before March 16, 2013, any non-provisional patent application that claims priority to the same subject matter is entitled to the “first to invent” system that existed prior to the March 16, 2013 change to a first to file system. This can be important if you have an early invention date that could help you get around other patent references. However, if you allow your first provisional patent application to expire and file a second provisional with a filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the patent application will be examined under the new first to file system and not the old first to invent system.
  • What is your point apart from being insulting to both me and other members?

    Alan, I apologize for the snarky reply. It was prompted by the monotonous claim/supposition of all the myriad of "IP" that Rossi has. Rossi has nothing other than a single granted "Water-Heater" patent, all the hand-waving over the above provisionals, non-granted applications as "invaluable IP" are worth nothing until/when/if pursued and granted. Perhaps the Wizard has all his secret recipes kept as trade secrets, and all the un-granted, abandoned, applications and provisionals are part of the genius' master-plan (in that unlikely event, then he'd better hope that no one files a patent on his trade-secrets, since he has no patent protection currently)...

  • Well, here's my calculation of the actual resistance of the Qx given different COPs. Anyway, the Qx has a resistance of 10 ohms with the given numbers in the paper if the COP is 200 and a resistance of 1 ohm if the COP is 2000. This is not close to 0. This means, with the numbers given, the Qx is using anywhere from 50% to 90% of the supply power. Since my assumption is the real COP of the Ecat is <1 due to the failed tests with Hydrofusion's investors and IH, The inactive COP of the Ecat, the COP with the test running with an empty reactor might be very high. Real COP = COPactive/COPinactive.



    data given units


    case1 case2

    cop 200 2000 none

    Iin 0.1 0.1 amps

    Pout 20 20 watts
    Rseries 1 1 Ohms


    calculated units


    Pin 0.1 0.01 watts Pin=Pout/COP

    Rqx 10 1 Ohms R=P/I^2


    percent of supply to qx
    %Qx 91 50 none %=100*Rqx/(Rqx+Rseries)

  • Rossi has nothing other than a single granted "Water-Heater" patent, all the hand-waving over the above provisionals, non-granted applications as "invaluable IP" are worth nothing until/when/if pursued and granted.


    While I agree with you that a series of provisionals for the same invention is a poor strategy, I disagree that pending patent applications are worth nothing. Most startups will not get funding until they have at least one patent pending. The rights haven't fully matured in a pending patent application, but there are some semblance of rights that exist, including the priority date that has been secured, and the possibility of pre-grant damages reaching as far back to the date the patent application publishes. You'll notice in the long list of patent applications provided in the court exhibit, many show the application number as "unknown." The unknown ones might be the non-provisionals.

  • While I agree with you that a series of provisionals for the same invention is a poor strategy, I disagree that pending patent applications are worth nothing. Most startups will not get funding until they have at least one patent pending. The rights haven't fully matured in a pending patent application, but there are some semblance of rights that exist, including the priority date that has been secured, and the possibility of pre-grant damages reaching as far back to the date the patent application publishes. You'll notice in the long list of patent applications provided in the court exhibit, many show the application number as "unknown." The unknown ones might be the non-provisionals.

    I will revise my statement to "worth next to nothing, and worth nothing unless followed up promptly with a non-provisional". Conditions to get any pre-grant damages are very strict. Also as related above all those provisionals can only claim their specific filing date (max of one year, since they are abandoned after one year), they cannot reference the prior duplicate (triplicate etc) dates as described above, and are subject to someone filing an application that usurps them--which is a negligent IP "strategy"--if one had anything of any value. Per your note above, if those were actually filed as non-provisional, any potential damages could possibly go all the way back to the filing date of the first provisional, and the patent, and related patents protected to that date.


    Patent damages must be proven by real accounting and sales records, and/or expert analysis of lost revenue (one reason it's so expensive to prove damages in most cases), there is no thing such as "punitive" damages (unless fraud/intentional infringement was committed, but that's a different case).


    If the "unknown" Rossi-applications were non-provisionals, they would be on record at the patent office and public record, even if abandoned. And the patent numbers would still be available even if "do not publish" status was requested (which would be stupid because this dis-allows submitting the application in other countries). So, either bad record-keeping or just more Rossiganda.


    After all those years, hype and bluster, it remains a FACT, that Rossi has but one single granted "Water-Heater" (aka Hotdog Cooker) patent...not a very good IP track record. Again unless his "greatest invention" secret recipes are being kept as trade secrets...in which case he risks anyone patenting it from under him (which would be a foolhardy risk with the amounts theoretically at stake--if he actually had anything).


    PS. I am however still quite impressed/incredulous that he was able to get $11M for that "IP" and some crude plumbing scraps and heaters!