New USPTO Patent Applications from Industrial Heat

  • Ahlfors,

    I doubt there is anything to this technology, considering Rossi could not get a customer to buy it. But in the unlikely event there is something to it, I would have to disagree with you that: "the original source of this very peculiar provisional is the convicted and compulsive condominium buyer AR". From what I understand, Piantelli, and maybe Focardi would get the credit.

    I am sure IH is maintaining the provisional "just in case". The minimal cost to keep it active is cheap insurance.

  • Some additional USPTO patent applications from IH IP Holdings that (I believe) have not been cited yet ---

    Methods and Apparatus for Testing Fuel Materials for Exothermic Reactions…=dn%2F20180196026+&d=PG01

    Gas-Loading and Packaging Method and Apparatus…0194625&RS=DN/20180194625

    Gas-Loading and Packaging Method and Apparatus…0194624&RS=DN/20180194624

  • I am sure IH is maintaining the provisional "just in case". The minimal cost to keep it active is cheap insurance.

    Provisionals are not "maintained." Their value is in establishing the priority date of later utility applications that reference the provisional. Provisionals expire after a year and are of no value unless converted to a non-provisional application by being referenced by a utility application. Most (all?) of the IH applications claim priority to the 2016 provisional like this:

    This application claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/347,924, titled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING FUEL MATERIALS FOR EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS" filed on Jun. 9, 2016 which is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.

  • Robert,

    Patent issues are very complex as I have said many times before. I usually appeal to David French's authority when it comes to patent law, but you seem to know what you talk of, so maybe you can explain IH's patent strategy better than I?

    They partnered with Rossi, who partnered with Focardi, who partnered with the genesis of all this NiH science...Piantelli. There is obviously IP being claimed, and fought over, as Rossi has been disputing Piantelli's patent for years now. Recently he was successful, and had it overturned.

    Enter IH, and long story short, IH claimed in their court filings, that they found Rossi had nothing. So they turn all IP over to Rossi in the settlement.

    Rossi/IH part ways, and we all think they are done with Rossi. But not quite, as IH is still doing something with the IP. I call it "maintain", and you say they are doing what?

  • The big question with the IH application is whether any of them will get past the examiners and be issued as patents. A patent must provide sufficient information that one of ordinary skill can make and use the invention. Is there anyone now of ordinary skill in LENR? if so do the patent disclosures have sufficient detail to allow someone to make those inventions work?

    The value to IH is probably more to demonstrate to potential partners and investors that they they believe they have valuable intellectual property and that they are taking appropriate measures to protect that IP. It can be a check box for investors who may need to see patent filings but have no way to evaluate the value of those patents.

    A true value proposition would requite computing the cost of filing the patents vs. their expected value:

    File if: IP filing cost < Likely to issue (low) * Required for future LENR devices (low) * Value if needed (very high)

    But at this point, no one could assign numbers to any of the terms on the right side.

    Instead the real equation is probably:

    File if: Remaining IP budget > filing cost

  • The true value of some of these applications is the song of Rossi's grinding teeth to IH's ears, IMHO.

    The Cat and Ball trademark of Leonardo is jeopardized by the affidavit falsely supportingly the use of a non-operational small module inside the red Doral Plant as a climatizing unit for the laboratory, IMHO.