The premise of the contract (License Agreement) was that Rossi/Leonardo is the "sole owner" of all E-Cat IP.
"WHEREAS Leonardo and/or Rossi are the solo owners of the patents, designs, trade secrets,
technology, know-how (including atl the knowledge necessary to produce thermal energy by
means of apparatuses derived from the technology), product and business plans and all other
intellectual property related directly or indirectly to energy production and conversion
technologies and to the development, manufacture and sale of products using such
technologies, including the Energy Catalyzer ("E-Cat") the catalyzer formula used to fuel the
E-Cat the "Hot Cat" and related energy production and conversion technologies (collectively, the "E-Cat IP"), ..."
But that's not the truth.
Have a look at WO 2013008219 A2/EP 2754156 A2 (clearly covers the E-Cat IP) and notice the priority date (July 14, 2011). Check this date with the priority date (March 14, 2012) of Rossi's main patent US 9,115,913 B1 and you will recognize that its enforcement will be difficult or impossible.
The contract could be considered as insubstantial.
The only remaining question is, wether Rossi could knew about this before he signed the contract and had given his warranty (in which case it would be fraud).
12. Representations and Warranties of Leonardo and Rossi
...
(g) "To the knowledge of Leonardo and Rossi, none of the E-Cat IP infringes upon the rights of any other Person nor has the E_Cat IP been infringed upon by any other Person AND THERE IS NO PRIOR ART THAT would ADVERSELY AFFECT the validity, ENFORCEABILITY, term of scope of any Licensed Patent. ..."
P.S.
That's also the reason, why new Rossi/Leonardo products must base on other IP (and need a new brand).