Rossi Working to Fit E-Cat X Within US Patent, Predicts 150 Patents Pending This Year

As Andrea Rossi continues to monitor the 1 MW plant inside his container, he is also working on the E-Cat X, and seemingly writing patents continuously. Here are some comments on his activities today from the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:34 AM
Sarah Huskey:
Yes: 64 patents are pending, but I think we will arrive to about 150 patents pending within one year, due to the ones I am working upon, obviously all related to the E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:13 AM
Toussaint:
Now it’s 08.10 of Wednesday September 23 inside the computer container.
The 1 MW E-Cat is stable, the E-Cat X is very promising. We are working hard on it; it is very important that we make it fit to be totally and exhaustively covered by the US Patent that has been granted to us: for us it is now like a commercial requirement.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

It’s interesting to read in the second comment that they are actually designing the E-Cat X around the US Patent, rather than writing a new patent to cover it. He says it’s a ‘commercial requirement’ to do this, so this indicates that they are going to try to get it out into the marketplace fairly quickly, now that the US Patent has been granted. If the E-Cat X was a significantly different technology they would have start with a clean sheet and go through the whole process once again, which could take years.

This does make me wonder about how the patenting process is going outside the United States. Rossi has said that they are gearing up for worldwide commercialization, but so far there is patent protection in place only for the United States and Italy. Those are large markets, of course, but the demand for the E-Cat is likely to be much wider.

  • Axil Axil

    Prior art and online postings: Public discussions create create prior art. If done in a public online written forum then the postings will count as “printed publications.” They would also likely qualify as proof that the invention (or a portion of the invention) was known or used by others. Public responses to your inquiry would also be seen as a printed publication. However, a private message would not normally create prior art because it is not public. More here.

    The prior art impact of of the online posting will depend upon when it was publicly posted relative to the effective filing date of the patent in question. There are three primary situations:

    Posted after filing the patent application: Not Prior Art

    Posted 1-year or less before filing the patent application: Prior Art in Some Cases

    Posted more than 1-year before filing the patent application: Definitely Prior Art

    The gold standard here is to wait until after you have “secured a filing date” by filing a patent application. At that point you can communicate as much as you want without jeopardizing the novelty of your invention. Now, there are still reasons not to do this — especially if you are planning to market your own product or if you are planning on filing further patent applications.

    The statute that controls in the US is 35 U.S.C. 102. This provision was extensively revised in the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). The old rules apply to patent applications filed before March 16, 2016 and the new rules apply to patent applications filed on or after that date.

    The 1-year before filing uncertainty is based upon what we call the “Grace Period” for filing patent applications. The US is the only major country with a standard grace period that allows for pre-filing disclosures by the inventors. Thus, if you are seeking a European patent, any pre-filing online public posting could be used to block your later-filed patent from issuing. The US grace period allows patent applicants to make a public disclosure and then wait for up to one year to file their patent applications. This grace period was narrowed in the AIA, but its exact scope is a matter of heated debate between patent attorneys.

    Inventorship: In the US, patents must be filed by (or in the name of) the inventors of the invention being patented. Often there is only 1 inventor. But more often than not, patent applications list multiple “joint-inventors” who each contributed to at least one of the patent claims. Under the statute, “Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. 116. The online suggestion would certainly be sufficient to create joint inventorship if the suggestion becomes part of your conception of the invention. However, the tricky part is that the the contribution will count as a joint inventorship if it was “simply a reduction to practice of the sole inventor’s broader concept.” Ethicon Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460-63, 45 USPQ2d 1545, 1548-1551 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

    If there are two inventors, each inventor has full rights to the patent. As you can imagine this could lead to some conflicts.

  • Axil Axil

    I wonder if a LENR reactor design that uses a heat pipe to move heat will circumvent the current lone Rossi patent since that patent uses water or in general liquid movement as the key heat transfer mechanism.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding:

    “It’s interesting to read in the second comment that they are actually designing the E-Cat X around the US Patent, rather than writing a new patent to cover it”

    A ne patent may not be possible. It may be that the E-Cat X contains critical elements of design that have been introduced into the open source area by blogs done here and elsewhere. The E-Cat X might be impeded by open source material.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    to survive in that market he is creating, Rossi&his partners should occupy the market fully , not 1% but 95%.
    otherwise his competitors, patents or not, will find a way to do the job.

    the war will not be in technology, but in industrial power.
    will he be able with China, Darden &al at provide Terawatts per month, as the market demand ?
    will someone else be able to do it faster ?

    if someone can harness and industry infrastructure that can deliver terawatt faster than Rossi&al, Rossi will be marginalized.

    Think of that before investing.

    • LuFong

      Rossi’s strategy of cheaper may not work. Others won’t have to do it cheaper, just faster as you say. With global warming concerns cost may not even be a factor anymore.

      • Owen Geiger

        But it seems Rossi/IH have a good lead, good business contacts, etc.

        • HS61AF91

          yes, and a great head start.

      • Omega Z

        At any given time, there is a set amount of capitol available for investing. Cost will always be a factor. There is also the human capitol. There is already a 10 year waiting list on new power plants. There is a major shortage of skilled personnel to build them.

  • oldrolledgold

    One of the great planks of war will be gone when this is rolled out.Let’s hope it’s not too late and not too much damage has been done in the last 15 years.

  • radvar

    More indications that Rossi is working with a multi-skilled team of several to many poeple, which I see as a very good thing.

  • Nigel Appleton

    That is one huge investment in intellectual property! It ain’t cheap to get a patent these days, and maintaining that number of patents isn’t cheap either

    • Bob Greenyer

      My brothers world wide patent cost around $500,000 to secure.

      Somewhere, someone thinks this is worth it.

    • Mike

      Is it possible to get a list of all these patent applications?
      Why not have a few patents covering the process instead of a stack of patents that must concern a lot of details?

      • Omega Z

        Because in today’s world, you need patents to protect your patents. Layer upon layer. It’s a lawyers world.

    • Axil Axil

      Any material expressed in public can invalidate a patent. How can the writer(s) of a patent know about all the public data from anywhere in the world that has preceded the patent that may bear upon the patent they are preparing?

      • radvar

        They can’t know all that. They just do a lot of research and hope for the best.

        There’s a certain sorting that occurs: If it’s a valuable idea, and it’s been published, it will probably be republished, and so findable. If it’s not a valuable idea, then it’s probably not worth patenting, so won’t be looked for.

        Also, US (and most international) patent law is based on “first to file” vs “first to invent”. I don’t know exactly how strict that it, however, I believe it means (and happy to have any one correct this)…

        If person A invents the same thing as person B, without knowing about person B’s work, and if B hasn’t taken steps to make the work findable, then if A files first, he/she gets the patent, regardless of the timing of when the two parties did the invention. My intuitive feeling is that’s not fair, but most of the world uses it.

        Also, my understanding is that if you publish in some way that should be obviously findable (like at a big conference) to make sure you can claim “first to invent”, then you have X months to file, at which point the idea becomes public domain.

        Patent lawyers make lots of money.