Complaint of Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corp, and License Agreement (Court Documents) — COP “Substantially Greater than fifty (50)” During Test

This document is downloaded from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida website.

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf

UPDATE: The licence agreement between Rossi/Leonardo and IH was a supporting document posted in the court case and it has been posted here:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

There’s a great deal of information in here. There are some statements in here regarding the test recently concluded:

Here are some points from the complaint regarding the test:

71. … By all accounts, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit during the Guaranteed Performance Test was substantially greater than fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed by the E-Cat Unit during the same period.

72. On or about March 29, 2016, the ERV published his final report regarding the operation of the E-Cat Unit during the Guaranteed Performance test. In the ERV’s report, the ERV confirmed that the E-Cat Unit had satisfied all of the performance requirements imposed by the License Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirement that the production of energy was at least six (6) times greater than the energy consumed.

73. More specifically, the ERV found that over the Guaranteed Performance period, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit was consistently substantially greater than six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the unit. In fact, the ERV found that during the testing period, the average energy multiplier (Energy Produced + Energy Consumed) was often greater than sixty (60).

  • Michael W Wolf

    Well then that was stupid on their part. They let themselves breach the contract by not paying. They let it end without any formal complaint, leaving the contract to expire unfulfilled by IH. Right now, until a jury says it was rossi who breached leading to IH not paying. It is as though the contract never existed. That is the way I see it.

  • Michael W Wolf

    I don’t see IH having anything that was in the contract they breached. They didn’t pay, Rossi has claimed this under oath. Everything reverts back to Rossi I think. IH made no formal complaint of a Rossi breach of contract, they just let the clock run out on their payment obligation. None of that contract is valid because it ended without IHs payment, and would need a jury to take the rights of all licensing and IP from Rossi and give to IH. It seems to me anything IH says is meaningless and has no legal standing. When they counter Rossi’s claims under oath, then we can see the validity of their proclamations.

  • Michael W Wolf

    IH has no territory. They breached the contract and it is null and void. IH will have to prove they didn’t breach the contract to a jury to get their rights back.

  • Josh G

    Martin, here is another comment I made expanding on this in a different thread before reading yours on Mats Lewan’s blog. Lots of points of overlap. I like your framing it in terms of conflicting versus converging interests:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecw/rossi_responds_to_ih_statement/#comment-2612542160

  • Omega Z

    I’ll re-read the arrangement when I get a chance.
    I would assume this would involve new or additional licenses or the replacement of a licensee that quits their territory. Not those that preexist. Obviously, Rossi wouldn’t write himself out.

  • Sanjeev

    IH has shot down the whole tech by calling it as non-substantial. They don’t say in their press release that there has been some breach of T&Cs, they just trash the whole E-Cat thing.

    This is puzzling. It doesn’t look like a simple violation.

  • Josh G

    Here are two thoughts on that:

    Section 13.2 is a ‘Right of First Offer.’ Rossi doesn’t have full rights outside of IH territory. Instead, if he wants to license, manufacture or distribute the e-cat outside of IH’s territory, he first has to give IH the opportunity to make him an offer. If he declines that offer, he the agreement he has to sign with the other party has to be for 90% of the money IH offered, and ‘no less favorable.’

    So imagine the following scenario: Rossi wants to start production in, say, Sweden. But first he has to give IH the chance to make him an offer. So they offer him some crazy amount. Now Rossi knows that IH is not going to do anything with it if he gives them the license to manufacture in Sweden. But at the same time, he can’t find anybody willing to match IH’s crazy offer. So no distribution goes forward. (Though I guess he could accept their offer and just get rich.)

    Section 13.4: This clause says that any advancements Rossi makes to e-cat are part of IH’s license. But here is what’s interesting: the second half of the paragraph says that any advancements that IH makes belong to IH. So it seems this is the clause where the meat of their fight is going to be: which part of the advancements belong to Rossi and which to IH? Also, it might be that Rossi hasn’t shared with them the secrets of the E-cat X, and they might be trying to squeeze that out of him by withholding payment. In any case, it seems like Darden has completely lost Rossi’s trust.

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

      “, if he wants to license, manufacture or distribute the e-cat outside of IH’s territory, he first has to give IH the opportunity to make him an offer. If he declines that offer, he the agreement he has to sign with the other party has to be for 90% of the money IH offered, and ‘no less favorable.'”

      This kind of agreement make me think of LENR-Cities ecosystem logic.

      When you are member of an ecosystem, you have to allow other members to access to your technology, not for free of course, but for not more than what you demand to foreigners.

      Don’t treat foreigners better than your family.
      This is win-win, as the one who have to treat the family well, is treated well by the family.

      this is this return that may be missing in IH/Rossi relationship.

      I like this kind of clause, but it have to be reciprocal.

  • jousterusa

    As some of you know, I was the successful Plaintiff in Shea v Reno, which got the law allowing government censorship of the Internet declared unconstitutional in NY Federal Court. As few would know, I covered courts for the Middletown NY Times Herald-Record, am the nephew of a three-time NY State Supreme Court justice, was a private investigator in substantial political matters and brought the long-running IP cases Slesinger v Disney to the world’s attention and covered the case for several years. I have a more than passing familiarity with many of the issues claimed in the Leonardo brief, and I feel certain it will preval. Let us just hope that IH and Cherokee, Darden and Vaughan have the good sense to settle before they lose a great deal more than they ever cointemplated was possible. AR and Leonardo were completely protected by very astute lawyers who apparently understood the value of the IP rights and protected them accordingly. I think that is also good news for the world!

    • SG

      Let’s hope they don’t settle too soon, because then we’ll never know many of the behind the scene details. The court systems are quite good at bringing truth to light.

    • Gerard McEk

      When I interpret this right, the Americans would not see an Ecat for a long time, as long as it takes to sattle for court. Well AR go to Europe and make your thing and sell it to us, then we have a lot of time to see IH and AR quarrel for court, while we silently enjoy our New Fire.

  • jousterusa

    I hope many here will enjoy our front-page headline! http://www.american-reporter.com

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks, but really, all scientists (or de-facto scientists) at the frontier need to be detectives – looking for the clues that nature leaves hidden in plain sight.

  • cashmemorz

    Self built will be the way to go until the court case is settled. Probably 5 years or more.

  • Oystein Lande

    After reading the Court document complaint, I would not be surprised If Rossi wins….

    But of course, it may not be the full story…

  • Ged

    Also, you don’t want to make up stuff for court of law. It doesn’t end well for the one doing the “says” unless they have facts. With the costs of a lawyer and court case, let alone vulnerability to counter suit, Rossi must honestly believe he’s got a strong, solid case.

  • wpj

    It was intended as a joke.

  • wpj

    Errrr, top of the page, second link.

  • wpj

    It’s in the documents, which is why they (IH) made the Lugano reactor.

    Clearly, by the time that they had paid $11.5m he trusted them. A mistake for us all…….

    Section 3 (2) (b), underlined

  • Michael W Wolf

    The contract said, which IH signed. It said Rossi would prove to them in a 24 hours test, It said Rossi would receive ten million dollars. it said IH approved of the ERV, it said IH would provide their own guard dogs. And last but not least, IH said this thing is so great, we want our own patents. Reading the contract, Rossi has been the honest one. Nothing Rossi has told us contradicts the contract, does it?

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Apart from the lack of any third party ‘customer’. If this follows the usual pattern however, there are probably no Rossi comments that actually state that the ‘customer’ is independent, and a lot of implications that this may be the case, leaving the reader to draw the required conclusions. I can’t really be bothered to check.

  • Gerald
  • Sanjeev

    Why he is angry? Its certain, he did not get the money.
    The real question is why IH didn’t pay and we are all waiting to know that. It will cause big waves.

    • wpj

      He is angry as they got the sauce recipe after paying $11.5m and seem to be exploiting it with others.

      • Sanjeev

        Well , he shouldn’t have given them everything before full payment. At least not the catalyst.
        Another dilemma is, why were the $89m not in escrow? Why did AR take such a big risk?

  • pg

    Ok, that is what the exchange above refers to, as Rossi (the inventor) being Meucci, and IH (who wants to take the credit and make the money) as Bell.

  • wpj

    No it’s not, it’s “Rossi’s lawyer says”!

    • Andrew

      This^^^^ the filing is the filing.

  • Jonnyb

    He will get plenty of money from TV appearances etc. Helping others develop their products.

  • Jonnyb

    This SUCKS big time!

  • artefact

    From Sifferkoll:

    “Revolution is a Fact! #ECAT at COP > 50 for 350 days!”

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/lenr-energy-blackswan-revolution-is-a-fact-ecat-at-cop-50-for-350-days/

    • Sanjeev

      This amendment to the agreement talks about 6 cylinder hot cats test.
      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.4.pdf
      There are some odd things, date is missing and two signs are missing.

      • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

        They also dropped the COP requirement to 2.6.

        Maybe Rossi wasn’t yet confident he could reliably jack up the COP on the Hot Cats?

        • Sanjeev

          Full payment is still subject to COP>=6.
          They brought min to 2.6 instead of 4. I guess the reason could be that some preliminary tests gave a hot cat COP<4
          But the main point here is, it confirms that the 1MW plant is made of hot cats (6 cylinder unit), not LT cats.

  • DrD

    Sad news but it makes interesting reading and explains much.
    If only we could support him but any help I could offer wouldn’tbe of any value.

  • DrD

    (Energy Produced + Energy Consumed) should read (Energy Produced / Energy Consumed)

  • Barbierir

    Next edition of Mats book is going to be a lot ticker

  • wpj

    Interestingly, the documents state Rossi only becomes IH’s chief scientist AFTER the validation is complete, rather than previously as people had thought

    • artefact

      After the year long validation or the 24h validation?

      • Josh G

        I think the 24h validation.

        • wpj

          But it says that he would spend 12 months helping them to build the plants, so I assume after the year.

          • Brent Buckner

            Section 4 is clear the Validation refers to the 24h test. Further, Section 13.1 clearly contemplates Rossi being Chief Scientist during the 1 year following Validation (which was originally to be the period of the 1 year Guaranteed Performance).

      • wpj

        It appears to be the year long one, but it took so long for IH to do anything (by which time they had the secret sauce mixture) that Rossi found a place to validate.

  • Josh G

    Questions:

    1. Who are the competitors that Rossi claims IH shared his IP with?

    2. Does anybody else find it strange that despite Darden’s connections and apparent business acumen, IH was unable to find a place to conduct the 350 day test? It kind of suggests they are deliberately dragging their feet…which is partly what this suit is about, I guess.

    3. I wonder what IH’s investors (e.g., Woodford Capital) think about the suit? Could they put pressure on IH to stop playing games? Or did they put pressure on IH to play these games?