Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application (Update: Document Provided)

The following statement was submitted by Andrea Rossi. I have not yet been able to find the patent application he refers to.

Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to Industrial Heat, without my authorization.

This new patent is copied from my E-Cat 1 MW. Now, beside any forensic consideration, let me underline this: WHEN THEY HAVE TO PAY, THEY SAY MY E-CAT DOES NOT WORK, BUT, THIS HAVING BEEN SAID, THEY APPLY FOR ANOTHER PATENT WHEREIN THEY DESCRIBE A REPLICATION OF WHAT I HAVE MADE AND SAY THAT IT NOT ONLY WORKS, BUT IS AN INVENTION OF THEIR PROPERTY !!!!

And they do this now, with the litigation in full course, wherein they say that they say that they do not pay because I did not teach to them to make the plant that they have just patented, declaring that it works, to the USPTO of the government of the USA!

I leave to the intelligence of your readers any consideration on the issue.

Warmest regards to you and your readers,

Andrea Rossi

UPDATE: I asked Andrea Rossi if he could provide a reference to the document the document he referred to and he sent me this PDF:

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf

776 Replies to “Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application (Update: Document Provided)”

  1. I fear, unless there is an agreeable settlement, IH’s lawyers will tie up Rossi’s lawyers and delay progress for years. Rossi shouting this on his blog may get him some sympathy from the public but I doubt it will help his legal case. Lawyers could argue for years about whether the clause “fail to substantiate” means “it doesn’t work”. If it turned really nasty (and unfair) the IH lawyers might point to Rossi’s other relationships that ended prematurely – Italian authorities, Defkalion, NI.
    But we all know IH provided the working plant that was used at Lugano.

      1. Someone speculated that it was a deliberate play between IH and Rossi for some business reason. I wish it was but doubt it.

  2. Rossi sounds really angry. I hope beyond hope that for the good of mankind this thing can be settled and production can begin soon. This invention is worth far more than mere money.

    Come on you guys!

    1. William….if you talk to pretty much any lawyer or judge in the world, they will tell you now that this is going to the courts…even a speedy process could take many years. The odds of a case this complex and fringe being wrapped up in any less time is almost non-existent. Sadly, the reality is that this is most likely a dead end for Rossi and IH for many years to come….possibly forever.

  3. I keep hearing of these elusive patents that Rossi speaks of, but no one seems to be able to produce them. If Rossi was able to read them, then the obviously must be accessible. A good attorney would tell Rossi to stop posting updates like this as it can be quite damaging at the beginning of a complex legal battle. I just can’t wrap my head around why Rossi continues to make decisions that only cast more doubt upon his position in this issue….I just do not see an upside to this for Rossi if a jury of laypersons have to try to determine truth in these business dealings as well as proof of E-Cat reality. This lawsuit most likely will NOT turn out to be the best decision for him at this juncture.

      1. Ahh thank you Frank…..I have seen so many people talk about these patents but must have missed it being posted. Looks like I have some reading to do now!!

      2. This is a game-changer. If IH stole Rossi’s IP to create this patent, Rossi must reveal his secrets now and prove to the world that he has been betrayed. If he keeps playing by the same rules of secrecy, IH may win this war. I say open this technology up to the world. Let other innovators help to crush this snake. Besides, Rossi has a big enough head start to be the dominant player in commercialization.

          1. Here’s the most recent one I know of, thanks to SG: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2016/0051957.html . What would you like to know about it? It is definitely an IH patent on the E-cat.

            To wit:
            “Assignee:

            INDUSTRIAL HEAT, LLC”

            The patent looks to be related to dogbone designs with pictures from the Lugano test IH had done, rather than the 1 MW plant? Unless the 1 MW plant is also dogbones or based on that?

            Rossi could be talking about a newer patent than that though.

          2. The application with the exploded diagrams is a gold mine of information. If that was IP dissemination, and probably it was, Rossi should be PO’ed. IH would not have to hand that directly to competitors. It is plenty of information to gave a pretty good go at it.

            The only surprise to me is the absence of public reports on direct copies of the documented designs that can be calibrated against the Rossi et al. reports.

          3. He’s talking about the 1 MW plant design, as per the message. However, if we’re unable to find said patent, this will be nothing but YET another case of “Rossi says”. This is getting tiring.

  4. Wow . . .

    I simply don’t know what to say. I just finished watching “The Big Short” and ignoring the scale of the global Great Recession, I can’t tell which situation is crazier.

    One thing seems certain though. This suggests that IH is following through on a very aggressive view of their level of ownership of the E-Cat IP.

  5. Guess we gotta get our sleuths on this to verify if a new patent has been placed by IH, or not. Wonder how long before such things appear on the public channels.

      1. Well that one below was Feb 2014, a little bit after the 1 year test of the 1 MW plant started, looks like–very interesting as they’d have known the plant was or wasn’t working by that time.

        I get the sense Rossi means IH has filed a very recent, new patent, like within the past few days. But maybe he means that one.

    1. I’m not seeing a new one. The PCT application that is already known (PCT/US2015/016897) shows an International Application Status Report that is dated 10.04.2016. But that’s just a status update.

      There is a corresponding U.S. patent application (14/627828) for the same invention. Looking at the history on that one, Mr. Rossi did not sign an oath or declaration. In other words, he didn’t sign on to that patent, even though he is listed as one of two inventors.

      1. Hm, the US patent number you list there was published 2/25/2016, while filed 2/20/2015. But does that mean it could only be seen publicly after the publication date? Rossi could be referencing that one then, or, it could be a new one was filed but isn’t appearing publicly yet? I don’t know enough about patent office procedures.

          1. So, Rossi would be right if referencing this, as it’s possible he wouldn’t have known its filing earlier (and maybe just wasn’t told about it till a month and a half later) if it was all done behind his back. Or, IH has filed yet another one, but we won’t get to publicly know that yet.

            Either way, the plot is thickening, and this looks quite bad for IH as it stands.

    2. Well, presumably the patent application was just now filed, because otherwise IH’s denouncement of the E-Cat technology would not precede the patent application like Rossi insinuated. It could take months for it to be published…

  6. Marie

    April 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Today Industrial Heat has published a patent application in the USA for a patent that is a copy of your description of the 1MW E-Cat. They say it works. But then, if it works to the point that they patent it, how can they say that they have not been able to replicate it ?

    Cheers,

    Marie

    Andrea Rossi

    April 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM

    Marie:

    So, you ask me how a plant that works can be turned into a plant that does not work? You know, sometime we of Leonardo Corporation are able to make miracles. I want to be generous with you and disclose the secret about how we made this miracle: sending the bill.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    ====================
    Could Marie have embarrass Rossi into believing that the patent exits from IH on the 1 MW system but in fact the patent does not exist.

    1. I dunno, it could be Rossi knows of a new filing, or just discovered the one IH filed that was published this February. With some more sleuthing or data from Rossi, we’ll probably know which if either.

    2. Huh, I was assuming that Marie read this site and simply replied to the message that Rossi sent to Frank. I was not there at the time, so which was published first?

  7. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search//iasr?ia=US2015016897&PAGE=HTML&ACCESS=screen&TOK=k2aa0QPv6uBd4CObHf9DtchnG0o

    I think this is the link you look for, it shows 2 inventors and Industrial Heat as the “Applicant(s)”

    (71) Applicant(s):

    INDUSTRIAL HEAT, LLC [US/US]; 111 East Hargett Street Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 (US) (for all designated states)

    (72) Inventor(s):

    ROSSI, Andrea; 1331 Lincoln Rd. Apt. 601 Miami, Florida 33139 (US)

    DAMERON, Thomas Barker; 336 White Oak Rd. Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (US)

    1. Neither could I. And I searched for any newly published international and U.S. applications. My guess is that Mr. Rossi is referring to the one that was published February 2016. See below for details.

      1. The one below being chatted about, with the Lugano device diagrams, Rossi has known about at least since August 2015 when it first surfaced.

        1. Not necessarily. It is possible that they did the filing without his knowledge. He has not (at least as of today) signed an oath/declaration in the U.S. case, which tends to indicate that he may not have known about it, or if he did, has refused to sign the paperwork.

          1. Something like “I cannot comment on the application. Only my attorneys can deal with me about it””

          2. There was also one published in February 2015, it seems, and the one wizkid linked was published in August of 2015.

          3. When I found it, it was the WO version, but linked to a “pamphlet” that was the original unpublished US version.

          4. So not the 2016 version (14/627828)? Though, again, that seems dogbone related and not 1 MW related. But, also again, there could be a new one recently filed we would not get to see for… a year, based on the time stamps of all these other ones?

          5. Maybe Marie is talking about the 2016 patent. Or, Marie is a patent lawyer, or has other inside knowledge. Who knows at this point. Maybe Rossi can give us the application number and we can be certain.

          6. Kinda off topic, as I’m sure it’s been discussed here before, but I did
            find this interesting patent of Rossi’s (but Not with IH) that was
            published along with the IH one this past August (but filed in 2012).
            Has some very interesting egg shaped devices. May be related to the 1 MW
            plant, as it shows a wafer design for the E-cat (a proto E-cat X?), rather than the dogbone cylinder.

          7. Yep, totally just rediscovered it like a neophyte. I actually hadn’t seen the pictures of the eggs. So amusing looking.

          8. Well, that is the WO version of the US patent pictures. With all those numbers, you can look up a lot of stuff thanks to the Interweb.

        2. As I was asking SG earlier, are patent applications searchable after being filed, or only after being published? Does anyone know exactly the time delay?

          I’m just wondering if Rossi could have heard something through his lawyer or inside channels before it appears publicly, and then how long we would reasonably have to wait before it would show up (to give an idea when to be searching for it).

          1. Maybe a subscription or legal context could allow earlier access to some documents. I don’t know about that.

          2. The patent lawyers, the applicant, and the inventors have access to the patent application and its history prior to publication. Everyone else, gotta wait until it is published, and no way to search and find it prior to that.

          3. The 2016 patent is much newer than all these other ones though, and we couldn’t have known about it in August 2015, so it could be what Rossi references. Except, it seems to be about the dogbone and not the 1 MW plant (unless the plant is just a ton of dogbones in boxes).

            But he could also reference a new one we cannot see (but he could, as SG points out).

          4. Who is Marie? Maybe that person thought the dogbone sounded like the 1 MW plant. Rossi could just share more details and we’d all know what this is about or if he mistook Marie’s post to mean something more was published when it hadn’t been.

          5. Marie

            April 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM

            Dr Andrea Rossi:

            Today Industrial Heat has published a patent application in the USA for a patent that is a copy of your description of the 1MW E-Cat. They say it works. But then, if it works to the point that they patent it, how can they say that they have not been able to replicate it ?

            Cheers,

            Marie

          6. No no, that’s not what I meant, sorry for being unclear. I saw your earlier post. I mean -who- is Marie? What does this person do, where does this person come from, the person’s background, etc. The answer is, we don’t know, so the person could have inside knowledge, but I find that highly unlikely. Probably just someone who mistook the 2016 dogbone one for a 1 MW plant.

            Edit: Albeit, Marie does say “today” it was published (or filed, if they used the wrong word).

          7. If so, Rossi made a major mistake in validating Marie’s mistake, Now Rossi may have accused IH of some bad stuff that is not true.

          8. Well, the allegation appears to have some basis in truth given the application published Feb. 25, 2016 in the U.S. generally fits the bill of why Mr. Rossi is angry. But I agree that Mr. Rossi should probably clarify his statement.

          9. I could not find anything newer than what has been discussed previously. Maybe some people have better access.

          10. I copied the Lugano dogbone photos from the patent application in August 2015 to AutoCAD and traced and scaled it to get the dimensions of all the parts.

          11. And If I could do that, sure as heck every serious competitor and Curious George did something similar too.

  8. Any good patent litigator is going to eat IH alive. Having been involved in a number of patents, the quickest way to get your patent nullified is to have people on a patent which they did not contribute to, or which has countermanding evidence in emails or adjunct materials. Put it in front of a real life jury and … “poof”. Rossi is in the catbird seat.

  9. You cannot compete against big powers. The only options are speed to market from a engeineering team that they dont know or expect. Secrecy and speed.

  10. One can speculate about all sort of ridiculous things. Why bother? Please provide clear evidence for your assertion ‘imaginary’.

    1. Well, if you believe it doesn’t work, and you submit a patent application on it anyway, that is a big no no, with potential consequences.

  11. What ever is going on IH has both more public credibility and money. We have seen in the past how well public media manipulation works to suppress this technology. Keeping Rossi in defence position, publicly smearing him as a fraud will be an easy task for someone with the money, reputation and media connection, especially given Rossi past. The worst case story will be publicly pushed causing a perfect storm for Rossi. With Rossi spending all his energy and resources in defending him self, there will be an excellent period of time for “correctly owned” parties to continue the research and patent blockers on top of Rossi IP. At the end, in few years, IH might loose the case or settle and need to pay the 89M $. The return on investment of moving the IP to compettitors that can move freely in this space will however be humongous. Given that the test was successful, Rossi should consider to partner immediately up with someone with even bigger muscles that he can convince by direct demo, such as Bill Gates to take the public fight and speed up industrialisation.

      1. Or get an EU partner in the car or energy sector to jump on this, such as ABB with their Swedish roots. That would be playing the US vs. ROW card that could actually attract significant political support in EU if things go from bad to worse.

    1. Some Woodford investors were very unhappy at the time of the investment. One said “I am led to question the diligence applied to the other investments. I’ll be pleasantly amazed if this company is still in the portfolio in six years.” Prescient – but for all the wrong reasons.

      https://woodfordfunds.com/focus-on-long-term/

      They’ll be wanting their $50M returned any time now – there seem to be some very good grounds for clawing it back..

      1. No way that will happen; they invested in IH which has been investing in other companies and laboratories besides Leonardo. The ecat was only part of the operation, but the one with which they seem to have lured Woodford in.

        If there was deemed to have been fraud in those presentations (ie, the ecat did not work as demonstrated), then there might be some come back, but IH could just be closed up and most of the money lost.

        1. Is there anything to prevent Woodford suing IH as well, on the back of Rossi’s case? Rossi is essentially claiming the money they invested in IH – it seems unlikely they’ll just sit back and watch things happening.

          1. Well, you are from the UK and you know that the ads always end with something like “the value of you investment may pay back less than you put”.

            These people put the $50-60m in there with the belief, from the demonstrations, that it could only go up; if you see those documents with the “A” shares they would have had a huge amount of clout so it’s no wonder that they were keen to invest.

            If the ecat is removed from IH’s portfolio then they really don’t have much value; it’s a risk that they took (glad I didn’t put my £10K in there, now!).

  12. Another Wonderful reflection on America, the corrupt capitalistic capital of the World.
    The only thing that matters is does Rossi have proof of Cold Fusion, all
    this bullshit is irrelevant, but normal in an insane society.
    Where is the proof, Rossi is the key, SHOW THE PROOF, bugger money and riches, think of people.
    Prove Cold Fusion works, he has had five years playing silly little
    capitalist boy games, now time to grow-up and end this complete farce.
    I think

      1. Straight from Rossi’s statement:

        “…declaring that it works, to the USPTO of the government of the USA!”

          1. To be clear, we only get to see applications after about a year; during that time the applicant has the opportunity to work on whatever is in there.

            I really don’t see how anyone can claim that a new application has been made unless they are an insider and have leaked this.

        1. Earlier patent

          Applicant IH
          Inventor AR
          Assignee LC

          Later patent

          Applicant IH
          Inventors AR, TBD

          No assignee

          So, it looks like IH have been paying for the patents and, in the first case, acknowledge that it is the property of Leonardo Corp. The second, at the moment, is up for assignment (ie, ownership).

  13. It’s rather nice to know that AR has taken the time to send this statement to ECW. Contributors here are basically just onlookers who will have little or no effect on the outcome of his case, so it is courteous of him to keep us informed.

    IH seems to be behaving rather stupidly under the circumstances.

  14. Could Eldon and Marie be the same person? (The wording seems suspiciously similar.) Maybe this is just for testing AR’s reaction.

  15. Okay, to summarize:

    It seems like Rossi made this statement premature and he doesn’t know if IH has filed a new patent.
    Instead he appeals to two commenters, named “Eldon” and “Marie”, on his blog, which claim to have found a new patent “on the internet”.
    This pantent was never seen or found by anyone of us here.

    Strange.

    @Frank: Can you please ask Rossi whether he has verified these claims by “Eldon” and “Marie”?

  16. If the American government gave a damn about it’s own people or people of the World it would demand that it’s whole legal system delay every petty case of corrupt people suing each other for greed and make sure this case is heard and settled within two weeks.

  17. Thousands of comments on page about this childish situation, when apparently the Report states a COP of 50, bloody 50 and I have read maybe ten comments referring to this Evidence.
    The legal insanity is unimportant but a COP of 50 is life and death to millions, where is this report, publish, examine it, is it TRUE, it is the only thing that matters.

    1. The only thing that truly matters is products in the market and Rossi continues to work flat out on that goal. You can’t eat evidence, it is unimportant because it will always be controversial and nobody will act on it.

      1. Larry, no, the only important thing is products on the market from anywhere, making insane massive profits is immoral and pointless.
        With the known report of a COP of 50, I think the Chinese and many others would not be wasting time as Rossi has for five years but producing products to be used.
        “Evidence” will come from those, that once the secret is free will replicate Globally.

        1. Unfortunately massive profits are necessary to support the massive expenditures required to bring this to the masses. You can be sure that if the Chinese or others bring this to market it will be more for profit than the good of humanity. These products will not make themselves.

          1. You are simply quoting blindly the capitalist system without any thought.
            It is only the people like Mr Rossi that discover and then the people who manufacture etc, the product that matter, everybody else are completely unnecessary in a World of such massive production capacity.
            Necessary demand will look after itself and only needs those people directly involved.
            No capital is needed only democratic decisions of what is necessary and important or desired to produce (or services) for all

          2. From each according to his ability
            To each according to his needs

            Capitalism is a long way from perfect but it has a much better track record than the democratically planned economy you are proposing. Of course the democratically elected planners would be people, who truly understand what is best for all since they are totally objective, having the proper morals (as all democratically elected leaders do) and no skin in the game at all. Giving people who contribute nothing to production, power over it, has never been a winning combination.

            Sorry but it appears to me that your ideology would hurt far more people than it would help.

          3. When I was young. I carried peoples bags of groceries to their cars. I found if you didn’t ask them to help and just grabbed their bags, they would not say anything and still tip you. So me and my two cousins partnered up. My one cousin just couldn’t grab the bags without asking. He made 6 dollars while we were making 20-30 dollars each. We decided not to split with him because he refused to do it the way I said. His mom made us split the money because that was fair. When we grew up, he became wealthy. When we were all together one day, I told his mom to make him give his brother some of his money so they would have the same income. She got angry and told me it was different with children. I said to her, she was wrong then but now she saw what I was saying when I was a child. She sucked her teeth. But in a way she was right, socialism may be good to teach children, but adults have to play by the rules of individualism, because children don’t do what you say, they do what you do. I don’t begrudge anyone with socialism in their heart, they really don’t know how bad it is until they are victims of it, but by then it is too late.

          4. I have been a ‘victim’ of socialism all my life and see no problem if you solve it with taxes on a free market.

            The problem is that you should know the rules of the game in advance, not after you earned your money.

          5. Look at former British Prime Minister, TONY BLAIR, socialist, big Red Bleeding heart, until the tables turn and he is running things. THEN- SNOUT deep in the TROUGH, OINK,OINK. Don’t you just LOVE them.

          6. George, the socialist systems won’t even acknowledge it exists. They are one big echo chamber and unchangeable. Private capital and a huge amount of money is the best chance. The socialists in charge never ever ever ever have the kind of compassion you have. They will control and ration it against the needs of humanity. Socialism only works in each individual mans heart. When it is applied across the population it is the most evil entity man can face. I love John Lennon too brother, but he was wrong. It took me until my forties to realize this. Make yourself wealthy and use that wealth to enrich the people in your life, that is the best we can do.

        2. The fifth plank of the communist manifesto is a CENTRAL BANK.

          Who do you think invented communism?

          The “rabble” wanted a revolution.
          So, they were provided with one that could be CONTROLLED.

  18. If what Rossi says is true. What is perfectly clear is that IH has not said the 1mw reactor did not work. Anyway to confirm IH’s new patent application?

  19. I’ve been asking to no avail. IH bought it, but does it revert back to Rossi since IH has officailly been accused of breaching the contract? It is starting to sound like Rossi has the holy grail and the vultures are in full swing.

    1. They stated that the customer wanted to continue using it and that they were recharging the reactors after the 350 day test

      1. Then the issue is straightforward, the 1MW is onsite, IH paid $1.5M for it, so I suppose it’s theirs. Why can’t someone go and see it, and confirm that it’s still working?

      2. IH stated that? Do we have a link. Why would the customer want to do that if it is not pleased with the results? Thus it matters very much who said that, IH or Rossi. This seems worth focusing on.

        1. Found it

          Andrea Rossi

          February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM

          Blanche:

          Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.

          1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course

          E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising

          Warm Regards,

          A.R.

        2. Seems to keep disappearing!!

          Andrea Rossi

          February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM

          Blanche:

          Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.

          1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course

          E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising

          Warm Regards,

          A.R.

  20. Contractually it is important. IH accepted, because they did not contest it formally. For science it won’t hold water, but the reactor will.

  21. So you’re telling me that “…As usual, Rossi leaves us in some darkness and hides behind an imaginary Marie” is purely your own imagining?

    Guess I’d better take a large pinch of salt with anything else u come out with if you have a habit of portraying guesswork as a truth.

  22. “I asked on the blog whether this appllcation [sic] is really new or exists quite a while. The answers I got indicate that it is not new. But then Rossi’s claim that he got this information “today” is not believable.”

    Wait, how can you have asked about this on Rossi’s blog and gotten an answer, when so far the only two posts pertaining to it are from Eldon and Marie?

    1. I don’t think it can be new. It would have to be leaked. But with no date, it tells me it is old. It takes a year before the public can see it I think.

      1. It does look to be from the numbering and name, so maybe this has just been dragged up by someone to muddy the waters.

    1. Looks like he sent you a wrong document.
      It resembles the Penon report of 24 hr made on 100 core plant, only in the format of a patent. (filed by Rossi himself)

      1. It’s a provisional application; it won’t look like a proper patent document before it has gone through revisions and the applicant has paid fees.

          1. Who knows, but this will not be public information for some time so I suspect AR still has some friends at IH.

  23. Not sure whats going on , but I wonder if IH is trying to create a loophole saying not that the Ecat doesn’t work, but that Rossi’s claims were not verified, where, when you are measuring COP and switching into self sustaining mode and many other factors, I’m sure you can get different figures. Perhaps Rossi’s figures were optimistic.

    It’s hard to watch with hopes of CF diminishing greedy Big Oil so quickly turn into corporate Cold Fusion greed.

  24. LENR is too big for the Government not to control. Rossi was smart to operate set up operations in other countries–probably for this purpose. The potential profits from LENR stagger the imagination. This is the name of the game,like it or not.

  25. I dont understand now. The PDF is not any proof of IH applying for a patent. We need the link to the patent office. The document doesnt prove that

      1. the number on it is a real patent. The applicant not Rossi claims to have tested it already at 11 COP. If it is IH, their statement is not true. Or they lied on the patent. It is within the contract period so there is no reason it wouldn’t be IH who is behind the patent.

    1. You won’t see anything on the website until about 14 months after the application has been submitted. This seems to have been a leaked copy of the provisional application before it is all tarted up as a final copy.

    2. Look up the patent number. There is a patent, albeit old. But Rossi is named as co-inventor, which mean Rossi didn’t file it. But it was in the contract period with IH. So it is safe to assume IH filed it.

  26. “…litigation in full course, wherein they say that they say that they do not pay because I did not teach to them to make the plant that they have just patented…”

    Where do they say this? This seems like important info.

    Is Rossi indicating that the main reason for non-payment is not non-performance but their belief that IP knowledge has not been fully transferred (as many have speculated)?

    1. yep. I am afraid Rossi inferred it incorrectly as did most people. I will say it again. IH did not say the 1mw reactor did not work.

        1. An odd admission that makes AR the first to breach the agreement. That might indicate that he engineered the whole situation, presumably in order to end the contract.

          1. It is not an admission, it’s “Rossi says IH says what can be reasonably inferred from their statement”.

          2. It could be that Rossi is not merely inferring, that he’s going from actual correspondence from IH

          3. Agreed – I just wanted to highlight the possibility that your interpretation (that it was an inference drawn from IH’s public statement) was not the only interpretation.

          4. It’s not necessarily my interpretation that Rossi was inferring from the IH statement, simply that that is one of the possible interpretations, thus making it less likely that Rossi is admitting to not having delivered to IH the salient information per se.

          5. Ah. As I had read your statement it allowed for no alternative to Rossi’s statement being Rossi’s inference from IH’s public statement. Thanks!

          6. It can be taken as the most probable cause of the dispute. Who knows, IH can come up with more allegations.
            As you see with this patent mess, Rossi is not very careful about his comments. No cross checks, so PR people to handle the talk.

          7. Well technically if no one makes a formal complaint, it is not breached. It is only breached if the parties have a problem with it. In other words if someone breaches the contract and the victim of the breach doesn’t care, it is still not breached and valid I think. It wasn’t even breached when they didn’t pay Rossi. It was breached when Rossi filed that complaint. A court can say otherwise though. But IH will have to go under oath and prove it. But right now they are the ones in breach. I wish we had a contract lawyer here to verify these things.

    1. Ok ok,but that is a discussion for other thread.This thread is for a specific patent document of a plant that IH has patented.

      1. As you wish sir.
        The patent by IH is also unconfirmed. I waded through the links in comments below, all I see is some document update done yesterday. No patents filed.

        1. This subject is fine for this thread. This is apotentially important new information straight from Rossi that only appears in his statement included in this post (as far as I can tell).

          Unless Frank makes a new threat to talk about it specifically this is the place for it.

    2. I think Rossi was saying that is why they didn’t pay but they made this 1mw reactor in the patent. If IH did this, they are claiming to have made and tested an 11COP reactor.

      1. But it is within the 3 years IH claims. It says they made and tested at 11 COP. This if done by IH is a complete contradiction to their informal statement.

        1. That is true, but does not clash well with Rossi’s statement that he has “today” received some new information pertaining to IH’s patent activities. Unless we’re missing something.

          1. I think you give Rossi too much credit. When he saw this he saw red and wasn’t paying attention to the details. He is acting like an emotional wreck, not a conman brother. I think ecat is legit from this document now. I hope IH don’t win the case. But if they do, I am glad the world will benefit anyway. But this would have been available in 2015 for all to see. So you could be right man. But still. IH’s statement has been contradicted. The patent is real you know.

          2. So, you saying that this is the first time that Rossi has seen this document relevant to his invention that has been available for many months?

            No, brother, I think you’re giving Rossi too little credit.

  27. John
    April 10, 2016 at 3:36 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Unbelievable that IH would do this application with a straight face! To be clear, were you informed of the filing or the publication of the patent? To the uninformed readers: there can be some time passed between the two.

    Best Regards,

    John
    –>
    Andrea Rossi
    April 10, 2016 at 8:31 AM

    John:
    There is no difference, substantially, because you can retrieve a patent application anytime.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    This leads me to believe that IH have simply edited an older application (which appears to be the document sent by Rossi), not made a new one. Any way to find out the changes that were made, if any?

    1. It could well be that Rossi misinterpreted the date of the PDF as a sign that somebody tried to copy his patent. Apparently, the files are generated automatically each time when a download is requested. So you would get always a file with the current date.

      1. No, this is old. It look to me like they filed this without Rossi’s knowledge at the time. As I read the contract, LC was to be directly involved in patents. That would be a breach by IH. A jury will have to decide.

  28. Rossi claims in a new post today that 33 people work at Leonardo Corp. He’s also spoken recently about his scientific advisory board for LC.

    Seems like a lot of people to hire just to make your scam go a little further.

          1. So, successful in his scamming of IH to the tune of $11.5M, Rossi hangs out in his crate for a year, but then is stymied in his efforts to get $89M more. So he hires a bunch of people that’ll cost him millions and risks inside exposure of his scam and files a lawsuit that best case could result in a lucrative out of court settlement to make him go away but that could also destroy him?

            Wut?

          2. Here it is. They want to build a 50 COP reactor. We are back to that secret sauce. IH feels they should have it. This is exactly why IH did not say the 1mw reactor didn’t work. This seems like it will come down to IP issues. IT will be interesting what IH is willing to say under oath.

          3. Agreed. This is the concusion they ended up also in Matts Lewans blog updates today. COP 6 licese is no more worth 68m if Leonardo has COP50 and quark-x in their sleeves.

          4. I know, it’s very perplexing.

            We still do not have actual confirmation that Leonardo Corp. employs 33 people, mind.

      1. No T, you are stretching it now. Again Rossi is co-inventor so IH may well have made a false statement. I must say it is odd, but again, you should wait and see what IH says under oath. This looks good for Rossi right now and is the only of the two parties that is under oath. You think the oath is no big deal, but this is not your average suit. Rossi can go to jail and IH can only be fined. It is within the three years IH claimed. And according to this they themselves SUBSTANTIATED 11COP, well within the contract parameters.

        1. You write: “they themselves verified 11COP”

          OTOH, Rossi/Leonardo was required to deliver to IH all E-Cat IP, and according to the Complaint that IP would enable the ability to build and operate a 50COP reactor.

          [BTW, I don’t think Teemu is stretching it… I think he’s referring to Leonardo having 33 employees, which I don’t think is a claim that has been made under oath.]

          1. But Rossi is under oath and this document backs up what he said. To continue implying Rossi and LC is lying every step of the way is becoming a stretch. I think the ecat works, and sure IH may have an argument for a breach of contract, but they aren’t behaving that way. This document contradicts their ambiguous statement. So yea. stretching it. Not only that, it was in 2014, Rossi may not have been able to build a 50COP reactor then. 11 COP complies with the contract. According to this IH lied about at least that. we’ll see.

          2. The functionality of the reactor may not depend so much on who built the reactor, but who tested the reactor.
            Quite early on Rossi said IH had built a reactor and it worked. But if the test was faulty and the results were biased (for some reason), the reactor can still be unworkable even though it appeared to work.
            Since Mr. Rossi was the chief scientist for IH, I think it was more than probable he was not only there but had every means to influence the test results.
            Many people believe he did exactly that during the calibration process at the start of the Lugano test, so it would be easy to do at a private in house testing, and there would be no reason for IH to suspect anything at that point in the relationship. They would have taken it all as highly encouraging.

          3. Rossi did not know about this patent. They built the reactor in the patent without Rossi. They said it had a COP of 11. Their statement is falsified by this document.

          4. Nope, if IH were not honest brokers, there are many ways around such small obstacles. You’re assuming Rossi is evil. I assume IH is evil. One of us is right. I’ll give you that.

          5. You substantiate then give money. Which is what I think they did. Now they recant when it comes time to pay. That is all we know. Whether they were incompetent or thieves will come out in court. Until then, I will be on the side of the people who ALWAYS gets screwed, the inventor.

    1. “There is no apparent long term link to Rossi, to IH.”

      Except being alma mater of Bologna University. It’s the cold fusion mecca of Italy and home to Focardi and Giuseppe Levi. I’d say these strings come attached.

      1. I’d say that’s a bit harsh. In many areas, you need to take an expert that is familiar with the technology being assessed – in other words, expert in that which he is going to measure.

        Many industrial/academic areas of technology are incredibly incestuous for that reason (the medical one I relate to certainly is, it’s like watching a game of musical chairs!).

        In many ways, this guy may have been the best qualified to do the job.

        1. We are rationalizing. It could have been anyone, but OF COURSE it was this Italian guy from Bologna University. I choose to remain skeptical.

          1. Rossi originally contacted Focardi to disprove his excess heat with a fee to be paid should Focardi disprove it. Focardi could not find errors in Rossi’s work.

            And you know that originally, Rossi didn’t know any of the Lugano team. They were not friends or even acquaintances.

            He 1st met Levi by way of introduction by Focardi. Levi was then allowed to run many many tests trying to debunk Rossi E-cat.

            The rest of the Lugano team, Rossi met kind of piece meal during different and various tests over time. All these people were skeptic and all looking for explanations. All these highly educated people in multiple disciplines, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering etc, found excess heat.

            LENR of Not, Rossi is without a doubt, Pure Genius.

  29. I think a lot of the confusion in this thread stems from the fact that we were expecting Rossi to have discovered a NEW patent application post IH’s disparaging remarks. When, in fact, this one has been in circulation for a couple years already.

          1. Perhaps the patent claims 11 because Rossi as Chief Scientist was there to rig the test, just like he did Lugano and the 1 MW? IH believed him at the time because it was still relatively early in their relationship, but grew increasingly frustrated when they couldn’t replicate without Rossi being there.

          2. Nah, there is an outside chance the skeptics of Rossi are right about some things. But I am firmly in Rossi’s corner until IH goes under oath at least. They have contradicted themselves, period.

          3. I’m curious about what you deem IH’s contradiction, in light of you emphasizing that IH has not claimed that the 1MW reactor does not work. Clearly, I’ve lost your elaboration in the branching comment threads – please advise!

          4. Reviewing, I think you deem that IH filing the patent claims contradicts their public statement that “Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
            results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
            success.” Please don’t bother with a reply if I have it right here!

          5. They said they had success in the patent. So it just isn’t the act of having the patent it is what they claimed in the patent. Contradiction.

          6. They claim in their patent they achieved 11 COP. The contract called for almost 3 COP. Their statement says they couldn’t substantiate 3. Contradiction.

          7. On purely mathematically speaking yes there is a contradiction. What if IH needed a “bullet proof” substantiation, where only a third party without the knowledge even by Rossi that such a third party test was being done. In order to substantiate the over 3 COP.

          8. What if IH is testing the E-Cat by a third party to keep AR totally out
            of the picture just in case AR is able to do something that investors
            might complain about and don’t want AR to know about such a test. Which
            could explain why IH expects everyone to listen to IH only.

          9. I’m fine with hypotheses – I was just making the point that’s all it was.

            In the heat of debate it’s all too easy to start asserting hypotheses as fact, and it can lead to the less informed assuming that they are reading facts being summarised, not different theories being tested…

            Again, sorry if I was a bit abrupt. I’ll save that for others… 😉

          10. Then they should not have claimed to have built it. Is there any oath taking on a patent?

          11. No, IH built it. It’s not about who built it, but who ran the test. This appears to be Rossi’s talent – in case he’s a fraudster. He has been present at every successful replication in one way or another.

          12. As was orval and wilbur Write. Brother, I think we are at the preface of a new clean energy source on earth. As it stands now, Only proof of the contrary will convince me. I do not trust the establishment because they have been caught in too many lies. These LENR tinkerers are on to something and I believe them because, I haven’t caught them in the lies I’ve caught the supposed trust worthy establishment. They are the snakes and have convinced the smartest of people like yourself that they are the ones to trust. I just wish you would be as skeptical of them as you are of the people actually trying to help mankind. All the establishment wants to do is control us and thin our herds. I believe that 100%. This is so important that we should give pioneering people every benefit of the doubt.

          13. I think that if Rossi was Chief Scientist of IH at the time then IH could file stating that IH built it, even if Rossi built it alone in a garage.

          14. Yea. But that is incompetence on their part. and to say they tested it and it was Rossi is even more incompetent.

  30. Also, what Hans-Göran Branzell said. If Rossi wanted acclaim and untold fortune, all he needed to do was have an “untouchable” (unimpeachable) organization like ORNL, CERN or Sandia, Cal Tech or MIT, test the ecat. That could have been done in weeks, not five years.
    I took this from Mary Yugo comment.I agree that this is how the tests should
    have been done.
    I wonder why when IH had doubts they did not at least ask A.R for another
    independent test.If he was a reasonable person he would say OK .
    If the plant is still running this could still be done.

    1. That’s what I said on LENR Forum.

      I can’t believe Darden and his team were so dumb to not make this clear during the first negotiations with Rossi. Rossi was accused to be a fraudster years before. They knew that.

      Either Rossi allows measurment on the ecat by completely independent scientist, in which IH trusts, or the negotiations end with a negative outcome.

      I expected Darden would have done that. Not necessarily CERN or MIT, but at least a few experts they trust and know they are not connected to Rossi through 2 – 3 corners.

      1. Because the actual scenario, at least as I interpret it, is the way that
        IH uses the word “unsubstantiated”. What IH means by this term goes
        back to the process that IH has set in motion to make the validation
        “bullet-proof”. To do this, as I have put it together, is that the E-Cat
        process in ALL its details has been given to a third, totally
        independent party to validate. So totally independent that IH cannot
        even tell AR what IH is doing in this regard. So AR is totally ignorant
        about this activity. Now, since the third party testing for validation
        purposes has not been finished as yet, then IH can say that the E-Cat
        test has not been substantiated and is only waiting for this to be
        finished. Because IH is waiting for the results of this third party
        test, validation, IH is therefore saying that everyone has to listen
        only on the word of IH as to what is actually happening, because only IH
        knows what is going on in this regard. Then, also, this is why AR is
        acting the way he is(paranoid about why IH has not paid AR. AR is acting
        from lack of knowledge about why IH is acting the way they are. If AR
        knew he would just wait. Since AR doesn’t know, he sees IH as acting
        strangely or deviously. Further to this scenario, I expect that IH DOES
        have the $89m, only not in escrow in some bank just allocated for AR in
        house. This scenario, to me, ties up all loose ends in a more congenial
        manner than all of the mean spirited, “get Rossi” views floating around
        this blog. The only and main stumbling block in this scenario, is how
        long will it take for that “third” party ” to finish the validation and
        provide their own, 4th, report.

    2. The only thing I ever got from Mary Yugo (dear old George Hody in real life -shame he’s doddering now) is a sardonic grin.

      Beware of schills, they lay numerous traps for the unwary.

      Most of the points George makes are carefully built from part-truths, and designed to read well to the newcomer.

      “Why not get one of these prestigious institutions involved?” He cries.

      Because they won’t touch anything that might besmirch their lily white reputations. Remember, LENR is designed by the physics establishment as pathological science.

      Guess who continues to parrot that? George, amongst a decreasing sad chorus of the bigoted and the out of date.

      And then he uses it as a stick to beat Rossi.

      There is a school of thought that a small number of these schills are paid to do this. I’m not sure about George (he has around 6-10 aliases, btw). He’s so bigoted and obsessive on this matter, he’d do it for free or even would pay, I suspect. It seems to have become his raison d’etre.

      If “”Mary Yougo”” tells you it’s raining outside, I’d advise you to prepare for a drought….

      1. M.Y. was quoting Hans-Göran Branzell.
        Do you know M.Y.
        If M.Y. an expert on measurements would
        do them for free I think they should give him a call.
        He is for real as any of them considering no one
        knows who is for real for sure.
        At the very least AR and TD should had someone
        they both trust as a go between and this Court thing
        might not have happened.
        Naive but anything is possible.
        It just started to snow where i am in Canuck land.

          1. Steven Krivit was the first outsider to state that
            things where not well between AR and TD.
            As they where not good between him and A.R
            Revenge maybe or good reporting.
            MY has said in a comment. that AR might
            have something.
            They do take some shots below the belt like
            commenting on Sterling Allan charges.But
            they keep people honest
            I think Brian Ahern is obssesive or lost money
            and is upset.
            Garry wright i do not know what his angle is.
            Are they part of stealing A.R. technolgy.
            Or are they right in there accusations.
            This is the last i will comment on them

        1. If they were both honest brokers, that would have happened. But someone is playing the other and it seems to me IH are now the ones that have some splaining to do Lucy.

        2. M.Y. Can be an expert in everything and I still wouldn’t have him anywhere close to the Ecat. His hatred for Rossi runs deep and has already formed his own opinions and feels so strongly about them that I wouldn’t put it past him to sabatoge the experiment to protect his precious beliefs.

          1. I have wondered if MY is just a perfecionist.
            I know through an E mail that he did not like
            Mats Lewan testing of the E cat but that he personaly likes
            Mats and thinks he is a good writer.

    3. Is this the same MIT that could not substantiate the F&P procedure? Oh, I forgot they managed to and then covered it up to preserve their grant for hot fusion research.

      The person chosen for the test was not an associate of AR but was initially chosen by IH for the 24h test and then kept on for this test. If you have any problems blame IH.

      1. Anyone that has funding in those establishment positions should be kept away from this technology. They have a deadly conflict of interest.

      1. If the higher education people and the politicians and general population had supported
        Mr Mellove from the start it would not be behind at all.
        They just follow there pay check.

    4. It’s not just Rossi though, IH could have asked for one of those organizations. IH agreed on the ERV (who IH had picked in the original 24 hour test too), and on the protocols of the test. People like to focus on Rossi and forget IH was in control of a lot of this, so it’s all their choices too.

      1. In a way, it would make sense if they wanted to keep things low profile and Rossi distracted for one year. But then again, it was Rossi who had to initiate finding the test customer and site in the first place.

        1. Which also plays into the “keeping Rossi tied up and pre-occupied” line of reasoning. Also since he couldn’t get paid till after the test, per the contract. Just too many unknowns still…

    5. That would be like Leibniz asking the Royal Society to determine who invented Calculus.
      How well did that work out?

    6. IH would not ask AR for an independent third party test to make sure that any third party test was really “Bullet proof”, that is even AR could not know of such a test.

  31. It wasn’t rossi who filed it in 2014 because it had him as a co-inventor. And since it is within the contract period, IH is the only other who had that authority. If the applicant does not work for IH, then IH gave him Rossi IP and breached the contract.

  32. The source of the document just didn’t provide the page that usually includes the date. Not really that weird, at least to me. The page that includes the date also includes other pertinent information, which someone might have wanted to withhold from the public at this time. This is a provisional patent application, which usually aren’t published.

    1. When I saw that, I knew IH’s statement was falsified. They either lied on the patent or they lied in their statement. Rossi is fuming and not thinking straight. He is acting like an angry inventor. I am more on Rossi’s side than ever with this damning document. Someone should tell him to shut up until he comes down.

      1. From what he has posted more recently on JONP, someone has, his lawyer!

        He now has instituted F7 = Cannot discusss this as subject to legal proceeding

        1. Damn. Rossi made a lot of statements from inferences that most people that read IH’s statement made, incorrect as they may be. I hope he didn’t say anything to hurt his case. But this is a smoking gun the more I think about it.

      2. Unless Rossi deceived IH to measure a COP of 11.07 in his presence and later they were unable to replicate, thus refusing to pay Rossi?

          1. Rossi didn’t know about it. Why do you think he is so angry? Is he acting, saying things he ought not be saying? Someone told him to shut up. doesn’t sound planned at all. It can cost him his case.

          2. Theoretically, it’s possible that Rossi was there for the test on which IH based the patent application, with the application being filed without his knowledge/consent.

            Or, perhaps he did know, and is lying to gather sympathy.

            (Note: I am not saying this is right or wrong, just brainstorming)

          3. yea I know teemu, you could be right man. But like I said, I think it is a bit of a stretch now. But possible.

          4. According to Bob Higgins on the LENR Forum, there is no way for the patent application to exist with Rossi titled as “inventor”, unless he specifically signed on it. I wonder if this is also true for the European application? In that case, Rossi would be lying about not knowing about those patents to gain sympathy.

          5. Yep absolutely. Give me a pen, I’ll show you how it is possible for Rossi not to know. Rossi “where’s my signature stamp?”. But there may be other explanations. Rossi will have to answer for it. Handwriting analysis will get to the bottom of it.

          6. It is only signed when the patent proceeds to the official filing when lots of money becomes due; been through it many times (even a few with my own money).

            I have refused to sign before (on the instructions of the company boss) but the patent eventually went though. The law in the US changed Sept 2012 which makes it easier to get the patent without the signature.

          7. This is incorrect. While it is usually the case that all inventors sign on to a patent application, there are circumstances where inventors can be named, but are not aware of the application, or refuse to sign on. The applicant can still file the patent application, although it presents significant complications (such as what we are seeing unfold before our eyes).

          8. Chief scientist doesn’t mean the person is physically there. My chief scientist is almost never around during experiments. The position is usually an intellectual head, and is more involved in administration than the physical job of research (can’t be in two places at once).

          9. Cmon man, the more we see, the more Rossi would have to be the most brilliant scam artist in the world to keep getting these ducks to line up. And if he is that brilliant, maybe the ecat is paradigm changing after all. Rossi is slowing becoming the Occam’s razor choice. Even though you don’t believe in him.

          10. I don’t “believe in him” in the same way that I don’t believe in anything for which I don’t have evidence. I know you’re different.

            Anyway, I’m still gathering more data to have a position on this.

          11. what page? I only see Andrea’s name on the PDF, am I missing something?

            It doesn’t appear to me that this was even filed by IH, but maybe I’m missing it?

    2. Nice find, Teemu! I hadn’t found that one in my patent diving. Looks dogbone design related (which could be the core of the 1 MW plant), but it is not from Lugano… New data, very interesting.

    3. @Teemu, click on the assignments tab. Even though the provisional application expired on 5/11/14, this application was assigned from IH to Leonardo on 11/18/2015. If you click on continuity data tab, you will see a link to application 14/262,740. This appears to be the non-provisional application for the same claims in the provisional application. The non-provisional is still under review. The expiration date of the provisional application isn’t a big deal, since the non-provisional was filed within 12 months of the provisional.
      Rossi and/or IH appear to have hired Occhiuti & Rohlicek LLP (O&R Patent Law) to file the assignment documents for both the provisional and non-provisional applications on 11/18/2015. Obviously there is a lot going on between the two of them that we don’t know and aren’t privy to.

      1. Also, within the initial applications for both patent applications that I listed above, there are no assignment documents included. Normally, in the initial filings, you would have attached the assignment from the inventor to the company. Since no assignments were included in the initial applications, this may have left a door open for Rossi as the inventor to assign the IP to Leonardo without IH’s knowledge at the time of filing these assigments.

  33. Regular patent applications usually publish 18 months after filing. But this is a provisional patent application, which usually aren’t published.

    1. Yea, Cherokee has much invested in fossil fuel assets. They cannot get rid of them without incredible losses. Have you seen the oil markets? If they release this info on a new technology, what do you think will happen to fossil fuel prices?

      1. The question is Michael, do you think I.H. will be as lucky as these Guys —

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532105/Man-screams-bear-scare-away.html

        when they REAP the consequences of what darden has DONE. I DONT THINK SO. I am still waiting for a STATEMENT from WOODFORD , I dont see how they can delay without seriously Harming themselves and their CREDABILITY, We will all see in the coming weeks. Personally I think their investors will EAT THEM FOR BREAKFAST. Let the party begin.

  34. When you start issuing CF patents to Government entities such as NRL, NASA, SPAWAR etc, It’s hard to stop others from obtaining them.

  35. Mr. Rossi long ago stated quite clearly that he had sold (donated) a unit to the US defense dept.
    Have they asked for their money back or are they so dumb that they could not find a power point to plug it in.
    They could be called to give Evidence on their findings.

    1. Yea but back then Rossi didn’t know that preparation process, so if it worked it was nowhere near what he could produce when preparing the catalyst like he does now. Heck they might have had trouble discerning whether they had measurement errors or anomalous heat.

      1. Michael are you saying that they would not have asked Mr. Rossi for updates but shove it in a corner and forget all about it.
        If it showed a COP of 1.00000000000001 then the billions spent on defense may just have helped them improve it, at least as far as Mr. Rossi has (supposedly) done with half a dozen bodies and a few million.

        1. The US establishment is motivated by Corporate and Political interests, which are usually not in the interest of common sense or in the service of the American people

          1. Many people say that the reason for attacking Iraq was because they had started to sell oil in Euros which would have undermined the dollar and so the US. When several other countries considered doing the same they took action.

        2. I am saying Rossi has improved what they got. Enough to show excess heat. When he improved it, he didn’t want to give anymore than he had to, to protect a commercially useful advancement.

          1. Michael, it is fair to assume that the US would not allow Rossi to continue without knowing all that he does.
            We are not talking about a Democracy for the people but profit and power mongering only.
            They I think would not allow Rossi to continue without them being in complete control of the situation.

          2. Yea? what if they believed their establishment scientists that the excess heat they had were only measurement errors? If they believed the wrong people, why would they bother with Rossi? They may have threw it in the trash heap. Isn’t that what MIT and CAL tech did with Ponns and Fleicshmann’s work?

          3. We will end but in answer, if they are forcing Mr. Rossi to keep them updated then that would not apply.
            Even establishment scientists should be able to measure a COP of 50, if the tea-lady helps them.

    1. I really don’t know enough about patents and patent law to evaluate his analysis. Folks here were saying that Rossi didn’t sign the patent papers, for at least one of the applications though, which sounds like it would be contrary to what Bob is assuming here? And IH’s person Dameron is listed as an inventor on one of the main patent applications, so that would mean IH was standing behind the proof and validity of the patent there, according to Bob’s analysis?

      1. Well if IH wasn’t an honest broker, they would do a lot to get around a lot. Although what Bob says could have merit, there are always extenuating circumstances. But he gives good information that may well be valid.

    2. Interestingly, Rossi agreed (in the license agreement) to let IH file patents and assign patents to themselves.
      So he will not be able to prove in court (possibly) that IH has done something illegal, its right there in the agreement.
      Perhaps he later wanted to amend it, but now its too late, the patents were filed long long ago. Since this was years ago and a public knowledge, Rossi can not say he was not aware of it. Worst case, he can accuse IH of forging his signature, which can make this case really dirty.

          1. Patents have no relation to tests, they are related to IP. Should not matter when the invention was tested.

      1. And the patent that Rossi provided is not really E-Cat dependent but can be used with any other source of heat, like a Brillouin based device for example.

  36. If Darden/Vaughn think Rossi is a fraud, or they don’t want to see this technology go forward, or they have other technology they feel is better in the long run, then they might do things like not pay Rossi or take out patents against Rossi’s technology to slow him up or keep him from producing his technology.

    1. Right Guest, you were one of them who mentioned it—thanks—but not you alone. I can also tell you that I have discussed this possibility in particular with people involved, for the last month, based on various information. In any case, it’s a possibility that have some merit, but I repeat, I wonder how many attempts IH has made, and with what skill. Apparently, if this is the situation, IH has intensified its attempts in the last months.

      1. Why would IH not involve Rossi in doing the replications. I think Rossi was contractually obligated to do this? After a year or two of failure surely they would engage Rossi.

        And do you know who made the 1MW plant, both reactor. fuel, and stimulus system?

        1. I think you bring up an important unknown.

          Did IH chose not to request help from Rossi because of the particular outside experts (Brillouin) IH and engaged?

          What is the history of IH requesting help from Rossi? How many times did Rossi help? When and upon what model of E-Cat? In addition, how many times did Rossi simply refuse including those times when he (Rossi) would not entertain rescheduling to a more opportune time?

        2. At this point, I would take anything that Brian Ahern says with a grain of salt. In fact, since first learning about Mr. Ahern and watching him on video some years ago, I’ve always had a strange sense about this fellow. While he transitioned over time from outright hostility toward Mr. Rossi to seemingly interested at one point, it seems he may have returned to his initial posture.

          1. Yes, his comments have been very caustic, almost like he’s been personally harmed by Rossi. Still it’s one thing to express negative feelings, another to outright lie. Still at the very least it’s interesting that Ahern has talked to IH (not sure who has contacted whom). When Darden/Vaughn respond some of this will come out.

      2. It could be, that IH did not want to succeed to some degree … Not enough anyway since that could be an advantage interpreting the license agreement. Lawyers thinks about this staff 24h/day. Especially if there is $89M to gain …

  37. Correspondence AddressName:NK Patent Law – Industrial HeatAddress: 4917 Waters Edge Drive
    Suite 275
    Raleigh NC 27606 Customer Number:76934Attorney/Agent InformationReg #NamePhone59389Nifong, Justin919-348-2194

  38. Why did they take 3 years to finally reach a conclusion that Rossi won’t transfer the tech “completely”?
    One would have terminated the agreement as soon as it was understood that the tech was not transferred. Should take only a month to know that.

    1. [EDIT: They may have known after a few months but decided not to file a court case.]

      Perhaps to not scare other potential investees.

      Perhaps to keep their options open – by waiting three years they may try to claim in court various rights respective of all E-Cat IP Rossi/Leonardo has developed in the meanwhile and they had the opportunity to monitor the Performance Guarantee efforts.

  39. The patent application was filed by a Justin Robert Nifong, who is IH’s attorney. Nifong is from Cary, NC, which is a 15 min drive from Raleigh.

    1. The claim is that it was filed today (or yesterday), which is not true as far as we know, nothing was found.
      Secondly, Rossi allowed IH to file patents as per clause 7 and agreed to assign the “licensed patents” to IH (clause 10).
      Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

      1. Rossi did not claim that the application was filed today/yesterday, only that he learned about it just now. Which does seem odd, but yeah.

        1. AR: the plant that they have just patented,
          “just patented”
          Also, the commentators on his blog specified the day.
          I’ve no idea why there is no much confusion here when everything in out there for all to see in writing.

          1. Probably Rossi was speaking loosely here. But if he doesn’t know the difference, then his patent lawyers are not doing a good job.

      2. You are mistaken, Rossi says the information came to him that recently. That’s not a claim by him as to the date of the filing which is presumed to be at some earlier time. That IH has claimed in corporate IP that Rossi’s tech works is very clear evidence that someone has let the fox loose in the hen house, or rather in the E-Cat container. The devil is in the details and when and whether Rossi did indeed consent to the assignment of rights of said patent might producing an interesting facet of the story… More and more this looks like very standard corporate gamesmenship as the game shifts into full swing! http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/09/conspiracy-exposed-against-transformational-energy-tech/

        1. No doubt that there is some unfairness in the agreement, but that’s not the point. If one is not objective and is washed in emotions and rage, one would soon lose the direction.
          See my comment below, reply to Teemu.

        2. I have trouble with terms like “corporate gamesmenship” describing lH dealings. IH has created nothing. They are a corporate raider. In the 18th century they would have been called pirates.

      3. Mr. Rossi never agreed to *assign* (i.e., transfer or sell) the licensed patents to IH. Clause 10 refers to recordation of the license. It is poorly written. But even if IH tried to point to clause 10 and say “look and see they were supposed to give us all their IP,” it wouldn’t hold any water because the words “shall assign” are not effective in transferring the ownership of a patent asset. To be effective, it would have needed to state “hereby assigns.”

  40. On the IH response, there has been given special attention to the wording ( by IH ) of “substantiate”.
    My English is of quite low level. But I also pay my attention to the wording “all without success”.
    In principle this can be true for completely other reasons than, that the E-cat would not work as specified.
    There might be some “Force majeure” to prevent this (final substantiation of a device on the market), something completely outside of IH of Leonardo.
    (Possible things come to mind but it may be better not to openly speculate on such without any proof.)
    And they ( IH ) may have recognized this also only quite recently. Everything could have appeared promising before, but once this reason became apparent, it is as if all this over three years of work has been in vain.

    This is only a speculation of mine as a possibility and don’t know of how much weight such a thing could give for the trial even if proved.

  41. And IH never asked permission from the Lugano testers, or from Bologna U, to use that material in a patent application. Which could be subject for a lawsuit in itself.

    1. But the Bologna U test results was submitted to the patent office before the report was actually released, if I recall. I always thought that was a bit odd.

    2. Sharing this request from LENR G:

      “Hey, Mats Lewan. Fabiani was willing to talk to you in November. Maybe he can give you an off the record account of what’s going on from his point of view?”

    1. If that winds up being Industrial Heat’s position then we have two radically different concepts of reality and the court case will be a short one after some rudimentary discovery.

      Somebody is lying their butt off (if ^).

      1. As a reminder… here’s Fulvio Fabiani, assumed Industrial Heat employee, in November of last year, 8 months into the plant test:

        “With the failures, I found myself having to believe in it. Why? Because when something fails, you see the behavior of the object. The next time you adjust it, then you see that it behaves very differently. And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive.

        “I can assure you that the shutdown of the reaction is immediate. The response at ignition with the certified technology is medium fast since we use this technology to produce steam. With steam, inertia when starting up is necessary because of the mass of water that becomes steam. But with ideas we have plans for everything, even instantaneous reactions. Now I’m working on many of Rossi’s new ideas including the E-CatX*, while also being responsible for power supply & control and maintenance on the long term test [of the 1 MW plant**].

        “Until now the test is in line with the result that we expected. We encountered the biggest problems during the design and installation phase of the test plant. The most difficult thing was the choice of materials needed to withstand this new kind of energy release and this type of operation for such a long time. And we have found many little flaws—teething problems. For example, also the choice of bolts has led to a revision because some bolts were not sufficiently treated with anti-corrosive, and so they rusted. But if you don’t test you cannot say that you have a product to sell.”

        https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

        We’re being played by somebody. Maybe both.

        1. Fabiani claimed to be working on the E-Cat X. But Rossi said that only Leonardo employees are working on it.

          1. Could be one of the issues in contention. One thing that kind of makes sense to me is that Rossi anticipated Industrial Heat being slow to pay and has kept X IP mainly to himself in order to have some leverage.

            But one thing that absolutely does not make any sense is for Industrial Heat to play dumb at this point and pretend they had no hand in the test.

          2. Which goes back to LENR G’s statement that Fabiani seems to have been employed by both at different times (or at the same time?). A lot depends on whether one trusts Fabiani’s testimony or not. If you trust it, it seems you have to trust both his statements — about the e-cat working, and about not knowing the exact composition of the fuel. If you don’t trust it, then all bets are off.

          3. This could be one of those really annoying “matters of definition”. Is the E-cat X the same as the Quark X? Rossi views the Hot-Cat through Quark X as the same baby, just growing up. But other folks may differentiate them, and even Rossi gave them separate names to indicate their different natures.

        2. Hey, Mats Lewan. Fabiani was willing to talk to you in November. Maybe he can give you an off the record account of what’s going on from his point of view?

          1. He seems to be an employee of both Leonardo Corp and Industrial Heat. In the complaint he’s listed as an agent of IH (only).

            He started working for Rossi in 2012… right about when IH came sniffing.

            In any case he’s a person in a position to know that claimed the plant was WORKING. Of course, massive conspiracy remains a possibility.

          2. I say look at a mans hands. Tom Darden vs Andrea Rossi.
            He who has lilly white hands has done little real work in his life.

            There are no saints in this world, But, all things being equal, I put more trust in the man who knows and appreciates hard work over those who’ve done nothing. Those who’ve done hard work tend to be more honorable.

    2. There are some commentators that behave really strange right now in my opinion; namely Ahern, Cole & Beene. I analysed some of their statements from a PR (Apco) perspective, and it sort of fits the agenda I would guess Apco is executing right now. Look for inconsistencies in comments; before after complaints, and before after facts are revealed. Etc. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-rossi-lenr-saga-what-to-expect-from-the-apcoworldwide-pr-machine/

      1. Can you see the IP addresses for the commenters? That could be used to trace if they are the same people or coming from some corporate (like APCO) source rather than residential IP addresses. Dunno if your comment system allows that.

          1. It’ll be interesting to see if any further comments from them are routed through other IPs, now that the originators (whoever they are) know that this vulnerability has been picked up.

    3. Sifferkoll made a good reply. But we’ll have to see if IH makes the same defense and claims, as they are very serious.

    4. Brian Ahern has bad mouthed Rossi several times in the past.
      It’s Interesting that Rossi has said good things about Ahern and his abilities. No kind word goes unpunished.

      I like what Russ George says about VC’s shooting the inventor. Russ knows what he’s talking about.

      What Rossi is going through now is a very similar scenario that Lonnie Johnson has been struggling with for several years over his Solid State thermal electric converter or JTEC. Johnson’s VC is a branch of Xerox and they try to siphon off his technology through their own R&D and claim patents on it. As Lonnie says, He could end up paying Royalties to use his own Technology.

      1. Mr. Lonnie Johnson should have hired a good lawyer to negotiate the contract, and at least insisted on a royalty on any improvements made by Xerox. We all love to hate lawyers, except when it is yours, and you need it very badly.

  42. I get confused in identifying these patents. Please identify IH patents as opposed to the Lugano based patent.

    It seems to me that IH has only produced the Lugano patent.

  43. In case you’re interested in this, as I was:

    Andre Blum
    April 10, 2016 at 5:35 AM

    Dear Andrea,
    We’ll have to see how the legal case evolves. I wish you good luck with that. In the meantime, I’m interested to learn how you plan to proceed. You have indicated that you are in a good position and you plan to accelerate your production plans. Maybe you could answer one or more of the following questions:
    1) How large is your Leonardo team now?
    2) Will you continue to operate from the USA?
    3) Does Leonardo plan to go in production totally independent now?
    4) Do you still plan an announcement in Stockholm soon?
    Thanks
    Andre

    Andrea Rossi
    April 10, 2016 at 8:25 AM

    Andre Blum:
    1- 33 persons
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

      1. #2 Shouldn’t be an issue. as you can operate and manufacture anywhere you want even under their agreement. Where the product is sold would be a problem if the agreement stays in force. #3 would be independent of IH…

  44. On JONP:

    “DrD April 10, 2016 at 5:51 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You probably omitted to post and answer my question because it was sensitive and not something you wanted to be seen which I completely understand and respect. Just in case it was an oversight,
    the question was: is the “know-how” about how to produce electric directly, that came to you over Christmas shared with IH?
    May God continue to guide and protect you.
    David

    Andrea Rossi April 10, 2016 at 12:27 PM
    DrD:
    The R&D related to the E-Cat QuarkX and the direct production of
    e.m.f. has been made entirely in the laboratory of Leonardo Corporation.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    1. Thanks artefact. I think this post clarifies the issue a bit more: IH consider ‘quark’ to be an extension of ‘their’ e-cat IP, while Rossi is building a case that it is an independent development.

      Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, he blogged that the idea came to him while working in the 1MW container, and he was able to test it shortly afterwards. This could be taken to indicate that the ‘quark’ was invented there, and not in a Leonardo laboratory – unless the location of the pilot plant WAS a Leonardo laboratory, rather than ‘the customer’s’ premises, in which case other Rossi claims become questionable. Bit of a mess really.

        1. But the Ecat X is not finished yet F8. So if it could be positive or it could be negative at the time of non-payment, it is not an approved upgrade of the technology/IP yet, only an experiment. IH has now breached due to non-payment if in the future it is found that the Ecat X experiment is a positive upgrade to the technology/IP IH is not entitled to the IP due to breach.

          1. Yes, as noted “as long as the License Agreement was in effect”. However, I don’t think there’s any notion of “approved upgrade” – concepts and ideas are included as E-Cat IP in 13.4.

          2. No but 13.4 states anything Rossi, LC and their affiliates creates after signing must be assigned to LC and that products, upgrades, patents etc. are available as part of the license to IH. No where does it state ideas, R&D data or experiments. Until developed, patented or trademarked it doesn’t appear to be part of the license.

          3. As a license to use not as ownership of the IP. As IH is in breach they no longer have a license. The license called for transfer of IP at the time of the 24 hour validation but does not specify timing for transfer of any other discovered IP. It only states they have license to use it but nowhere does it compel LC to give them the new IP on any timetable does it?

            Also the definition of E-Cat IP has been laid out in the agreement-
            “”E-Cat IP” has the meaning set forth in the recitals to this Agreement, and shall include all document, manuals, technical data, formulae, and other items and materials necessary or useful to enable the Company to (i) operate the 1MW E-Cat Unit, (ii) make E-Cat Products, and (iii) exploit the E-Cat IP as contemplated by this Agreement.” – 16.1 http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.21.pdf

            Making direct electrical production is not in the scope of the agreement to be exploited as the agreement was for a low temperature steam plant. Producing 100C or so steam not electricity.

          4. The timeline for delivery is “promptly”. 13.4 sentence 1 explicitly expands the definition of E-Cat IP (note the “shall be and shall remain within the scope of the definition of E-Cat IP” part and the “useful in the business or activities in which the Company is or may become engaged”).

            See Martin Tornberg’s comments on this issue in the License Agreement:
            https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/07/andrea-rossi-sues-industrial-heat-for-89m/#comment-4241

          5. I can’t find the word “promptly” anywhere in 13.4. Other than stating all IP and works derived by Rossi and affiliates to be ‘promptly’ be transferred to Leonardo. Care to quote where you see it used otherwise?

            The definitions in 16.1 are clearly laid out and since they come after 13.4 they limit the scope of interpretation of 13.4 by their definition, not the other way around.

          6. The word “promptly” appears immediately before the word “assign” – however, I now see that it refers to actions Leonardo and affiliates must take to vest items with Leonardo. Thanks, my mistake.

          7. Yes he has stated that, but it may be only to produce heat and not electricity as producing electricity was not part of the originals claims for the license. The fight might be over production of electricity directly.

          8. It does read that way. He certainly knew at that time that E-Catx was able to produce electricity directly.
            In fact if you think back to when he “discovered” it, it read as though it didn’t require much of a modification at all, simply a minor trick of knowing what to do.
            He implied that he had the idea, tried it there and then and, hey presto, it worked. Which is why I recently asked himn if IH knew the trick as it didn’t sound very complicated to implement (or conceal).
            Very Intriguing.

          9. You wrote: “Also the definition of E-Cat IP has been laid out in the agreement”.

            Yes, and it includes trade secrets. 16.1 references the meaning in recitals – see the first “Whereas” paragraph, which defines E-Cat IP as including trade secrets and know-how.

          10. Not a clue as to where you are referring to. Can I at least have a page number? I included the complete definition from 16.1 above, so I know that you are not referring to there.

          11. Didn’t mean to be cryptic – the “recitals” (as referenced in 16.1) are the opening paragraphs on page 1 – see the first paragraph that begins with “Whereas”.

          12. Yes trade secrets as they relate to the 1MW plant and the HotCat would be included. That would have been part of the technology transfer after the 24 hour test. Both are heating devices so IP for direct electrical production wouldn’t be covered. I think the direct electrical production of the E-Cat X/Quark X is the crux of the blow up between the two entities.

          13. You wrote: “Both are heating devices so IP for direct electrical production wouldn’t be covered.”

            That’s where we’ll differ. I’ll continue to think that the IP will be covered, per such items as “and all other intellectual property related directly or indirectly to energy production and conversion technologies” (in that first recitation).

            Thanks for trying to set me straight!

          14. If IH had paid the $89 million a case might have been possible to make for that depending on how broad of a definition the court would allow for ‘energy production and conversion technologies’ considering the definition of E-Cat IP laid down in the agreement. But, since the E-Cat X is still an experiment and not a product or patent yet as far as we know then the case for transfer of a license for the IP to them for it is very weak since the have defaulted on payment and apparently breached the contract. The actual IP belongs to Leonardo per 13.4 that should not be in question.

          15. If the License Agreement were in effect then I believe there would be the case for the delivery of the trade secrets, ideas, and concepts.

            We’ll see what IH claims and the court decides.

          16. Is there any evidence that there was a “split” brewing before Christmas? A clear “no” would support your suggestion.
            I had struggled to see how E-Catx fitted into the picture regarding IP, lincensing, production etc. in that we didn’t seem to be getting a clear picture. It’s still not clear.

          17. If IH honored the agreement and paid up, then they would have rights to the quark technology under the agreement when the R&D was completed. If they withhold the payment at this time. I would think that would qualify as a breach and possibly have no rights to that technology when complete.

          18. Maybe IH will pay up if Rossi gives them a working E-Cat as per the agreement. If they did not receive a working E-Cat at IH’s premises, they can use the $89 mm as the carrot for Rossi to hold up his end of the bargain.

          19. Perhaps they withheld the 89, expecting AR to negotiate. Perhaps he will but I think he wants out any way.

          20. Yes, I agree with this. While the license agreement clearly covers improvements (i.e., e-Cat X), at what point does the inventor say, okay, it works by golly, well enough to where I can explain the knowledge to my licensee. That could come sooner, but most likely later in the process. And after Mr. Rossi noticed his tech being copied by IH’s portfolio companies, he probably opted for better safe than sorry, and let’s hold off on explaining how this whole e-Cat X thing works to IH until I have the final payment in-hand.

  45. Here is some wisdom from Bob Higgins that is good to know when trying to understand the IH/Rossi relationship as follows:
    ————————————————-

    First let me explain “specious” … A statement that is “specious” sounds on the surface like it is true, but when closely examined it turns out to be false.

    Rossi is claiming that IH is “filing patents in his name”, and while that may be true, these patents cannot be filed in the US Patent office without the inventor signing the application. This means that Rossi knew about the application when it was created and he agreed to file that patent the way it was written, or he would not have signed the application.

    Rossi is also claiming that IH is claiming ownership of the patent that was filed. If IH is not an inventor, then “ownership” comes as a formal assignment of the patent by Rossi (inventor) to IH (assignee). Normally someone who has paid for the research, or by contract has rights to inventions, will expect to receive assignment. However, Rossi would have had to sign an assignment agreement for the patent to be assigned to IH. AND, such and assignment must be signed for every patent that is going to be assigned. While IH may have a contract term with Rossi that says that Rossi must assign these patents, Rossi must still sign papers for each patent to enable the assignment to IH.

    It is not possible for IH to file a patent application or an assignment without Rossi agreeing and signing the papers.

    So, for Rossi to come out now and say that IH is filing these patents and claiming ownership, is a ploy to induce sympathy from those that read his statements. The truth is that Rossi signed the papers to allow IH to file each of the patents they have filed. If the patent is assigned to IH, then Rossi signed documents to assign it to IH. IH did not “steal” ownership of anything from Rossi, Rossi voluntarily signed papers for assignment of the patents in exchange for something (contracts require something of value to have been given and received to be valid).

    Lastly, it is the person(s) named as inventor(s) that is claiming that the technology in the patent works. That means that Rossi, by signing the patent application, was claiming that the technology worked as it was disclosed. There is no implied claim by the assignee of the patent (IH) to the US Patent office that the technology worked. However, by spending the money to pursue the patent, there is some evidence that IH believed the patent to be valuable.

    1. As others have pointed out, the US patent law changed in 2012 to make it easier to file without an inventor signing. To wit: “An entity can file an application on behalf of an inventor who assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention rights to the entity (or if the entity otherwise has financial interest in the invention), without seeking the inventor’s execution of the application.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act

      But Rossi’s contract gave IH the right to do this, as far as it appears.

      Also IH’s Dameron (on the patent IH filed) is also listed as inventor, which means they fall into the category of standing behind the technology as working.

      Still, a good view to consider.

      1. Well that change is crucial since, he makes a very serious allegation against Rossi. So Rossi may not know about it like he says. And we are back to IH contradicting themselves.

        1. Yes, they could indeed legally file the patent without Rossi signing it (or even knowing about it), and Bob is just not up to date on that fact. The new US patent laws have allowed a lot of… Well, there are a lot of people who view the new laws as letting corporations step all over small time inventors, for reasons like these.

          Still, Rossi’s contract does seem to allow IH to file without him signing (or knowing). So, he may lose this point of contention. Depends on how the court views the new patent laws and those clauses in the contract. Rossi may not have realized the intersection of the new patent laws with his contract, and just what it all could lead to.

          1. When did Rossi sign the contract. Was the new patent law in effect at the time that Rossi signed the contract. If Rossi’s contract preceded the new law, what version of the law applies.

          2. Logically, it would seem to me that it would have to be the old law. At least I think that’s the most probable answer given the essentially conservative nature of law – not that I have any actual knowledge, just an informed guess to a good question.

          3. Very, Very good questions, Axil. Rossi had to have signed the contract before the 24 hour test IH had carried out with Penon, which was in May of 2013. But, some provisions of the new law didn’t go into effect till 2013, and I’m not sure if this filing provision was one of those or one of the 2012 ones. And in the case of your last question, I have no idea, but that is exactly the sort of decisive ruling that would have to be battled out in court.

            I have a feeling that the contract was after the new law though.

          4. Note, it was possible to file a patent application without signature from an inventor even before the recent AIA changes to patent law in the U.S. It was a bit harder to do, but possible. As much respect as I have for Mr. Higgin’s MFMP efforts, he is no expert in these matters.

          5. well I think what we want to know is if Rossi had to sign the patent. So the patent date is what at least I am concerned with. It seems the patent followed the law change so Rossi didn’t have to sign it. So it is possible Rossi didn’t know. I think

          6. Yes indeed, but I think he at least knew about the international one based on past things he said. Or maybe not, I dunno. But yes, it is entirely possible he didn’t know nor sign the 2014 patent.

          7. I think Axil is asking if the new patent laws has a grandfather clause embedded for preceding contracts agreements. Do you know this?

    2. Mr Higgins make himself sound like an expert. And if he is, I wouldn’t call it wisdom Axil. I would call it specious!

        1. Yeh I think we all are, very confusing times. After so long waiting and then this. Very frustrating for all the followers of LENR. Just when you think it’s all over….

          1. Yes, and there seem to be so many ‘axes to grind’ all of a sudden…….as Sifferkoll has pointed out, seems very APCO like

    3. A load of bull!!!!

      A Canadian company filed patents after working on a suggestion of mine and included me as inventor (work having been done without our knowledge). My boss was furious and would not let me sign. They did eventually get the patent after about 5 years due to me not signing. It is a lot easier now as the law changed in 2012.

      As for IH and Rossi; IH is the applicant (the one who pays), Rossi the inventor and, as for the first patent between them, the assignee is Leonardo.

      This is the initial test before any licence was granted so how canIH have this assigned to them???

    4. You left out a key word-
      legally
      “It is not possible for IH to LEGALLY file a patent application or an assignment without Rossi agreeing and signing the papers.”
      There is currently an $89M incentive to file a patent that can effectively tie up Rossi in a court battle, just icing on the billions they stand to gain with marketing LENR- but it’s immediate, even if they go to settlement in 2, 3, 5, or 10 years- at which point they’ll just take a page from Union Carbide after Bhopal and pay pennies on the dollar. Excellent business strategy. Assuming honesty, ethical behavior, or even following the letter of the law by very monied people or companies is foolish to the greatest degree. When chicanery is profitable, as it nearly always is, and dishonest dealings with MUCH smaller fish produces nearly no negative consequences, market forces will out…

  46. The one thing that is sure right now is that Rossi’s actions gave a lot of attention to LERN, good and bad. But it’s in the open again, for that only he already needs a big award!!

  47. Rossi watched the plant 16+ hours per day. And I think I read he slept in a nearby hotel instead of his condo at Miami Beach (20-30 minute drive). Why? Everything could be recorded or transmitted. Sure there’s a huge reward riding on the test. But you only babysit something with that sort of intensity if you have some pretty severe trust issues.

    Why did he need to be physically present? Did he not trust the process? Did he not trust the instruments? Did he not trust the customer? Did he not trust the partner? There is also the possibility that he did indeed fail to disclose some magic signal or ingredient necessary to make the device perform at its full potential. “And they do this now, with the litigation in full course, wherein they say that they say that they do not pay because I did not teach to them to make the plant hey have just patented.” Did he need to be on-site to dial in some secret sauce?

    1. Well think about it Mike. You know you have a tech that will change the world. Would you be paranoid? Not only that. After 1 year IH did not do anything to find a test sight. Do you think that Rossi was worried at that point?

      1. Also, he proclaimed: “… I will NEVER propose to anybody, but me, to make the part of a Guinea pig. I never made boxing with the face of the others.”.

        The world remembers the cause of Madam Curie’s death from ‘aplastic anemia’ brought on by exposure to radiation while carrying test tubes of radium.

        Even with instruments to detect radiation, what better way to demonstrate to this world the E-Cat’s safety than to be exposed 16 hours a day in close proximity and confidence of a nuclear device for a year followed with a clean bill of health by doctors?

    2. Probably some kind of authisme and a lot a real lot of endurance. Unerstand what he is dealing with, it’s huge. Better not think of the out world, be save in your device and keep your mind free.

    3. But you only babysit something with that sort of intensity when you’re struggling with stability and unknown issues that may suddenly arise. No test of this duration and magnitude has been done before.

      Keep in mind, if things go awry the reactors can melt down. Game over…

    4. Only 89 million involved, with IH contacting and investing in his competitors giving them his IP, trying to patent his IP, hiring his people away from him, building a research lab. It is no wonder Rossi was losing weight!

  48. Bob Higgins said this. “is a ploy to induce sympathy from those that read his statements”. What does that piss me off so much?

  49. Bob Higgins said this. “First let me explain “specious” … A statement that is “specious”
    sounds on the surface like it is true, but when closely examined it
    turns out to be false”. Is that not an irony to end all ironies?

  50. They are simply not satisfied having a limited license, they want the whole world. Not having the whole world means they lose control. It is called greed and power. Rossi out smarted them.

  51. Rossi said on the JoNP that he “never signed that patent application with TBarker as the coinventor.”

    Which patent was that, again?

      1. There’s this
        http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=20160051957

        USpto.Gov
        It shows, Publication 20160051957
        Execution Date …….Owner (Assignee)
        Mar 8, 2016 ……….. LEONARDO CORPORATION

        Click on date gives
        assignee LEONARDO CORPORATION
        assignor ROSSI, ANDREA

        Wouldn’t it be interesting if this was all a misunderstanding brought about by Lawyer snafu’s

        Maybe they need to get together with the layers in 1 room and figure this out.

        1. This is interesting. That’s the “Energy-Producing Reaction Devices, Systems and Related Method” patent that the other patent sites show is filed by IH. Then again, this doesn’t show the actual patent, though it does have the “Inventors: Andrea Rossi, Thomas Barker Dameron” bit.

        2. He never signed the oath/declaration. I checked. What you see here is Mr. Rossi’s lawyers trying to damage control by submitting an assignment document to the assignment division of the USPTO, assigning Mr. Rossi’s rights, whatever they may be in the invention, to Leonardo. You can see this assignment was recorded very recently (March 10, 2016). Smart move. Doesn’t mean he consented to the original filing.

          1. Of course Ged, anytime for you. 😉

            Bear in mind that IH could also claim an ownership interest in the patent, assuming that their co-inventor was legitimately a co-inventor.

    1. I agree but I felt uneasy when he said he will have funds to start mass production and then rely on income from the sales. Meaning he might have to limit his mass production. That’s his key strategy out the window — mass produce and kill the competion. Knowing that, his competition with the greater resources could turn the tables on him by doing likewise (assuming of course they do have more finances and the technology).
      Edit: I think he’lll be ok though, at least on that perspective.

  52. It was filed by IH’s attorney, who looking at the file history, did not file an application data sheet (which usually sets forth the applicant). Instead, a provisional cover sheet was used, which does not have a space to enter the applicant information. In this scenario, the USPTO simply lists the listed inventor(s) as the applicant.

  53. My guess would be that he NEEDED to use an associate to make sure he was able to get the results he needed. He probably figured no one would make the connection as he did not foresee the drama circus that would become of this as it has already. Rossi may be intelligent and scientific, but he has made many unintelligent and unscientific bad decisions over the years, this would definitely not be the first.

  54. Incorrect. What Mr. Rossi provided is exactly what is accessible from the USPTO. Pull it up and compare. They are exactly the same. Remember, this is a provisional patent application.

  55. “The filing receipt identifies Andrea Rossi as the applicant.”

    That is because the filing attorney used a provisional cover sheet instead of an application data sheet. The provisional cover sheet doesn’t have a field for entering applicant information. Since the typical application data sheet wasn’t used, the USPTO takes the named inventor(s) as the applicant, which appears on the filing receipt.

    “Also, notice that the patent application retrieved through the USPTO
    website has the application split into multiple PDF documents, all with
    the provisional patent # stamped in top left corner.”

    This is incorrect. Pull it off of public PAIR and look for yourself. They are exactly the same.

  56. If this scenario is the “correct” one (and I admit, it seems plausible), then they should not have hid their statement behind PR jargon. It has hurt the LENR community.

  57. The circle could be the root of the trick ( if that is what it is). Start an application in the US, with IH as assigned, using the IH patent attorney. Then PCT to WIPO using previous attorney, then update US based on WIPO, update WIPO based on US…. Nobody is the wiser if Lepnardo or Rossi aren’t getting the paperwork. I saw only the IH attorney email on the document at WIPO.

  58. One thing that could help Rossi now, would be to take a step back, provide 2-3 universities the opportunity to make a one month independent test-run on the same type of ECats as used in the one year test and by doing that get a bullet proof report to support his claims. He should be able to do so now with his invention covered by the already filled patents and he could do so on the standard ECat technology, now obsolete due to the ECat-X. From my perspective he would have nothing to loose? This would boost his credibility in the s***storm waiting for him from IH.

    1. I’m not sure it would help. And I say this after having pondered this question and possibility for some time. In 2011, even 2012, I would have said yes, absolutely. And Mr. Rossi did try to do this on multiple occasions in Italy and Sweden. What came out of it? IH. That’s what. And look where we are now. I think Mr. Rossi needs to get working products into the marketplace, period. He knows that well. We should all support him in any way we can.

      1. Of course get them into the market place. Except how do you get it certified without a full bullet proof test report from in a university?

        1. You get an industrial certification first (check mark), then you let it be used by industry for a period of time (TODO), then you go back to the certification agency and say: look at what wonderful and safe results we have, not a single accident in the industry. Then, you give them the domestic version of the device for testing and certification by the certifying agency. Universities are not needed, nor an accepted theory. Superconductors are used today and little is known about how they work.

      2. I agree that it is a step back, but if Rossi is right about the intentions of IH of stealing his technology, he is in the eyes of the world a convicted fraudster claiming to have the impossible invention while the respectful and well connected IH claims to have tested his technology and state that it doesn’t work at all. He will have no chance in the media on his own or with test results from an individual that can be looked at as his friend. I don’t know how deep his pockets are or if he can bring a product to the market on his own, but IH could be in position to ruin him if he does not get support from trusted sites. However with solid report from replication of multiple universities and/or a certification body like UL or TUV he might be able to turn the public opinion in his favor.

        1. A kill campaign was lunched against defkalion that was effective. Facts don’t matter; it is politics and perception that rules.

          1. I followed Defkalion and didn’t notice any campaign. I thought they were only bragging about having stolen Rossi’s secret.

          2. Using inventors ideas who were contracted to a company is standard practice in American patent law.

          3. Rossi was developing product at defkalion until Rossi walked out. This identical situation is what has happened here with I.H.

          4. Yes but did Defkalion file U.S. patents using Rossi’s name? They were a Greek-Canadian company.

          5. There would need to be an express assignment clause in the agreement. There isn’t (at least in the license agreement). We don’t know what is in the “Chief Scientist” agreement because we don’t have access to it, even though it is referenced in the license agreement. I highly doubt Mr. Rossi would have agreed to assign his rights in inventions to IH in the Chief Scientist agreement–but that part is only my conjecture.

          6. Rossi seems to feel if he invents in his own lab, then he owns the IP. Does that mean that if he invents at the I.H. lab, then they own a part of the IP? Rossi was using I,H, employees to build his prototypes in Rossi’s lab…how does that fit in.

      3. At some point, you just have to demonstrate the technology. There is too much “Rossi says” here. I understand the secrecy and the patents and all of the legal issues, but there is just a certain time when you have to show your cards. Rossi could do demonstrations for multiple media outlets or universities and at least show them what he has here in the US. He did some in Italy a while back, but if he has what he says he has he needs to open the kimono and show what he has to the world, otherwise people just aren’t going to believe him. People here will believe him, but that’s as far as it’ll ever go. And that’s not enough.

        1. Reasonable minds can differ here, but I honestly don’t think it will help. There are maybe a few hundred thousand people in the world who believe that Mr. Rossi might have something (my estimate corresponds roughly to what we know about how many “pre-order” emails have been received through the e-cat.com website). While in a world of 7 billion, it is not too many. But there are plenty within those hundreds of thousands who will be willing to buy a product, test it, and post their findings. That’s all it would take.

  59. Did you have the widespread use, and results therefrom, of the Internet incorporated into your science fiction story about cold fusion? The thought of taxing energy production, (do not think you can encrypt energy) from millions of black boxes making heat or other things would make a good story.

  60. These are the energy innovations that mainstream media focus on and herald as the next greatest thing since sliced bread. And I’m not joking… I saw a whole episode on it. Sigh.

  61. Latest from AR when I asked him about the patents situation:

    “I am 100% sure that I never signed the patent application with T. Barker as the co-inventor and any patent made by IH wherein the assignee is not exclusively Leonardo Corporation !!!”

    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

    1. Independent of the question if he had to sign the application or not it is hard to imagine that he became aware of it only now. It was published on Nov 12th, 2015 and has been discussed in every LENR-related place in the web. Rossi has certainly more important things to do than following discussions in blogs, but shouldn’t at least some people around him have noticed it?

    2. It sounds to me like Rossi does not understand that IH does not need his approval or even knowledge to patent his ideas or improvements to his ideas. He needs to get some insights from a good patent attorney about the advantages that companies now have been given with regards to inventors.,

      1. I think you are right that Mr. Rossi may not have appreciated that clause of his contract well, but I think he probably does now given the extensive commentary here and elsewhere.

        Just to be clear, IH has no rights to patent Mr. Rossi’s ideas. They only have the right to patent their own ideas. IH knew this, and so brought in the co-inventor to make an improvement. Assuming this was a legitimate co-inventor, then the patent would be jointly owned by Mr. Rossi and the co-inventor initially, subject to any obligations to assign the patent. Mr. Rossi’s lawyers later recorded an assignment to Leonardo of Mr. Rossi’s interest in the patent application as damage control, even though Mr. Rossi never consented to the original filing. The co-inventor presumably has an obligation to assign his interest to IH. So end result? Any patent that results from this application will be jointly owned by Leonardo and IH. Either entity will be able to exploit the patent. But both entities would have to act harmoneously if they ever wanted to assert the patent against a 3rd party.

        Also, bear in mind, that even if this patent is granted, and IH is deemed to be a legitimate co-owner of the granted patent, Leonardo has another different granted patent that could be used as a “blocking” patent to prevent IH from practicing the “improved” version.

        1. That is true, but IH would have to prove that their person made “inventive steps” which were crucial for the workings of this invention otherwise it would just be a “subset” of a previous invention which would take priority. Minor tweaks to get around an existing patent would not be enough.

  62. I know that this kind of thing could take years, but I also believe that Rossi might be able to bring a product to market while the courts are playing whine-and-go-seek with IH. Here’s to hoping there’s some mysterious shadow hand in the background handing out funds for a venture like that. If Rossi says this won’t hold up QuarkX production, it has to be coming from somewhere. Not to, you know, stir the conspiracy pot any more than it’s been stirred…

    1. When trillions of dollars are involved (both in potential losses and potential gains), ‘conspiracies’, i.e., two or more people making secret arrangements intended for their mutual benefit, are not only possible, they are absolutely inevitable. The real problem comes when the protection of secrecy tempts the parties to overstep, first the bounds of morality, then of the law, and so drifting into outright hidden crime.

  63. A very creative and insightful idea. If I were the customer, I would certainly want to become his partner. And, unlike I.H. (assuming that what I have seen is what is), I would give him lots of freedom and extremely generous terms.

  64. No worries. We’re all earnestly trying to sleuth around to try and get a better idea what is actually happening. Like I mentioned in the comment section over on NextBigFuture, it is like walking through a crazy house with the funny mirrors, and you see things like short plump images of yourself, or tall skinny images of others. That is the situation with LENR. Big interests are on the line and the optics get shifted all about. Tough to discern sometimes fact from fiction. And the stakes are very high.

    As for listing only Andrea on that application, remember that it is merely a provisional application, from which priority is claimed by the later full patent application. The later application lists the other co-inventor from IH. The later application is “taking advantage” so to speak of the earlier-filed provisional patent application. Being versed in these matters, I can completely understand why Mr. Rossi is upset.

  65. I.H. has done nothing wrong. I.H. has simply set up a business and an R&D plan that the new changes in the patent laws have made possible.

    It goes like this. Acquire as many patents and ideas as possible, mix, match, and blend them together, put them in an innovation blender, and produce a hybrid technology that is better than the sum of all your patent acquisitions from your stable of inventors.

    Rossi being from the old country may not like this new way of doing business in America, but the companies in the U.S. have paid the politicians handsomely for these changes in the IP handling laws and now they want to use the laws to their full potential.

    When you make your living as a snake charmer, you must recognize that there is a possibility of being struck.

    1. Bear in mind that it was possible to file a patent application without an inventor signature even before the recent AIA changes to the law. It was a little bit harder, but still possible.

      The significance of IH’s pursuing patent filings on e-Cat technology goes to the credibility of their statement saying they have never substantiated Mr. Rossi’s claims. Because if that statement is true, then their filing of e-Cat technology-based patent applications with the USPTO and the International Bureau , with knowledge that the tech did not work, would be something in my book as “wrong.” And with possible consequences.

      1. Does the phrase “does not work” mean that it is not ready for commercial use or that it cannot produce gainful energy production?

        Next, just like Rossi can use his old ideas to improve his product, I.H. can use Rossi’s ideas to improve their products including the use of lithium in the Brillouin system.

        But does that mean that Rossi co-owns the new Brillouin IP?

        1. Applicants and their patent attorneys must be candid with the patent office. And if they aren’t, there are consequences. If you have never been able to substantiate the claims, and publicly state as much, and yet you submitted patent applications on those claims, that is a problem. That is not being candid before the USPTO.

          As to your second hypothetical, any person who contributed to the conception of the invention must be named as an inventor. If Mr. Rossi contributed nothing to Brillouin’s invention, then he must not be listed as an inventor, and would have no ownership interest in it. But if Brillouin derived information through IH from Mr. Rossi’s invention, then there would be a problem (for IH and Brillouin).

    2. Just a description from wikipedia, don’t know if it’s correct:

      “Filing by other than inventor: An entity can file an
      application on behalf of an inventor who assigned or is under an
      obligation to assign the invention rights to the entity (or if the
      entity otherwise has financial interest in the invention), without
      seeking the inventor’s execution of the application. However, any patent
      that issues belongs to the inventor, absent a written assignment from
      the inventor or inventor’s estate to the entity
      .” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act )

      1. This information is correct. And since Mr. Rossi did not have an obligation to assign his rights in any invention to IH, any patent that results will be co-owned (assuming IH’s co-inventor was legitimately an inventor).

      2. Correct; but the applicant may get the patent if they can show that they did the work and produced inventive steps (ie, when there is more than one “inventor”). I’ve been though patent court cases myself and have quite a knowledge of the old law, though it did change in 2012 in the US.

    3. I believe it was in the late 50’s that a man developed the quick release rachet. Push the button and the socket falls of the rachet.

      Craftsmen bought the patent. They told the guy they really had no plans to market this technology and he recieved a mere $5000. Within a very short time, Craftsmen incorporated this technology into all their rachets. They totally clobbered their competition becoming number 1 in the market.

      Years latter, the guy field a lawsuit against Craftsmen. They used deceit with the intent to defraud him his just dues. The court awarded him $40,000,000.

      As more info comes out, it’s beginning to look like it is less about whether Rossi’s E-cat measures up and what Industrial heats intentions are. And we know Darden can be deceitful when he made the statement it wasn’t about the money. It’s always about the money.

      Seriously, A COP>50. Regardless your opinion about Penon’s abilities, He couldn’t be that far off. That’s 5000%. Maybe some may think Rossi fudged the numbers a little. Do you really think he would fudge a COP>50.

  66. When Tom Darden/Industrial heat provided funding for other LENR entities, Most had no issues. Compitition is good. He was merely helping the cause. But what does it mean when they start buying the IP of those entities.

    Rossi exposed another Industrial heat Front company (IPH INTERNATIONAL B.V., a Netherlands company) in his court claim in . I begin to wonder how many of these front companies Darden utilizes.
    ——————————————————————————-
    On MFMP
    Industrial Heat acquires George Miley’s patent portfolio

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/a.587293604634676.1073741827.466698113360893/1137662532931111/?type=3&comment_id=1138220836208614&reply_comment_id=1138226286208069&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R5%22%7D
    ——————————————————————————-
    AlainCo posted on lenr-forum

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/117-Miley-s-patents-and-a-heating-coil-patent-assigned-to-Industrial-Heat-Holding/?s=e686e5ab95d4bd58587930a244efdfc86225dc2e

    Miley’s patents and a heating coil patent assigned to IHL Holdings Limited. Is It Industrial Heat or Not?

    http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/assignment?id=37840-89&q=8526560

    IHL HOLDINGS LIMITED
    44 ESPLANADE ST. HEILER
    JERSEY, UNITED KINGDOM JE4 9WG

    REPEAT: Is It Industrial Heat or Not?

    http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?adv=patAssigneeName%3AIHL%20HOLDINGS%20LIMITED&q=

    That’s a Resounding YES.
    INDUSTRIAL HEAT LLC
    P.O. BOX 1171
    CARY, NC 27512
    ——————————————————————————-
    Have they done the same with Brillouin Energy IP???

    What are they up to. Do they intend to withhold these patents from being utilized or are the trying to corner the market. Rossi said the brake is removed. I read it IH was holding back or delaying LENR. Darden has said he just wants this technology brought to market. It has nothing to do with the money.

    I’m Sorry, But, That little bit of native american running in my veins recalls the phrase, Him speak with forked tongue.
    At the very least, IH is not being up front on what they are doing. I wonder how many more of these Front companies there are.

    1. Actually, both suggested options are possible; IH could be seeking new energy technologies and ensuring that all relevant patents are under their control, with the intention of suppressing development for a time (Gates’ 15 years?) while they and any ‘associates’ divest in fossil and nuclear. They would then make an unimaginable killing at the chosen time by licensing the technology to their friends.

      1. Mad sunday thoughts (while slaving over a hot reactor.

        Let us imagine that IH are fronting a conspiracy to surpress – or at least delay the introduction of LENR. For a mere 50 million or so of other people’s money they delayed Rossi for 2 years, then when he broke that deadlock came up with another year of testing. Meanwhile they recruit as much LENR talent as they can and set up a brand new lab (which means more disruption, delay and more control), and set Brillouin off on a new track which may or may not work but muddies the water for Rossi- the No.1 threat.. And now they are ensuring everything Rossi-like gets pissed on and then tied up in a new legal battle which causes more delays -maybe..

        All the while while IH look like saints and supporters of LENR research. Briliant!

        I think personally that this is more cock-up (or greed) than conspiracy – and above is just a crazy idea – but at the same time you can see how well these years of delay msuit some with vested interests like (for example) the Koch brothers based 10 miles from Rayleigh NC, who have a lot of stranded assets to dispose of.

        About the Kochs…From the New Yorker.

        The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

        From Koch Watch website.

        Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

        1. The Kochs illustrate only too well the kind of people involved in corporate life. I think I’ll go with your para 2 in its entirety – the Dardens of this world aren’t billionaires because they cock things up.

          The only real question in my mind is whether Darden’s actions were a result of his own planning, or whether some outside party (like the Kochs, or of similar morality and power) leant on him at some point, as suggested on the Sifferkoll blog.

          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/

          Having said that though, I’m not fully persuaded that Rossi’s behaviour has been as white as driven snow, but I suppose that if you’re going to run with dogs you need to act like a wolf.

        2. I usually do not believe in conspiracy theories, but in this case, because the potential financial incentive is so high and because billionaires tend to like money, one shouldn’t discount such theory offhand. I consider the scenario rather unlikely, but not impossible.

          What is a more likely scenario, then? Maybe Darden thought he bought “all” of the E-cat invention, but got only a recipe for a low-COP device whose commercial value is low, especially against looming competition from Leonardo Corp. That Darden also buys other LENR patents is a logical move, if he knows (by Rossi’s demonstration) that LENR+ exists and works. And why Rossi also has bad feelings, that we already know, I won’t repeat it here.

          1. Why Rossi is not voiced two main figures , the total produced by thermal energy and electricity consumed throughout the test?

          2. Russia’s response was , after the publication of the report .

            — реклама ———————————————————– Управление сайтом на популярных CMS это так просто!
            Хостинг http://FREEhost.UA делает всю черновую работу за Вас.

        3. The delay premise might not be such a crazy theory. However, you would expect to see some serious asset selling/revaluing going on whilst the delay was impacting LENR introduction. Personally I haven’t seen much evidence of this with one notable exception. Vattenfall. Vattenfall have pretty much reversed out of every single renewable energy project they signed up to in the past 5 years and in the summer of 2013 wrote down the value of their assets by $4.3 billion. Of couse they say that this is due to an ailing energy market but you have to wonder whether the Elforsk (their R&D wing) whisper in the corporate ear was enough to trigger such a major financial restructuring. One thing is for sure. Mr Elforsk would have to be over 95% certain that LENR is both real and imminent to make this sort of excercise worth while. On the other hand. When one is faced with such large dents in ones’ balance sheet, why not just buy up Rossi, IH, Brilliouin and everyone else. As usual with LENR, nothing adds up in any rational way.

          1. Well, apart from the Rockefellers getting out of oil and the Saudis selling down their stake in Aramco and BP writing down all their assets and the French/Chinese consortium dithering over whether or not to build a very pricey Nuke in the UK…I can’t think of anyone trying to get out either.

          2. I tried to stay away from oil as I’m not convinced that the oil price has anything to do with LENR and if a cast iron price guarantee of 3 times market value isn’t enough for edf then nothing is.

        4. When an annual 7 trillion$ and growing industry, Anything is possible..

          The Kochs are self admitted longtime libertarians and old time democrat philosophy from pre 60’s. They have no like of either political party today.

    2. That IH had a Dutch firm was already know, at least be me. Tracked them down to a building near schiphol a few years ago. But it is just firm on paper, Iike a lot of company’s do. Probably for avoiding taxes or some other legal issue. No idea of it helps Rossi or IH in any way regarding the lawsuit.

      1. The Dutch courts are known for being very protective of patents -probably the most pro-active in Europe. I also believe that they are still running some pretty good R&D tax-relief schemes. Does that help?

      1. The link to IPH International was listed in Rossi, Plaintiffs v, defendant civil complaints and demand for jury trial Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 1.

        This was a pdf file from KS new energy times

  67. This starts to become more and more interesting every minute. I like
    this community powered help to truth to come out, since Rossi seems to have challenging
    powers against him if he is considered the truth. We could open up at least own permanent
    threads for interest groups to team up digging more evidence. Here is my
    proposal:
    1) This patent play team. No smoke without fire. What is
    the point IH filing all these patents and partnering with so many
    parties if they would not believe in LENR
    2) Troll tracker team. And I don’t want ato see any witch hunting, but as
    Sifferkoll warns in his latest blog post, there are trolls trying to
    downplay Rossis credibility and importance of LENR in general. It would
    be nice to see unofficial tips who MIGHT be paid trollsters
    (since we cannot be sure). Later it would help everyone to be ready to
    reply on their trolling if things seems to go unfairly against facts.
    3) General facts searching and Information link thread, which is dedicated to posting links to other forums worth checking by readers. These could also include the news about big players moves on market (funds, trading of their assets etc).
    4)
    Then of course picks of new topics by Frank should continue in parallel
    as before. Also new permanent threads added as seen needed.

    You all probably come up with better list, but just wanted to start discussion if this is worth it.

    I would guess that in short term any thread becomes more or less unreadable because of number of comments seems to intensify. In this permanent threads we could have some organisation of it. We could also ping Frank to pick up some findings in thread that we consider worth to be added in Franks part as #update in top of the page. Also renewing thread every now and then would be needed. Also @Matts could keep journal for his next book how history was made (F9).
    @Frank Acland:disqus would you see e-catworld dedicating such permanent threads? This would be win for all in my opinion, since it would have chance make e-catworld ‘the source’ of reliable and latest information in more accessible way. Now all threads seems to go endless speculation without too much narrowing.

    1. Without more data, speculation is all we can do at this point. IMO it’s been productive, in that various contributors have tracked down more information, suggested realistic scenarios, and offered much expert opinion.

      When more ‘data points’ emerge, certain speculations can be discarded, but others will be reinforced and carried forward, supported by the wealth of informed opinion available. A consensus will emerge in time, but of course may still be inaccurate.

      Besides, it can be quite fun, especially for old farts like myself whose brains would otherwise atrophy…

      1. Morning Peter, “fun” if one is able to disregard the millions of people dying and suffering in this World, that Cold Fusion could rectify very quickly.

        1. Correct. Not written as a “final truth” but to indicate what to look for. I actually starting to believe in a scenario where existing statements and facts fits where everyone (Rossi & IH, not the commentators) at least is relatively honest; only bending truth to their advantage within legal limits… It can be done almost without contradictions.

  68. After five years of Mr. Rossi there is not a person on this or any site that can confirm an economical production of Cold Fusion is possible.
    So far we have learnt, never try to do business in a corrupt society such as America unless you are at least as corrupt as the worst of them.
    That Rossi seems to be a man obsessed with riches and profit before any altruistic concern for the World.
    That there is a possible report, that is either genuine or a fraud showing a COP of 50 that almost nobody on page seems to consider more important than the crazy pointless and corrupt legal comedy being played out in a so called advanced country.
    It is like witnessing the most obscure and ridiculous fiction such as, The Hunting of the Snark.
    Thank god I am getting old and will not have to endure this insanity for to much longer, I hope.

  69. My final word on this one.

    Neither this nor the previous application from IH are genuine patents; they are both test reports on the Lugano and 24h tests. There is no invention in either of them as far as I can see- they are simply the AR patent in use.

    1. This likely means that me356/MFMP are closing in on a bulletproof replication recipe that they can disseminate and that LENR+ high COP is possible — and therefore one less leg to stand on for the anti-Rossi movement. If me356 can be believed, he is rapidly converging on the reactor parameters that lead to high, easily validated COP.

      It means that regardless of Rossi’s fate, the new fire is about to take hold**.

      (** standard caveats about everybody involved being dishonest, corrupt, evil master magicians who have nothing better to do but fool people on the Internet)

  70. Stefenski, yes we are strong believers in reincarnation based on the scientific Evidence.
    My next visit I will be far more careful to choose an enviroment that is far more advanced than this primitive chaos.
    I must have for some reason needed to come to this place to learn something.

    1. To sit back and watch people suffer in many cases saves your own suffering, but not your conscience. With all of the hogwash around, it makes for an unpleasant time. I guess I can understand sometimes why the aliens wouldn’t want to engage with us in a more open manner. It’s a pain in the rear with some people and their control mechanisms. Still, they could do a lot better in giving their technology away than to our alphabet agents and militaries…

  71. Hello again.

    A crazy idea. What if Rossi gave IH the design of the reactor for the 1MW plant and a formula for the fuel wich allows a COP of around 6.

    The agreement as far as I can understand it is clear. IH would have all improvements in the Reactor. But if Rossi finds new formula for the fuel, it wont be mandatory for him to reveal the new formula.

    So IH would be stick with new reactor designs wich they are unable to use at theirs full potential.

    That may be what IH means when they say they are unable to “substantiate” as they see themselves unable to compete against Leonardo corp if they are only able to give to their customers a COP of 6 while others give them a COP of around 50

    1. Yup.

      There are two main competing theories of what we are seeing happen.

      1 – Rossi, et. al. are scam artists and have been exposed by Industrial Heat. All the things that Rossi have said have led many of us to believe in things that aren’t really the case. We’ve been manipulated.

      2 – We’re seeing a war over money and intellectual property over a technology that will likely generate trillions of dollars. This may just be the first skirmish… an attempt by Industrial Heat to get more of what’s in Rossi’s head before they fork over $89 M.

      I personally believe number 2, but we won’t know whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box.

      1. Another possibility: Both sides have no malicious intentions, they only base their convictions on different information and/or conclusions (parts of which must be wrong).

          1. I disagree that IH should provide more information to the public. IH is doing what a good lawyer would tell a client….don’t release any info regarding an upcoming lawsuit that is not necessary. Rossi is not making a very smart move by talking so much about details before the lawsuit that HE initiated. Whether you are in the right or wrong…it is best to leave court cases to the courts of law rather than court of the public because of the media circus it causes. This is one of those situations where all press is not always good press. If Rossi is valid in his suit…it will come out in court…I do not have much faith in him anymore personally.

        1. Possible. Also possible is that this is theater, orchestrated by both parties in order to get a legal judgment that LENR is real, E-Cats work and delineate who owns what.

          I fear both innocent mistake and kabuki theater are too optimistic an assessment on what’s happening though.

      2. It should be obvious that the cat is neither alive nor dead but has left the box and is chasing the mouse. In reality I think there is a good chance both Rossi and IH are telling the truth and both are in breach of the agreement, Rossi for not share all the tech with IH and IH for not paying Rossi.

        I look at the agreement between Rossi and IH and think what a bad deal for Rossi. He should be getting a lot more than just $100M. Athletes renegotiate contacts all the time why not inventors. The biggest shame would be if this is not worked out and somehow this tech is lost. I think the IH/Rossi collaboration has been a good thing for all involved. Maybe ECW can act as forum for discussion as to what would be a fair agreement for both parties and what would be the best outcome for all parties concerned and the planet.

        1. Rossi can simply assist IH to get their reactor working to the degree that it substantiates his own results. That will then remove the justification for IH not coughing up wit the next 89 million.
          That should be a small job for someone who can get a hundred of them to operate for a year with a COP sometimes in excess of 50.
          It’s strange that he had 12 months to achieve this but didn’t do it.
          I’m assuming he was asked by IH to assist them when they couldn’t get the desired results, but maybe they didn’t ask.

          1. I know Rossi is pretty secretive and very protective of his IP and was in charge of the 1 year long test past that it is hard to tell from the sidelines what help was asked for and what help was given. Part of the agreement was that Rossi should give all the help IH needed to make the thing work. When IH says Rossi broke the agreement, the only way I can think of for that to happen is for Rossi not to give IH all the information it needs.

          2. That’s also possible of course, but then unlikely since Mr Rossi would have to realise that if IH did not get their reactor to work, they would hardly be likely to cough up another 89 million dollars for something which they could not prove works.
            I suppose the question then would be, if Mr Rossi did not provide assistance to IH when required, how likely is it that he would have thought this through to its logical conclusion, which is IH leaving the partnership?
            For me, the enticement of an almost immediate 89 million would have been a strong incentive to offer all the help needed to make it work to their satisfaction. Unless of course, others are lined up at the door prepared to pay even more.

      3. It’s worth trillions only if it works.
        IH originally believed it worked and were happy to sign up to the tune of a hundred million dollars. That’s a lot of money to spend on a promise.
        What needs to be provably answered is what made IH decide it was not worth paying out the rest of the agreed amount. I am pretty sure they could have arranged that amount if they could prove it worked.
        They say, they could not substantiate the claims made by Mr. Rossi.
        That is, they could not find anything to convince themselves it worked.

        It would be insane of them to be convinced that it worked and then renege on a payment which would certainly result on them being dealt out of the fortune which must surely follow if it actually did work.
        And if the argument is that they sought to run off with the technology and use it without paying they would have to know they could then be sued for all the profits on the basis of clear breach of contract, because having escaped the agreement by saying they could not replicate the results, they then went on to profit by the very thing they claimed they never saw.
        To my thinking, the most simple and logical conclusion has to be, IH are telling the truth when they say they couldn’t substantiate the claims made by Rossi.

          1. It doesnt seem so easy due to three circumstances.

            First one – Parkamov like replications. They are in early stages yet but seems to be something there.
            Second one – The patent application that IH did last year.
            Third one – If you perform a scam and get 10 million, i think it is time to run away with the profits. Why follow with it in a lawsuit and risk even that 10 millions, maybe more?

            So a easy explanation with big flaws.

            The explanation of IH trying to get the IP on their own using an alternate license like Brillouin (i dont know if i wrote it right)
            For me that would be a bad move because the LA only in USA worths much more money and they now risk losing even that.
            So, none of the explanations seems convincing.

            Third one – IH didnt have the money or needs more info from Rossi (they told that Rossi broke the agreement before them) and Rossi didnt help them to develop a proper replication.

            Just another guess.
            Lets think about this possibility. Rossi got contacted from a third party and proposed him a better agreement.
            Then he told IH how to replicate but didnt put so much effort wich caused incomplete replications on IH side.
            Rossi did that expecting that they would fail to pay and get free to go with the new party.
            This scenario may turn to be absolutely false but would explain everything.
            Why IH didnt pay, why Rossi was so ready to fill the lawsuit, why IH didnt claim fraud and neither started a lawsuit against Rossi, and even why they tried to patent and the supposed transfer of part of the IP to Brillouin to try to replicate the results.

          2. I reply to just three points. The rest gets bogged down in too much diffuse speculation.

            “First one – Parkamov like replications. They are in early stages yet but seems to be something there.”

            I’m sure in light of the magnitude of the claims made by Mr Rossi, IH would not take Parkemov- like results as being substantiative. They would see it as definite failure to achieve a guaranteed or strongly implied result of a COP of six.

            “Second one – The patent application that IH did last year.”

            I think the patent application was submitted before IH had accepted they could not substantiate the claims of Mr Rossi. They may have had misgivings but not quite proven it sufficient to make up their mind.
            Under the agreement they were perfectly entitled to submit patent applications for ecat based technology but were also then obliged to share the technology with Rossi. It is specifically mentioned.
            Having spent the money on submitting an application there would be no point in withdrawing it. They would not get a refund.

            “Third one – If you perform a scam and get 10 million, i think it is time to run away with the profits. Why follow with it in a lawsuit and risk even that 10 millions, maybe more?”

            It’s a curious thing about scammers. Enough is rarely enough. In fact too much is barely enough. They usually continue on until they lose the lot.
            A philosophical observation only. Does it apply here?

          3. I want to remark to the first statement that im not saying that IH or Rossi would care about parkomov.
            What i am stating is that should prove that the E-Cat really works.

            To the second – The patent was after the lugano test so they should have enough info. Also they built the plant, dont start with things like hidden wires to get the supply from another side or something like that.

            About the third one. I know that scammers never seems to get enough. But again, to risk in a lawsuit?
            He could easily have told everyone that IH stole his ip, show the patent to another investor and scam him.

        1. I think you miss an important possibility.

          If Industrial Heat wants to industrialize LENR technology but not do so through Rossi then it is not in their best interest to pay Rossi, their main competitor, his $89M. They may realize that they can be sued for that amount and eventually lose, but if they can delay it then they can beat Rossi to market and perhaps cripple his efforts by simultaneously denying him the money he needs and once again associating the stigma of fraudster to his name. I don’t believe they can be sued “for all the future profits” as you assert. I think the IH/Rossi agreement pretty clearly gives the IP to IH and lets then do what they want with it.

          The evidence to back up this scenario is IH lapping up all LENR-related IP it can find and establishing shell companies worldwide, IH’s claim of independent verification before purchasing the IP for $10m, Woodford’s claim of 2 years due diligence before investing many more millions, Darden’s positive speech at ICCF, the glowing reports of an engineer inside the crate under IH’s employ, insider information divulged by Mats Lewan that the customer is happy with the plant and using it for real work, what is presumed to be a very positive ERV report, semi-independent validations of E-Cat tech in the past, emerging claims by MFMP and others of E-Cat replications and gamma radiation and Rossi’s claims of a 33 person strong company advised by a scientific panel moving rapidly toward mass manufacture of E-Cats (why didn’t he slink off with his $11.5M?).

          So you can ignore all that if you want. I can’t.

          1. They are all “possibilities”, as you say.
            I guess it comes down to what probability you place on those possibilities.
            I see most of the actions of IH which you list above only as proof that IH is indeed serious in it’s pursuit of bringing in some form of clean energy generation to this planet, and in that I sincerely wish them every success. I don’t see it as any attempt to defraud any person or organisation which has a genuine technology capable of doing what IH says is it’s aim. It is certainly a worthwhile and commendable aim.

        2. You miss another possibility, IH may want the IP and know how to get direct electrical production from an E-Cat and Rossi may be holding it back until a new agreement and further payment is made because it is out of the scope of the current license. Section 16.1 of the agreement lists definitions. The definition of E-Cat IP suggests to me that electrical production would be out of the scope of the license.

          Definition of E-Cat IP has been laid out in the agreement-

          “”E-Cat IP” has the meaning set forth in the recitals to this Agreement, and shall include all document, manuals, technical data, formulae, and other items and materials necessary or useful to enable the Company to (i) operate the 1MW E-Cat Unit, (ii) make E-Cat Products, and (iii) exploit the E-Cat IP as contemplated by this Agreement.” – 16.1 http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe

          Making direct electrical production is not in the scope of the agreement to be exploited as the agreement was for a low temperature steam plant, producing 100C or so steam not electricity and direct electrical production wasn’t envisioned until this past Christmas (well after the agreement was signed) so it wouldn’t be part of “as contemplated by this Agreement”.

          1. Except Mr Rossi has specifically said the ecat X , which is the device which produces the direct electrical energy, is based on the hot cat technology. As such, IH had access to it under the terms of the agreement. And the ecat X is based on the hot cat, Mr Rossi said.
            There is no getting around that point until a totally new and unrelated technology is announced.

          2. As I stated below, they may be allowed to use it to produce heat but not allowed to use it to produce heat directly, big difference in that.

          3. I think this point is debatable and may be the primary point of disagreement between the two parties.

        3. So which claims do you think they couldn’t substantiate?
          If it’s the COP>6 then haven’t they “shot themselves in the foot” by claiming in this patent that they achieved 11 ( or 12 if we correct the error).

    2. Under section 13.4 of the agreement, IH has automatic access to all “After acquired / developed assets, Intellectual Property rights”. That would have to include changes to fuels and even the new ecat X technology because Mr. Rossi has said it is based on an improvement to the hot cat design. Thus it is a “developed asset” and covered by the agreement.
      Also, under section 13-1, Mr Rossi was obliged to “provide ongoing training and support” to IH “in the use of the plant and the production of ecat products for a period of not less than 12 months following validation, as and to the extent reasonably requested by the Company (IH) to enable it to utilise the ecat IP, operate the plant and produce the ecat products” .

      This is the critical point and I believe it is the basis for the IH withdrawal from the agreement.

      They say they have not been able to “substantiate the results claimed by Mr Rossi”.
      I take this to mean they can’t get a reactor to work showing a COP of any significantly greater than 1.
      It’s hard to think what else it could mean which would justify IH from bailing out of the arrangement, specially considering they would know that if they could get it to work with any significant COP it would be worth billions; many billions.

      The 12 months is now up and they claim they “could not substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi.” Consequently they choose to withdraw from the arrangement. For all the talk about underhand motives and complex strategic maneuvering, I think it all boils down to nothing more complex than this

      To win his case, Mr. Rossi will have to prove IH actually did substantiate Rossi’s results, that is, they too recorded a COP of at least six in their independent tests.

      While previous history does not dictate future events, it has to be noted that this current situation is a very close replay of the way the previous partnership with Defkalion went. I believe once they had access to the Rossi device, which they say they got even though Mr. Rossi claims they didn’t, they also failed to “substantiate Rossi’s results “. Mr Rossi later said they were never given a working reactor, which if true, was a certain precursor to Defkalion abandoning the partnership, so not a smart move.
      In any case, Defkalion abandoned the partnership in similar manner as IH has now.

      1. How do we know that IH wants to withdraw from the agreement? My guess would be that they don’t — it sounds like they want more information from AR.

        1. Yes, always possible. They might be asking for whatever help is required for them to achieve similar results to those which Mr Rossi has achieved. But then they say they have been trying for three years with negative results.
          Although I think it would have only been in the last 12 months during which they put any real work into replicating the results with their own reactors. It’s hard to imagine IH didn’t ask Mr Rossi for help during this period and he was obliged under the agreement to give it.
          I wonder if because of that, Mr Rossi saw this coming and that prompted the remarkable release of all the ecat-X information?

          1. You got a point there. Maybe that is not due to the fuel or the reactor developments.
            But maybe that Rossi sets E-Cat Quark X as a different device and it doesnt go with the LA.
            But for me the key is “sustantiate” they doesnt say that it doesnt work and also they didnt sue Rossy for fraud wich would had been the easy step if they discovered that the measurements were tricked.
            So, they may be having issues in their replication to go over COP 3 or so.
            Also, as someone posted before (not sure if here or in the lenr forum) it may be related to Rossi being 16 hours in the container.

            Just a guess. If the system needs to be tweaked frecuently to be sure that the COP goes over 6, that may be a point as they probably would want a system that goes over 6 always.
            For me if that is the case, then IH should have paid as the COP is obtainable, That only would mean that the system should be improved so the tweaking goes automated.

            For now is all guesses. Lets wait until we receive more info and just enjoy guessing.

          2. Mr Rossi has specifically said on his blog that the ecat X is based on the hot cat tech. This being the case IH would have ( or had) legal access to it under the terms of the agreement.
            I vaguely recollect Mr Rossi saying on his blog that IH did have access to the ecat X tech, but not completely sure.

          3. Rossi wants a solid agreement that IH will not peddle the IP to his competitors or compete with him to use his IP to create their own patents and IP. Don’t compete just build and sell the E-Cats.

          4. I agree that is what Mr. Rossi now wants. But I’m afraid that ship has sailed. The contract is set. It should have been tighter from the start (although hindsight is easy, especially when both sides are trying to close the deal). Both sides will now need to grapple with its particulars. I really doubt IH is going to refuse to compete based on their public pronouncements over the last couple of years.

      2. I don’t think AR does have to prove that IH recorded a COP of >6, rather that he (Rossi) fulfilled his side of the contract, part of which was that the ERV (agreed to and appointed jointly by BOTH IH & Rossi) recorded >6.
        Despite that, it’s hard to see how AR can’t prove what you say, given the claims in the IH patent, which I expect to be rejected and maybe that’s their ploy? If it is, I would expect the ploy to fail since clearly, they believe it and that’s all that matters (I think).

    3. This has been discussed quite a bit on various comments threads here as one possible explanation for the current situation. Its probably the best alternative to the “Rossi is a scammer” meme. We should know fairly soon if Rossi can follow through on his promises to go into production with a new corporate sponsor.

  72. I think this paves the road for Rossi and IH both developing the same tech and making a lot of money of it, and you know eventually the legal battle is going to end, but in the meanwhile they make a lot of money and you know that in court result is going to be for a lot less.

    This makes sense specially to IH because if they build a better product than Rossi’s eventually they win anyway, its in the history, repeated several times.

    I dont think IH cares about who is the inventor really, its all about the $ for them.

    1. Right, I have said from the start, IH is an investment banker/fund manager, no different than the “bankers” who turned our economy inside out. Money, power and control.

  73. Maybe because he is paranoid. Also we know that he is stubborn so he could have told to IH that the fuel whas not in the LA so if they want the new formula they should give him more money.
    But that is only especulation.

  74. Is it possible that they (IH) expect the application to fail, thus justifying their rejection of the ERV report? I find that hard to believe but not much harder than many other happenings.

    1. I just can’t get past the fact that the ERV has direct ties to Rossi. That really does cause for conflict of interest in any industry that utilizes independent analysis…the ERV report in my opinion is completely invalid because of this. I am curious why some do not share this view.

      1. I see your point very clearly and agree that it is a serious issue. On the other hand, it would appear that IH also accepted the ERV, despite this potential for conflict of interest. So I think this problem is as much on their heads as Rossi’s. Ultimately what matters is whether Rossi can fulfill on his recent promises to move ahead with production with the assistance of a new deep pocket sponsor. If he does this, then the conflict of interest issue will have proved irrelevant, imho. If he cannot, then all bets are off and the skeptics win.

        1. To me .. with the issues in the past. it was always going to be a mistake of getting someone who was already associated with either company.. independent means independent not beholden to either.. if any aspect of this irritates me the most.. this was the one..

          1. I agree. I am not saying that Penon is not objective, or that he doesn’t have the required expertise (who am I to evaluate that), or didn’t write a solid report (how can we tell until it is released?), but perception counts for a lot here and anyone involved in that choice made a poor decision.

        2. I’m not clear why Rossi had to have a wealthy sponsor in the first place. I know he planned to flood the market quickly, but if he would start a small operation, within a year there’d be money to build multiple plants.

          On the other hand, it seems that the year of testing has been wasted but was valuable and productive.

      2. Direct ties to IH too (IH agreed on him years ago). Penon is Not an old associate of Rossi’s. People keep mistaking him for that other guy from long before Penon showed up. Penon came on to the scene with IH. This meme about Penon needs to die.

          1. Yes, people really need to frequent ECW more often. I’m really appalled at the lack of knowledge out there, and among long-time members of the LENR community even. It is disheartening.

  75. I think a lot of people here, while basically sympathetic to Rossi, would like to see this technology escape into the wild – especially now there may be hints of corporate-level interference that could pervert or delay the introduction of cold fusion, so long as it remains in only in one or two sets of hands.

  76. Well predicted. Unfortunately, anything that goes against the current zeitgeist here tends to be overlooked and ignored. By the time the facts catch up with prescient comments like yours, it’s been forgotten that anyone foresaw the situation! Good catch, anyway.

  77. It looks like Cherekee Investmaent Partners and Cherokee Advisors have a little ‘fiduciary duty’ SEC problems with another client. This may be reflecting integrity issues on how IH may be handling the E-Cat IP patent issues:

    From JoNP:
    Janice Abrahams
    April 11, 2016 at 7:07 AM

    Dr Rossi,

    were you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission Issued Administrative Ruling Against Cherokee Investment Partners ???
    here is a link to Bloomberg Business News –

    http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890
    Kind Regards,
    Janice Abrahams

    Andrea Rossi
    April 11, 2016 at 7:37 AM
    Janice Abrahams:

    Very interesting.
    A.R.

    ‘The Securities and Exchange Commission Issues Administrative Ruling Against Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC and Cherokee Advisers, LLC’

    Last sentance:
    “…. As a result, CIP and CA breached their fiduciary duties to the Funds in violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act and also violated Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 there under. …”

  78. Brokeeper thanks for this insight into how Cherokee Advisors handles their fiduciary duties, it really takes a major infraction to be censored by the SEC. Very Interesting.

  79. That is not a patent application for LENR, it is about heat transfer from a heat source which may or may not be an LENR reactor and seemingly entails absolutely no novel technique or invention whatsoever. I can’t see how it is remotely worthy of a patent.

    1. True in itself, however with a COP=11.07 and Andrea Rossi’s name as inventor implies it is associated with the 1MW E-Cat plant.

    2. The real interesting thing about their attempt to get a patent with Rossi as Co-Inventor is section 13.4 in the license agreement that states any improvement or patent Rossi comes up extending the E-Cat technology must promptly be transferred to Leonardo. So even if they were to get the patent it would have to be transferred to Leonardo.

      1. But IH’s argument will be: this was an improvement made by Mr. Rossi *and* our co-inventor. And given the latter half of section 13.4, IH will claim an ownership interest.

  80. Ahh yes, the magic field that surrounds Rossi is what causes the effect, my favorite pseudo-skeptic argument.

  81. One moment please! Rossi is playing the victim here but what exactly did he expect? One look at the business that Darden/IH/Cherokee was in for the past 10-20-30 years should have given anybody pause. These guys get things done that the average guy on the street cannot because… well you fill in the blanks. How does one get red lights turn into green lights when dealing with government officials?

    Rossi jumped into a pool with a bunch of sharks and now he is crying mommy they bit me.

  82. Rossi says the ecat is working, IH says the ecat is not working. One of them must be wrong.

    Until now, the participation of IH gave a lot of credibility to Rossi. IH has been the closest to the ecat. So now that they claim the ecat doesn’t work, I haven’t got much to cling to to side with Rossi. On the other hand, there is Rossi and the thing he says, which all sound possible and no real hard facts are on the table.

    So all I can wish Rossi is to Godspeed with commercialisation of the ecat. The real thing on the market will speak for itself. And no ecat on the market within the next 6 months will also speak for itself.

    Hey guys, what’s wrong with waiting another 6 months after having waited for 60 months ?

        1. What they actually said was ” Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without succes”
          It doesn’t say E-Cat doesn’t work, the difference might be important.

          1. I am pretty sure that what they write in legalese actually means: “We are pretty sure the ecat doesn’t work”. But there are some semantic loopholes, I agree

          2. I find the APCO link to be interesting, however. I did not know who APCO was, and am admittedly relying primarily on the accounts posted here, but I have to agree with Michael at least up to that point. I mean, if their specialty is really “crisis management” at the highest levels of government and industry, as it is made out, then one does have to wonder why IH would feel the need for such a radical solution to their problem.

            It is interesting too see how critics and defenders of Rossi construct their positions, which facts they chose to emphasize and which to downplay or ignore. It is not difficult for me to see why reasonable people will have very different interpretations at this time.

            But I have to say I really don’t like the thought that there could be APCO pros possibly influencing the online discussions without proper disclosure of a material interest in the controversy. I wonder how the courts would look on that?

          3. The statement, Unsubstantiated is just (F9). Could be positive or Negative. Not proven conclusive either way.

            This is quite different then saying is does not work. Especially should they go to court and Rossi proves otherwise. The pay out could be substantially more then 89 M$..

          4. Yes. it is easy to interpret that as “doesn’t work,” but it could mean any one of a number of things. It is highly ambiguous by intent so as to be susceptible of many possible meanings.

          5. I want it to be ambiguous legalese and think that IH has ulterior motives to stop Rossi. That may be what is happening or not. No one can say at this point. But I think it is a stretch to demonize IH or come up with conspiracy theories.

          6. On purpose I might add. Apco is involved. case closed. There is something very fishy about their statement. I mean how easy is it to say the 1mw ecat reactor does not work? As rossi claims? What do you claim? Could not substantiate the technology? So they can’t be talking about the reactor they claim to have built and tested at 11COP. People call us gullible? The skeptics want to pick apart everything Rossi says and have not cracked his shell as of yet. But IH? they can’t read between the lines? Please. They are either agents or blinded by hatred. IH made 2 vague public statements and we’ve already shown they have contradicted themselves. IH gets cracked after 2 statements. I am with Rossi until we catch him lying like IH. I want to see what they will say under oath.

          7. Mr. Rossi patented New Technology. IH try to patent the design of machine, the 1MW E-Cat Mr.Rossi instructed them to build. This way they want to prevent Mr. Rossi to build and sale this kind of E-Cat, unles he will pay them.:(

  83. Imagine there’s no ecat, I wonder if you can. Nothing to hope or wait for and no endless power for man.

    Maybe you can up with a better text. Let’s have some fun while we’re waiting 🙂

  84. The story would become even weirder if MFMP would produce the irrefutable proof that the thing is actually working.

    Who should play Bob Greenyer in the upcoming blockbuster ? How about Elijah Wood ?

  85. Problem for Rossi might be with licensing IH for Americas and China and losing any profits from this areas even with new designs of E-Cats

    1. Let me know if this opinion is wrong…

      Rossi has a technology called Self Sustain Mode(SSM). Rossi uses one reactor called the activator to power 15 satellite reactors which are unpowered but identical to the activator.

      I.H. has applied for a patent of the activator which was based on the Lugano test results. They must beleive that the activator works since they patented it along with Rossi.

      Rossi gave I.H. the IP for the activator which has a COP of 1.5. He has not given them the tech for SSM which pushes the COP to over 50. I.H. wants the IP for the SSM mode. Rossi has not received the patent for SSM and therefore it is still R&D info and not IP.

      I.H. will not pay Rossi the 89M until they get SSM.

      What does Rossi IP mean?

      Rossi has one patent based on the Lugano Hotcat. Rossi was preparing 204 other patents and these may have been submitted to the USPTO but this information is not IP until one or more of the 204 patients have been approved by the USPTO. IP does not include patents that have not been granted. I.H. does know how the 1 MW plant works to some level of detail because they built it. They have the right to patent that info in Rossi’s name and site themselves as co-inventors. They do not have the rights to other designs that Rossi still has patent pending or has not yet submitted and that Rossi has not yet revealed to I.H.

      When Rossi properly holds back pending info, I.H. shall not connect that act of revelation of R&D data with the agreement to base final payment solely on the report of the ERV. But let the court decide.

      1. HI, Guys
        Axil, what wrong with scenario, I/H wants to A.R.’s first commercial E-CAT,
        they want to see it work, they bring in the ERV, to make sure everything is on the up and up, they both agreed on his ability to collect the real time data he and everyone was satisfied, that it worked as advertised, so sill not sure if it was ready for the market, hence the 1 year test, if it performed well, they would pay a payment of 86 mill, so the test was made, with Dr,Rossi keeping his kitties in control, and they performed excellently. when there was no payment after the test was concluded, I/H was in b o c, end of story, they lose everything it would seem to me, but what do i know, smile.

        1. The only reason I can see in running the 1 year test to it’s conclusion
          and then appear to claim it’s not functioning as expected is that it works after some fashion but it’s not altogether reliable. If you look at the logs from the test you will see that there are several instances where one or more of the reactors were down. If the COP during the first month was less than 4 I can see no reason why the test would have been allowed to continue since it was destined to fail. Conclusion, the test may have finished prematurely because it was no longer possible to meet the terms of the contract. By my reckoning the test should have lasted between 360 and 390 day, not 352.

      2. But if the court would decide that IH must pay the 89M, AR could not withhold his IP a lot longer. If his objective had been to keep the IP, he would have been better advised to go without the money instead of filing a lawsuit.

        1. I agree Andreas
          Rossi wins — he is in bed with IH and all Ip to IH
          Rossi loses– he does not get the 89m but has ip and has control and will get new investors if he has a purported Ecat x

        1. Pending patent applications are also commonly considered within the totality of the meaning of IP. Although the rights haven’t matured, there is a priority date, and a pending right.

  86. IH purposely were deceptive in their last public statement. Apco is involved. case closed. There is
    something very fishy about their statement. I mean how easy is it to say
    the 1mw ecat reactor does not work? As rossi claims? What do you claim?
    Could not substantiate the technology? So they can’t be talking about
    the reactor they claim to have built and tested at 11COP. People call us
    gullible? The skeptics want to pick apart everything Rossi says and
    have not cracked his shell as of yet. But IH? they can’t read between
    the lines? Please. They are either agents or blinded by hatred. IH made 2
    vague public statements and we’ve already shown they have contradicted
    themselves. IH gets cracked after 2 statements. I am with Rossi until we
    catch him lying like IH. I want to see what they will say under oath.

    1. IH’s statement was calculated to hurt the community supporting commercially viable LENR. It was a huge bone thrown to the pathoskeptic crowd. As long as LENR is a curiosity only and not capable of revolutionizing the energy sector, then safe. Once you talk commercially viable LENR, and based on what we know, e-Cat has the most evidence in its favor, then trillion dollar interests are on the line, and everything gets twisted and spun like a political spin room.

    2. I do keep a shred of hope that this is all a show, to get publicity for LENR…. but everything is getting so APCOesque (can that be an adjective now?) that I worry.

  87. Wait, the skeptics are not going to let the matter go this easy. Rossi claims he got $10M big ones from IH. Now he claims IH got $60M big ones from some company in the UK. Someone has some explaining to do. We are talking a roughly $100M heist here.

    Regarding SEC and Industrial Heat Company search on this site shows the last filing in 2013 and only a single item: statement of ownership. It is safe to assume that IH is not a public company. There would be many more filings if it were.

    http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

    This appears to be a private matter. Someone fleeced someone. If Rossi scammed IH then IH scammed other investors an order of magnitude greater.

    Whether or not the e-cat works could be a criminal matter.

  88. I view Mr. Rossi as holding the advantage as well, although IH is going to fight as hard as they can to make him out to be the bad guy (wait until you read their response in court as I predict it will be scathing).

    Mr. Rossi can focus his production in Europe, India, and other markets while the battle plays out in the U.S.

  89. Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to creations of the intellect for which a monopoly is assigned to designated owners by law. Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are trademarks, copyright, patents, industrial design rights, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets: all these cover music, literature, and other artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.

    Unless the USPTO recognizes these discoveries and grants Rossi a patent for his LENR specific related product discriptions, those descriptions are not rightfully considered IP under the law and therefore not covered by the licence agreement between Rossi and I.H.

    1. As much as I respect your technical and scientific analysis, I simply have to disagree with you on this narrow construction of IP. For example, IP includes trades secrets, pending patent applications, and the like, which are recognized under the law. Pending patent applications can be licensed, transferred, used as collateral, and the like. They exist by law. The rights have not fully matured, but they are considered as IP.

      1. I am not well versed in the legal system and I am grateful for your tutelage.

        What is your take on this…Since the USPTO does not consider LENR as a valid technology, LENR cannot produce IP. Therefore the reference to IP in the LICENSE AGREEMENT(LA) is not valid legally.

        Only non LENR technology such as boiler design and heat transfer can be considered IP and therefore subject to the LA.

        1. I don’t think that view has much strength either. The USPTO has been granting LENR patents in the past few years to the likes of SPAWAR and NASA. The outright refusals to even consider LENR patent applications of yesteryear no longer apply. Is it still hard? Yes, unfortunately, yes. It is a travesty what happened in the suppression of LENR, not only by the USPTO, but by the scientific community. But the situation seems to be improving.

          1. How does a court determine if a LENR pending patent application is valid as IP unless the USPTO recognizes the technology and grants the patent. Is all pending patent applications considered valid a priori under the law?

          2. Patent validity is a question pertinent only to granted patents, because with pending applications, the claims are still malleable, and therefore, no way to adjudge their validity in view of the prior art. But that doesn’t mean that patent applications are not intellectual property, because of the reasons mentioned above.

          3. A bit late but that unmentionable site gives:
            “Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to creations of the intellect for which a monopoly is assigned to designated owners by law.[1] Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are trademarks, copyright, patents, industrial design rights, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets:
            all these cover music, literature, and other artistic works;
            discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.”
            So, it’s not just patents.

        2. Yet the USPTO is and has been granting patents on LENR/CF to Government agencies. The is even a code category for it. The patents applied for by Industrial heat specify LENR/CF. Not by name, but by the coding. Any patent inspector will know this.

          1. Can you give an example, because I haven’t found one yet and that category doesn’t mean anything other than that’s how they list it.

      1. … and the Wright brothers only gained sudden massive traction when they finally flew to mass crowds near Paris, resulting in full front pages new across Europe, instant hero status, little to nothing mentioned in the US until they also flew over similar crowds in the US some months later.

        Rossi could expect a similar reaction if he demonstrates his reactors doing something spectacular to mass crowds. Something fun, like, generating steam to power a steam turbine boat and generate the electricity to supply the 1/50th electricity for control and large advertising lights, sail around some populous area like New York or San Francisco, take on passengers and keep it up for weeks on end without refueling. Signs saying “Cold Fusion is here, get your local congress person to push through approval. Don’t let Cold Fusion get squashed yet again.” 🙂

  90. To me the legal battle is a side show.

    Since the start of the legal battle, Rossi has a strong incentive to speed up production and supply of his units – that is a positive for the world. Initially, he may only manufacture and sell in territories not in dispute with IH.

    What are the strong incentives to move quickly?
    a) His reputation;
    b) Money;
    c) Proof to the courts handling the legal battle that his technology is good;
    d) Get USPTO to grant his remaining patent applications;
    e) Prevent competitors getting a march on him;

    I am sure the great community here can think of other reasons Rossi has to move quickly

    It would be great to find out how we could help him move faster. I would like to help with manufacturing, marketing, funding… but have not contacted him on it. Best if Frank can find out on our collective behalf. Together, we can surely help Rossi and with that our poor little suffering blue dot.

    1. Also, Mr. Rossi is in his sixties. As strong and keen of intellect as he is (which is very impressive, at least to me), he doesn’t have 15 or 20 years to be patient and mess around, like allowing the 1 MW plant to just sit there for a year. He wants things to move, I believe, because his remaining time with us is relatively short.

    2. Rossi has always believed from the very beginning that a LENR product on the market is the only evidence that science, the public, and the government will accept as proof that LENR is real. IMHO, this is absolutely true. Any effort to keep the LENR product off the market is an effort to suppress LENR as a valid energy source.

    3. It sounds good, but just exactly how does Rossi work faster? Does he ask all 33 of his employees to put in 16 hour days? Given the rewards, I would think that they would want to put in longer hours. I also worked in Silly Con valley for a few years, and I knew youngish engineers who owned airplanes. Just think what sticking with and boosting Rossi inc could do for one’s fortunes.

      1. I know how inventors think – the biggest weakness is to want to keep improving forever and they get carried away. They are happy and comfortable inventing, insecure and afraid in unfamiliar tasks. So they avoid them as long as possible.

        At some point they have to say “this is good enough to market” and switch to a production phase.

        This change is what I am hoping comes about in Rossi.

        Whatever the COP, the e-cat in the market would be an unbelievably large phenomenon.

  91. I agree with Bob Higgins of MFMP, his statement here.
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2997-Statement-From-Andrea-Rossi-on-IH-Patent-Application/?postID=16747#post16747

    I
    would add that after spending 26 years in Silly Con Valley, having been
    through the Dot Bomb era, it is always a cat and mouse game between
    investors and inventors. It’s an unwise investor who gives up all power
    to an inventor and it’s an unwise inventor who gives up all power to an
    investor. Both generally don’t work out for the invention, investor or
    inventor. I’ve seen it close up and personal.

    My guess is that Rossi has withheld some of the secret
    sauce to make sure that Industrial Heat actually pays up the $89
    million according to the contract. He wants a court to decide so that
    both parties are forced by the court to deliver on the contract. This
    could be a smart approach. Neither side could be telling the “exact”
    truth to us, just yet. Expect some spin at this point.

    My guess is that the court will quickly
    decide that Rossi has to provide the full secret sauce and Darden has to
    pay the $89 million to Rossi and follow the agreement in the future. Regardless of how “honest” Darden might be, he could be pressured by bigger players and perhaps Darden would want it to end up in court to take the pressure of him personally, Industrial Heat or Cherokee.

    This could also be Rossi’s way of making sure that the contract is firmly adhered to, his invention gets produced. A positive viewpoint, I agree.

    1. I view this as plausible. Let’s hope that Mr. Rossi first insists that the $89 be placed in escrow, so that a neutral party can decide whether or not to release the funds.

        1. There’s at least one other property, near Denver if memory serves and according to a post on another thread, that’s also in trouble and has tied up assets since before the 2008 crash.

          The remediation business can turn sour in a hurry if your estimation of the problem is inaccurate in any way.

    2. Having read Bob Higgins’ analysis, twice to be sure I’ve understood him properly, he has apparently not read the filing documents for Rossi’s legal action, nor given any credence to the sequence of events whereby IH invested $11.5 million and in, in turn, how IH induced Woodford to invest a further $50 million.

      The investments by IH were predicated by two demonstrations of the technology, both of which contractually required a measured COP>6 in order to secure the financing on offer. That, indisputably, IH made investments of, sequentially, $1.5 million and then $10 million should permanently lay to rest any talk of COP>2 and yet here’s Bob still beating that very dead horse.

      In reiteration of a previous post, the statement of claim filed by Rossi’s attorney states that the EVR report in Rossi’s possession proves a COP>50 when the contractual requirement is only COP>6. I defy anyone here to find an attorney that will stipulate that their client has done anything more than provide the lowest standard of proof required to meet the contractual obligations in question before a court of law.

      I think we can safely assume that Rossi’s attorney isn’t a moron and that a filed statement of claim pivotal to Rossi’s case is fully supported by the EVR report and a number of first person witnesses.

      Further to this point, the old cold cat is sustaining a COP>50, there are three more iterations of the technology that, from what as arrived here by largely through Mats Lewan’s efforts, offer substantially improved COPs over the E-cats under test for the EVR.

      There is are no compelling reasons, to date, to assume IH has $89 million and a number of historical antecedents with Cherokee’s past business dealings in property remediation to suggest that they don’t have the money.

      If the statements of claim regarding the statements made by IH regarding the ownership of the contested IP and IH’s attempts to file patents to which they have no intellectual claim and IH’s attempts to delay the project to avoid having to complete the contract are truthful, and there is no reason at this point to doubt these claims as any of them that the court and/or jury finds to be false will scuttle the case, Rossi is not interested in settling this case, or in receiving IH’s money.

      Leonardo is a trust whose beneficial ownership and financial strength are a black box. Ask yourself this, with a proven COP>50 technology, and fresh generations that exceed this number, and capital costs that crush every known power technology how much money could you raise?

      1. A very fair assessment I believe. So what is IH’s game? Why did they seem to want to delay it indefinitely? Why risk losing the contract?

        1. IH had acquired IP for a COP>6 technology for a total cost of $11.5 million which they, apparently, promptly started shopping around as theirs.

          Completing the test, granting Rossi maintained a COP>6, would require a further investment of $89 million for what they seemed to view as no particular improvement in their position. It now seems likely that they don’t have the money to complete the contract and it’s possible that they never did have their own money to meet this obligation.

          I would posit that IH dramatically underestimated Rossi in a number of regards.

          IH didn’t expect radical improvements to the underlying technology which would leave the IP they had access to stranded.

          IH completely misread Rossi’s potential response to their peddling the IP as theirs.

          IH failed to note Rossi’s resolve and tactical skills in shielding the evolved IP from them.

          IH failed to anticipate the impact on their plans to raise funding by Rossi discussing his progress, on this forum and others, with evolved designs and IP IH had no access to. I used to wonder why Rossi was so public about his progress, especially since Christmas, the rational is much clearer, to me, now; counter-pressure.

          In short IH expected to acquire, read steal, the IP for peanuts and for Rossi to quietly fold when pressured enough.

          The contract has been at risk from the moment that IH made claim to other parties that they owned the IP, from that point forward the die was cast and they were committed to a course of action that, in hindsight, was monumentally shortsighted with no way back into Rossi’s good graces.

          1. @Roland your explanation is very close to what I have started to think also. I would just like ask your opinion on what do you think about, in addition what you wrote, Rossi changing his mind about license conditions on course when learned about new things about his technology. Maybe he just didn’t like this way better cats to be covered by license, and in the other hand IH see no worth paying 89m$ just COP6 technology after Rossi seemingly had better in Leonardos possession. There was many weak points for Rossi in license agreement if it would cover also COP ~50 and quarkx technologies (no good temination period/clauses, no revenue sharing model etc.)

          2. IH had already made irrevocable decisions, and engaged in actions that breached the contract through their business practices, before Rossi had the insights that led to the HotCat, E-cat X and the Quark.

            My read is that Rossi formed a fresh opinion of IH from the moment that IH claimed to own the IP; an action which predates the start of the year long test.

          3. It does seem to explain a lot.
            So one might expect that IH has been building a manufacturing facility and must be close to launching since they will be aware of AR’s plans?
            What do you think about the conspiracy theory that IH have been induced to delay and discredit LENR?
            It did make me wonder if people like Bill Gates knew something we don’t when projecting beyond 15 years.

          4. I don’t think IH has the capabilities to go into the manufacturing business, starting with financing.

            If IH were inclined to go down that path it’s now closed to them because they’ve committed to IP that’s obsolete.

            Gate’s prognosis is a simple extrapolation on the costs of renewables; the current ratio of investment in renewable electricity generation to traditional methods is 2:1 with a bullet. In 15 years no one on the planet will dream of building a coal, oil or gas fired plant or a new dam with, or without, LENR.

          5. So the big remaing question is:
            DID AR, sign away his future IP, especially E-CatX, with electric/quark included and, if so, will he get out of it.

            I think the concensus here is still split on that one.

          6. The contract does require that he reveal the IP for the current E-cats, but those provisions really aren’t enforceable till Leonardo receives $89 Million; should the contract be completed through payment of monies due we should expect that this issue would be settled by the jury as part of the resolution.

            I predict, going out on a limb here, that IH has no ability to pay and no means to raise the funds under current conditions and even if they were to attempt payment Rossi would simply appeal to a higher court while continuing to build his business as though IH doesn’t exist.

            Bill Gates is a master at this…

  92. If the ecat is exactly what we think it is he was never a loser. If it is what we think it is 89 million was not enough and suing is the exact wrong move. Lots of things don’t make sense.

  93. I’ve been trying to reach Frank Aclan to advertise my book, POWER, but all his emails bounce me. Frank, would you please get in touch asnd give me the rates. I have already sent the ad and want to get started!

  94. I think IH and Cherokee never had $89 million to give him, so they tried a) competing with him and b) suing him to give themselves some time and jury-rigged justification for not paying him. They IH and Cherokee) are a pair of professional thieves, IMHO.

    1. Not true at all DrD. To a judge, a jury or any investor….a conflict of interest like this makes all the difference. There is a reason they call it “independent researcher”….unless this individual is truly independent of the inventor…it is impossible to trust the contents. No judge or intelligent investor would trust a tester with ties to the inventor…you can ask any lawyer on the planet…that’s just plain common sense even before you get to the court room….

  95. None whatsoever outside the IH territories and, as I’ve suggested previously, given that Leonardo can attract either enough money or sufficiently strong partners Rossi could, potentially, ignore IH entirely and issue fresh licenses to better partners for IH’s territories and simply carry on with business; after all this is exactly what corporations in the modern world do as a matter of course.

    Make piles of money now, deal with the litigation later from a position of strength.

  96. Where is the report showing a COP of 50, Rossi guaranteed that it would be published soon?
    Who is stopping the publication?
    With the report published, IH have to show in court that it is a fraud by Rossi and prove it.
    Is Rossi a fraud, all the while the report is not open to scrutiny then nobody knows.
    Sod the court case and money, where is the report to prove Cold Fusion?

    1. Both IH and Leonardo have copies of the report. Rossi has stated that he will release the report (though he does not state that it won’t be redacted) when his lawyer gives consent.

      Rumor has it that we have a couple of weeks to go, which really isn’t much different from our expectations before the litigation began.

      P.S. The Lugano Report proves LENR through the isotopic analysis, whatever the wrangling about the precise COP; you could read it and explain it to the wife and workmates…

      1. Roland, thank you, the Lagano report is irrelevant as it has not brought Cold Fusion into the World acceptably.
        The court case is again irrelevant, making money out of a discovery that belongs to the World is a sideline of no importance.
        Only Cold Fusion and it’s benefits, freely available to those that need it most is of any importance.

        1. Unfortunately George that is how our world works and we can’t duck that one.
          The Jury will decide that outcome, not us or the public. In which case he’s right in not releasing the report (to us yet). In anycase, as interesting as it will be, it’s said many times, it wll not
          do what you want. I doubt even the court can do that and AR is right,
          only mass manufacturing and distribution will achieve that and that
          needs funding of course which AR will provide from his own resources now. Inventions like this don’t grow on trees, they need financing and lots of it.

          1. DrD, again thank you, you say —-
            “that is how our world works and we can’t duck that one.”
            Then it is time there are 10,000 comments on page demanding that society changes.
            Two and a half thousands years since Greek democracy etc. and we have advanced nowhere.
            While people just accept the insane Status Quo then humanity will remain in the same Dark Ages that have never ended.
            Only Cold Fusion and it’s free availability to everyone should be important to us, not conforming and discussing within a obviously corrupt and faulty system.

          2. Roland I need to read nothing, I live in this World and am perfectly capable myself of deciding right from wrong.
            I make my own decisions.
            Many thanks for chat.
            Best

          3. Contrary to popular opinion ignorance is not bliss. Steven Pinker makes a very compelling evidence based case for humanity’s steady moral and ethical evolution over the last 3,500 years and, indeed, uses ancient Greece as a starting point.

            Reading’s good for you George…

          4. Actualy, I think I prefer it to the free for all that we see in many areas of the world but good luck to you.
            EDIT: I refer to our legal system.

        2. As Rossi has repeatedly stated, and your estimation of the impact of the Lugano Report substantiates this, only commercial products will make a dent in public opinion.

          Even then it’ll take some time before the meme changes for the general populace as witnessed by concepts that should have dropped from the common currency of understanding long ago, even the flat earth concept isn’t completely dead yet.

          If you’re waiting for ’60 Minutes’ to affirm Rossi on prime time TV don’t hold your breath.

          1. Roland, I am assuming I am talking to intelligent people, you are giving reasons as if they are unchangeable, I am saying the comments on page should be about changing the system not working within it.
            Slavery and colour prejudice at one time was regarded as normal and most would have thought anybody saying the system must change as crazy, well I am crazy.

        3. So, what’s going to keep some corporation or the government from snatching up the patent, sitting on it and prosecuting anybody who tries to make one. while they wait to get as much out of oil and gas as they possibly can? Releasing the information “out for everybody” at this point in time, is going to result in the above scenario, unless somebody decent has the patent. That’s my worry anyway.

  97. One comment from Fabiani in that interview was that Rossi prepared all the fuel charges. Perhaps IH will claim that it did not receive all associated know-how.

  98. Rossi is acting as if the contract is void now, so in his mind he might not feel restricted from commercializing in the IH assigned territories now. If Leonardo tried to do this, IH could certainly try to stop it via the courts, maybe via a different suit.

    1. Very true and AR might further justify ignoring the license by maintaining that the license doesn’t cover E-Catx (quark), as he seems to.

  99. When I asked Bob Greenyer what he thought of Rossi’s summary of the ERV report, he immediately replied giving a formula (which I didn’t memorize), saying, under conditions of this reaction, a COP of 50 was quite possible. So it may not require this kind of arrangement…..

  100. Lugano fuel showed transmutations, something seen in many other LENR experiments. Did Rossi spike the ash from all of these experiments?

  101. So, a COP of 11 isn’t good enough to sell product? I think IH has at least some of the know-how, which is why their PR statement is such bunk.

    1. I don’t think we have on record whether or not that patent filing (that includes statements respective of testing) relied upon items made and tested completely by IH without any Rossi activity involved. For a time Rossi was Chief Scientist of IH; perhaps IH made filings stating that IH had done things that included activities performed by Rossi acting as Chief Scientist.

      1. IH made the filing, not Mr. Rossi. So, it is IH representing to the USPTO that persons with skill in the art could make and use the invention. If IH could not substantiate the COP of 11 at the time, then they should never have made the patent filing.

        1. Yes, but I believe that IH would be entitled to rely on the reports and activities of their employees – and Rossi may have been amongst those employees at some relevant point.

          1. But wasn’t the filing date after everything had broken down between the 2 of them and the papers filed in court…………………….. and when they said that it could not be substantiated?

          2. It was a series of filing made by IH over the course of years. When they say that they can’t substantiate Mr. Rossi’s claims, they are either lying to the public, or lying to the USPTO. There is simply no other way around it. I offer little sympathy to the argument that “Mr. Rossi made us do it.”

          3. What if Rossi had been Chief Scientist of IH and responsible for the testing that was reported in the patent?

          4. Then you would have to show that Mr. Rossi is currently the Chief Scientist at IH. Because last I checked IH has not filed a request to intentionally abandon any of the applications that they