Leonardo/Industrial Heat Court Case on “Complex Track” — to go to Jury Trial in September 2017 (Rossi: Effect on E-Cat Commercial “None”)

Thanks to Sifferkoll for providing links to the latest court documents in the Rossi/Industrial Heat court case.

Andrea Rossi has gotten what he requested so far — the court case has not been dismissed as requested by Industrial Heat, and it will go to a jury trial.

However there will be a long time to wait until a resolution of this case (unless there is a settlement out of court) as the trial is scheduled to begin on September 17, 2017 (see here)

This document states that the decision has been made to put the case into a “Complex Track”, because of “(a) the number of potential witnesses, and (b) the novelty and complexity of some factual issues which will require expert engineering and scientific testimony, (c) the likelihood of taking depositions in foreign jurisdictions and (d) the likelihood that the trial in this cause will last more than ten (10) days”

Links to the latest documents can be found at Sifferkoll.com here: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/new-court-documents-on-pacermonitor/

This year+ long wait will give plenty of time for research and discovery on both sides, and for endless speculation for outsiders! I don’t expect that Andrea Rossi will be slowing down his work on the QuarkX and commercialization of the E-Cat plants. Maybe the delay will be a welcome lift of pressure for him. It sounds possible now that we won’t get to see the ERV report from the 1MW plant test until next year at the earliest!


A few more pertinent quotes from this court document:

“Although the parties are open to discussing settlement, at this stage of the proceedings settlement appears unlikely”

“It is possible that additional parties might be added to this case if Defendents file counterclaims and/or third party claims.” (Maybe IH will be cooperating with other aggrieved parties who wish to take legal action against Rossi/Leonardo)

“The parties contemplate submitting to the court a proposed protective order providing for the confidentiality of certain documents and information exchanged in discovery, and further contemplate negotiation and electronic discovery protocol to govern the exchange of electronic discovery.” (this would probably cover the ERV report)

“As of the time of this report, Defendants have yet to file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and may elect to file counterclaims and/or third party claims if required to answer the Complaint” (It sounds from this that IH are thinking about responding to Rossi’s complaint with a counter-suit if they are ordered to respond by the judge)

UPDATE (July 1, 2016)

I asked Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, “What effect does delaying the start of the trial until September 2017 have upon your plans to commercialize the E-Cats?”

His answer was: “none.”

  • Omega Z

    You do understand there is no correlation between education and intelligence. Right. We merely hope that the educated are actually good in their field of expertise. Even that is not a given.

  • Kevmo

    ahhh, a standard non-answer answer

  • Job001

    Not at all, ALL or nothing or SAME absolutist logic isn’t working well here. With humans and science statistics rule rather than error prone absolutist logic. Lawyers and politicians tend to use absolutist logic to promote their case. More often than not absolutist logic is used to promote the lie, the half lie, or the big lie. As a scientist I don’t recommend it.

  • Roland

    Civilization in a box from a sub- Saharan village to the Oort Cloud.

  • Ged

    According to the current docket information, set yesterday, it looks like the trial might have been moved up to 6/27/2017?

    “Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Calendar Call set for 6/20/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Motions to amend pleadings or join parties due by 8/11/2016. All discovery due by 2/27/2017.”

  • Zavod

    This could be a ploy to generate advertising and buzz around the process.

  • Brokeeper

    Thanks Chapman. Changed it above.

  • Brokeeper

    HA! That is conundrum.

  • Job001

    Not at all, no conspiracy required, study up on cognitive bias, a modern neurological science, and perhaps you’ll develop a friendly view of what I’ve blogged. Likewise, IH and most people/corporations are more understandable given the science of bias(such as funding bias).

  • Engineer48

    Jed and many others here have made representations the IH Customer, JM Chemical Products was a company owned by Rossi.

    It would seem those individuals never read the last page of the Rossi complaint, attached, where the last sentence makes the reality crystal clear that the owner is a UK registered company. This document’s accuracy was sworn to in the court.

    So anyone making claims the IH Customer is in anyway associated with Rossi is based on nothing.

    Please read the last sentence and know the sworn reality.

    • Mats002

      E48, I give you the LENR hero song for that info:


      • Engineer48

        Hi Mats002,

        When anti Rossi people say they are not interested in reading the contract nor complaint and then make statements that are clearly opposite to what was been sworn to in those documents, really says they think the people they are trying to deceive can’t read or are not aware of sworn statements.

        I call that willful distribution of knowingly false disinformation. Especially when that disinformation agent claims IH ERV data and lawyer advise access.

        • Chapman


          I tried taking your advice and giving Jed the benefit of the doubt. I considered the possibility that he may be honestly misinformed, and passing on bad information simply due to the lack of any first-hand experience concerning Rossi’s tech. I thought that the best way to bring him “back to the fold”, so to speak, was to help get him an opportunity to actually experiment with a prototype!

          To that end, I recently submitted to Dr. Rossi via JONP my insight and humbly suggested he should prototype a “JED” model QuarkX Reactor test unit in suppository form to be delivered without delay. I took note of the fact that, even on the rare occasion anymore when Jed appears sober, he still seems weak on technical know-how, and recommended accordingly that Dr. Rossi take special care to include a clear set of instructions on the proper “Insertion Protocol” (complete with color diagrams) and an addendum outlining suggestions as to how, and where, connection might be made between the “nested” device and a convenient 3-phase power source.

          To date I have recieved no reply, but I will keep you posted should my benevolent endeavours bare fruit.

          It would be wonderful if I could somehow contribute to Jed’s rehabilitation. After all, it is better to educate, than to deride.

          “Blessed be the Peacemakers…”

    • Ged

      Additionally, this update to the docket on June 30 also says the same: “Certificate of Interested Parties/Corporate Disclosure Statement – NONE
      disclosed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi (Annesser, John)”. So that settles that matter.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Why absurd? In court, the discussion regarding the specific tests and pay a specific amount at a performance of the device (1 MW plant).

  • Roland

    There is a significant contribution we can all make to the RSDR initiative; aside from the integration of the reactors into the physical systems, the plant itself represents the integration of off the shelf technologies into a unique but not particularly challenging architecture.

    In the broader context of shepherding villages successfully onto a higher plane of functionality, with a transformative technological ‘seed crystal’, a host of cultural, political, economic, educational, judicial and security issues require attention.

    My sense is, going forward, that this community has the potential to have a helpful role in shaping the social covenants that will allow a village-centric technology to flourish and genuinely uplift the poorest of the poor.

    We are presently approaching a historic moment; soon the most completely modern device on the planet will be the perfect centre for the most humble of villages.

    Might even make George happy in the process; he could personally buy one and donate it to needy third worlders.

    • psi2u2

      Very good summary.

  • Job001

    It is exceptionally common for deep pocket old technology investors to “pay for delay” or military interests to create huge amounts of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) when a new technology has military application. For this LENR test either could be the case, yet the vast FUD screen and potential for military use gives military the slight nod, IMO.

    Other blog explanations centered on IP and test results ignore the big money of FF and military interests as if not involved. IH also seemed to do a fast reversal from prior interests(Brown site remediation research) with no transparent explaination.

    Given past extreme obstruction of CF/LENR research since 1989 by big money invested in FF, military or energy research, It is exceptionally unlikely that big money interests are not involved behind the scenes now in this IP obstruction/fight.

    Follow the big money.

    • Roland

      Ta da.

      Sometimes circles of interest overlap for decades; I expect, over time, that this will be revealed as a significant strategic weakness here, especially as the tide turns.

      On another note, the ‘social scientists’ busy shaping opinion on the matter have overlooked the possibility that a group of smart, capable people might find common cause in a very robust response to the tactics that have always worked, ever so well, on the ‘less educated’.

      Funny how the whole judo thing works…

      • Mats002

        Hi Roland, are you saying that ‘Planet Rossi’, about 1000 people here and in other LENR Forums, are the ‘very robust response’ to the PTB:s FUD agenda?

        • psi2u2

          I would conjecture that posts to these forums have had a material consequence in the discussion and therefore, probably, the legal strategies of both sides.

          • Roland

            I would conjecture that the impact of the discussions on this forum are significantly wider than the effects on the legal maneuvers between Leonardo and IH et al and that a complete list of the readership, and their connections, would surprise many.

        • Roland

          Perhaps it’s just me but over the years I’ve been observing E-cat world there’s been a seismic shift in the tenor of the commentary and the quality of the initiatives undertaken by E-cat worlders.

          It’s a long reach from Mary Yugo to substantive discussions on LENR physics, the economic and geopolitical implications of advanced LENR designs and the launch of serious initiatives such as Engineer48’s Remote Areas & Disaster Response design.

          There has also been a significant shift in how the community responds to various APCO forays; the adults appear to be prevailing and the collective tolerance of deliberate obtuseness appears to be diminishing by the day.

          I can’t speak to the other LENR forums as I long ago arrived at the conclusion that this forum was, and is, the most interesting one. Cheers Frank.

          • bachcole

            I can’t speak to other LENR forums because I feel secure and loved and nurtured here and so I never venture elsewhere in LENR land.

  • Roland

    What part of a complete record, documented in every detail, (including every scrap of data from all the instruments) a complete multi-camera video record, depositions from direct participants with professional certifications on the line and a binding report by a thoroughly competent independent party agreed to, and half paid for, by IH don’t you get?

    The suit has been filed, it is now moving forward and will now be tried before a jury whom will decide whether the concrete provisions of a commercial contract have been adhered to; nothing outside the purposefully limited scope of any and every contract can be argued, for or against, because, quite simply, the judge will not allow it by sustaining objections to every line of questioning, and attempt to enter into evidence, matters that threaten to introduce issues external and irrelevant to the concrete contractual language.

    That Leonardo is not seeking an outcome that requires the jury to direct that IH pay Leonardo $89 million (damages might be another matter entirely) vastly simplifies the presentation to the jury.

    Three re-engineered second generation 1megW steam plants, that are direct descendants from the plant at issue in the trial, are expected to be operational in the time frame before the trial begins; I think we can safely assume that a sincere effort will be made, by Leonardo, to accomplish this as planned, and then find a way to introduce that fact into evidence.