Jed’s comment brings up several interesting points. Both Parkhomov and the other group claimed success, but neither followed Rossi’s patent closely. The Kazak group did not use resistance wire at all. And both apparently used LAH and nickel, but the nickel was not the same composition as Rossi’s. Anyone can “claim” success - and we should give them benefit of the doubt, but a US Court will not. If they do not get their work published in a peer reviewed journal, then it could be an issue. It is not required, but evidence of replication could be needed (by Rossi’s legal team). Parkhomov has apparently filed for his own patent, indicating he has found something unique. He could be uncooperative to Rossi. And of course the 800 pound gorilla in the corner is BLP.
In the end, it is very likely that the main thing Rossi can protect is using LAH as a catalyst with nickel. Nickel-hydrogen with potassium catalyst was patented by Thermacore twenty years ago, and is in the public domain. Same with lithium. BLP has wide patent coverage on many details of using alkali salts with transition metals. It seems that the only thing which can secure Rossi’s success without competition from many others is whatever detail that he has hidden away, as a trade secret, plus the use of LAH. Holmlid’s patent applications for ICF appear to be more valuable than does Rossi’s but that is a minority opinion. This unfolding IP situation presents shaky ground for any investment in IH or Leonardo– especially since Mills has claimed publicly to have LAH covered -- and BLP has that formidable patent portfolio - and the funds to defend it. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Yes that seems to be the painful lesson; and given many other failures not reported - it is very obvious that Rossi may have forfeited any chance of a valid patent, since he held back on details which have prohibited those “skilled in the art” from replicating the effect. Maybe not, for two reasons: 1. The art may be better defined than most people realize. The patent does not have to include details that are known to experts. For example, the Wright brothers patent for the airplane did not mention that the wings are chambered. There were some attempts by Ferber to replicate in France with flat wings. (See the photo on p. 6 of my paper.) 2. There are reports of successful replications, first by Parkhomov and today by a group in Kazakhstan: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2178-Kazakhstan-held-a-successful-replication-with-nickel-hydrogen-systems/ Imagine this scenario: In the coming months several more groups attempt to replicate. Most fail but three succeed. Experts evaluating these three determine that the calorimetry is good. A year from now many others have replicated using the methods of these three successful groups. In this case, the patent office will conclude that the three groups were PHOSITA and the others were not. In that case the patent will be valid. There is no requirement that a patent be easy to replicate. It is not always clear ahead of time who is a PHOSITA. As long as some group, somewhere, can replicate and that replication is considered valid by most experts, even if the experts themselves cannot replicate, the patent will be judged valid. - Jed
