Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:) IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the detailss then who to blaim.???
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in >> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO. >> > > I read the license agreement quite differently. It had language > pertaining to all future improvements. The language sounded like it > readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X. The contract also > stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to > make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they > would be interesting. Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the > license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard. > > With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent > applications filed by Rossi. > > Eric > >
