What Rossi's lawyers PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & A RIGHT, P.L point out
is that Darden & IH agreed to the instrumentation used by Penon but now
claim it was insufficient and fatally flawed. The lawyers point out it
is no good making generic statements like that without providing proof.
(quoting case history)
"“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp."
"In fact, rather than alleging that Plaintiffs have breached §3.2(b) of
the License Agreement, because they cannot, Defendants merely suggest
that one might conclude that Defendants’ failed attempts to
replica te Plaintiffs work could be explained if Defendants were not
provided all of the E-Cat IP Id."
The mere possibility a party acted unlawfully is insufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss. IH's failure to duplicate the results could
possibly be due to not following the IP correctly or even deliberate
sabotage to avoid payment of $89 million etc etc They freely admit
others have managed to get COP 2.5 to 10.8.
Then there is a discussion about whether Rossi is allowed to continue
development of the E0Cat that is shown to be covered by the original
contract.
Then there is the claim Rossi failed to pay taxes, dismissed as a
frivolous effort to show him in a bad light to the court.
IH claims Rossi committed fraud, without proof he did so. This is a
serious allegation that may spell trouble for IH. IH's claims are
similar to Jed's I say so, so this is proof.
AA
