Does IH Admit Delaying the MW test to Steal as much E-Cat IP as Possible With Legal Tricks?

It sure looks that way reading the probably very expensive @JonesDay motion to dismiss Rossis complaint.

In the dismissal they are claiming that they knew already since 2013 when they delayed the test for the first time and signed the 2nd amendment (but missing signatures)

This can only be interpretad as a dirty legal trick with the intention to steal Rossi E-Cat IP.



… That delivery, Plaintiffs allege, occurred in August 2013: “In or around August 2013, the E-Cat Unit was delivered from Ferrara, Italy to IH at its facility in Raleigh, North Carolina, where preparations began for the final Guaranteed Performance Test.” Compl. ¶ 59. Plaintiffs’ purported Guaranteed Performance Test, ”however, was not commenced until “on or about February 19, 2015” and not “concluded” until “February 15, 2016.” Id. ¶¶ 66, 71.

The Complaint alleges that the Second Amendment to the License Agreement (“Proposed Second Amendment”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint, “formally eliminated the requirement that the Guaranteed Performance test period be commenced immediately upon delivery of the plant and instead requiring [sic.] that the Guaranteed Performance Test period would commence on a date agreed to in writing by the parties.” Compl. ¶ 62. The Proposed Second Amendment, however, clearly states that “[t]his Amendment may be executed in counterparts, none of which need contain the original signatures of all Parties, provided that one or more counterparts collectively shall contain the signatures of all Parties to this Amendment.” …

So, IH knew already in August 2013 that they were not going to pay Rossi anything by using these legal tricks of the 2nd amendment. Instead they deliberately kept Rossi in a tight leash to steal IP and delay E-Cat / LENR roll out

Really nice guys Darden, Vaughn, Weaver et al… Realy nice guys!!!

Hopefully Rossi now have the opportunity to continue product development as stated in the recent press release.

Second Press Release JWA



Leonardo Corporation announced today, June 2, 2016, that it has terminated the license granted to Industrial Heat, LLC. for the Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology. Effective immediately, Leonardo Corporation has the sole and exclusive right to the E-Cat intellectual property in all territories previously licensed to Industrial Heat, LLC. According to Leonardo Corporation, the decision to terminate Industrial Heat, LLC.’s license follows Industrial Heat, LLC.’s failure to pay the agreed upon licensing fee.
The license previously granted to Industrial Heat, LLC gave the company the exclusive rights to use the E-Cat intellectual property in the geographic territories of North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Emirates.
In an effort to avoid any delay in making the E-Cat units commercially available in the above territories, Leonardo Corporation will be working diligently with its strategic partners to develop a new manufacturing and distribution strategy for those territories. For those customers located in these territories, all future inquiries regarding the E-Cat should be directed to Leonardo Corporation directly through its website.
As a result of its terminating Industrial Heat, LLC’s license, Leonardo Corporation has also demanded that Industrial Heat, LLC immediately assign all patents and patent applications based upon the E-Cat intellectual property to Leonardo Corporation, or abandon these applications in all jurisdictions.
Additional information is available at


2 thoughts on “Does IH Admit Delaying the MW test to Steal as much E-Cat IP as Possible With Legal Tricks?

  1. There is a price for the territories, somewhere along the line you lose the right to buy the grant unless you pay. The price is: USD 100.500.000:-

    Evidence Law suit, contract IH/Rossi Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA, page 2
    3. Price and Payments
    3.1 The total price for the grant of the License and the purchase of the plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollar’s ($ 100,500,000).
    The question is more of “how long can you wait” until the contract conditions expires.

    Even if IH win the case big times they still have to pay.

  2. This comment below is more a case of thinking out loud. The thought crossed my mind that if we start to see the price of oil move up markedly in coming weeks, and it6 continues such that some analysts go as far as to say a major recovery is in progress, then my questions would be “is there any connection to what IH has been doing with Rossi, esp if they were never (at any time in 3 years) convinced the eCat(s) worked as claimed. Their activity and presentations around the globe would possibly have had a noted effect on confidence in oil futures. driving the price down, then at the end of the 12-month test we have the shock lawsuit. Point I am leading to is the possibility these IH folk just encouraged a massive oil price shift over 2014/2015, that they knew would end when they pulled the plug on Rossi or Rossi pulled the plug on them (lawsuit). If though there isn’t an oil recovery currently underway (I see some evidence there is), then these thoughts are just passing ideas. But, more than anything I am thinking IH and associates were up to some grand money making scheme.

    Doug Marker

Comments are closed.