Good prospects for Leonardo Corp./Andrea Rossi lawsuit vs. Cherokee Investment Partners/Thomas Darden

Word Cloud using 883.121 words out of  court documents

Rossi_vs_Darden_Word_Cloud

(info on missing document numbers – no PDF files supplied by pacer monitor)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al

Original Leonardo lawsuit:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-0.pdf
License Agreement:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf
First Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf
Second Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-4.pdf
IH Counterclaims:
https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rossi_vs_darden_et_al_counterclaims_with_all_exhibits_2016_searchable.pdf

(Permanently updated)

Update 24.05.2017

[PAPERLESS NOTICE Setting Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 6/13/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (wc)]

[PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga: Motion Hearing held on 5/23/2017 re 262 Plaintiff’s MOTION in Limine filed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi, 285 Defendant’s APPEAL of Magistrate Judge 266 Order to District Court Denying Motion for Sanctions Based on Spoliation, 264 Defendant’s MOTION in Limine filed by Industrial Heat, LLC, John T. Vaughn, Thomas Darden, Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, IPH International B.V.,263 MOTION in Limine filed by Henry Johnson, James A. Bass, J.M. Products, Inc.,283 Plaintiff’s APPEAL of Magistrate Judge to District Court Order – ECF No. 266 . Total time in court: 3 hour(s) : 25 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Francisco J Leon de la Barra, Rodolfo Nunez, Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Erika Stephanie Handelson, Christopher Martin Lomax, Fernando S. Aran, John William Annesser, II, Brian W. Chaiken, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / Stephanie_McCarn@flsd.uscourts.gov. (cmz)]

[Paperless ORDER denying 309 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiffs, somewhat inexplicably, continue to overlook and violate the deadline for filing pretrial motions, which has long since passed. Further, Plaintiffs continually fail to comply with the conferral requirements of the Local Rules. Future non-compliance will result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA)]

Update 23.05.2017

309_Plaintiffs_Motion.pdf

Update 19.05.2017

[308 Paperless ORDER denying 304 Motion. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga Entered: 05/17/2017]

307_Opposition_to_Appeal_incl_Exhibits_1_to_2_OCR.pdf

306_Response_in_Opposition.pdf

305_Response_in_Opposition_incl_Exhibits_1_OCR.pdf

304_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf

Update 18.05.2017

303_Order.pdf

302_Order.pdf

[301 Paperless ORDER denying 300 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga Entered: 05/17/2017]

300_Motion_to_File-Supplement_incl_Exhibit_1_to_2_OCR.pdf

Update 14.05.2017

299_Defendants_Reply_incl_Exhibits_1_to_5_OCR.pdf

Update 11.05.2017

298_Order.pdf

297_Defendants_Reply_incl_Exhibits_1_to_6_OCR.pdf

296_Reply_in_Support_of_Motion_in_Limine.pdf

295_Defendants_Motion_to_Strike.pdf

Update 10.05.2017

294_Plaintiffs_Reply_in_Support_of_Motion_in_Limine.pdf

293_Order.pdf

292_Motion_to_Withdraw.pdf

292-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

291_Instructions_for_Jury_Trial.pdf

290_Appearance_of_Counsel.pdf

Update 06.05.2017

289_Supplement_to_Joint_Pretrial_Stipulation.pdf

288_Memorandum_of_Law.pdf

Update 05.05.2017

[Paperless Notice 287 of Hearing on 283 Plaintiffs Appeal set for 5/23/2017 10:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.]

[Order 286 Paperless – Motion for Extension of Time 284 denied by Judge Cecilia M.]

285_Defendants_Appeal_incl_Exhibits_1_to_16_OCR.pdf

284_Motion_to_Extend_Time.pdf

284-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

283_Plaintiffs_Appeal_incl_Exhibits_1_to_6_OCR.pdf

282_Notice_of_Correction.pdf

Update 04.05.2017

281_Order.pdf

280_Joint_Pretrial_Stipulation.pdf

279_Opposition_to_Motion_in_Limine_incl_Exhibts_1_to_15_OCR.pdf

278_Opposition_to_Motion_in_Limine_incl_Exhibts_1_to_7_OCR.pdf

Update 03.05.2017

277_Opposition_to_Motion_in_Limine.pdf

276 _Opposition_to_Motion_in_Limine_incl_Exhibits_1_to_5_OCR.pdf

275_Motion_for_Extension_of_Time.pdf

274_Order.pdf

273-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

273_Plaintiffs_Motion_for_Time.pdf

Update  28.04.2017

270_Change_of_Address.pdf

Update  23.04.2017

Four_Transcripts_of_ hearing_48_94_97_106_OCR.pdf

Update  21.04.2017

14_Additional_Exhibits_OCR.pdf

266_Order.pdf

Update  20.04.2017

265_Amended_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  19.04.2017

264_Defendants_Motion_in_Limine_incl_Exhibits_1_to_20_OCR.pdf

263_Motion_Limine.pdf

262_Plaintiffs_Motion_in_Limine_incl_Exhibits_1_to_11_OCR.pdf

lim1

261_Order.pdf

Update  15.04.2017

260_ Order.pdf

Update  13.04.2017

259_Defendants_Response_incl_1_Exhibit_OCR.pdf

258_Plaintiffs_Amended_Motion_and_Proposed_Order.pdf

Update  13.04.2017

257_Plaintiffs_Motion_and_Order.pdf

256_Defendants_Reply_incl_Exhibits_1_to_7_OCR.pdf

255_Third_Party_Defendants_Combined_Reply.pdf

Update  12.04.2017

254_Plaintiffs_Reply_incl_Exhibits_A_to_F_OCR

253_Defendants_Reply_incl_Exhibit_1_to_3

Update  08.04.2017

252_Plaintiffs_Reply_incl_Exhibits_A_to_F_OCR.pdf

251_Notice_of_Filing_incl_Exhibit_23_OCR.pdf

250_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

249_Amended_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  08.04.2017

248_Reply_on_Opposition_to_Motion_to_exclude_incl_Exhibits_1_to_6_OCR.pdf

Update  07.04.2017

247_Notice_of_Filing_Exhibits_incl_Exhibits_1_to_5_OCR.pdf

246_Order.pdf

245_Opposition_to_Statement_of_Fact_incl_Exhibits_1_to_42_OCR.pdf

Update  05.04.2017

244_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion.pdf

243_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion_incl_Exhibits_A_to_M_OCR.pdf

242_Motion_for_Partial_Summary_Judgment.pdf

241_Order.pdf

240_Plaintiffs_appeal.pdf

239_Motion_for_Leave_to_File.pdf

Update  05.04.2017

238_Plaintiffs_Response_to_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_incl_Exhibits_43_to_71_OCR.pdf

237_Defendants_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion.pdf

236_Defendants_Opposition_to_Statement_of_Material_Fact_incl_Exhibits_1_to_55_OCR.pdf

235_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion_incl_Exhibits_1_to_15_OCR.pdf

(PDF Page 144) Darden et.al claim the E-Cat piping system is flooded with water.Steam_1

This sight glass shows that the E-Cat piping system is not flooded.
Steam_2

Steam_3

Update  31.03.2017

233_Plaintiffs_Reponse_in_Opposition_to_Motion_incl_Exhibits_A_to_E_OCR.pdf

C8NrWumUQAAU4Yx.jpg large

Update  30.03.2017

232_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  29.03.2017

231_Order.pdf

Update  28.03.2017

228_Defendants_Notice_of_Filing_incl_Exhibits_A_to_C_OCR.pdf

Update  27.03.2017

226_Supplement_to_Plaintiffs_Appeal_incl_Attachment_1_to_5_OCR.pdf

Update  25.03.2017

225_Order.pdf

Update  24.03.2017

218_Order.pdf

ordert-1

217_Plaintiffs_Appeal_of_Magistrate_Ruling.pdf

216_Order.pdf

214_Plaintiffs_Motion_for_Partial_Summary_Judgment_incl_Exhibits_1_to_42_OCR

214_Plaintiffs_Motion_for_Partial_Summary_Judgment_incl_Exhibits_1_to_42 .pdf

215_Plaintiffs_Motion_to_Strike_incl_Exhibit_1_6.pdf

207_Defendants_Statement_in_Support_of_Motion_incl_Exhibits_1_to_75.pdf

206_Sealed_Document.pdf

205_Sealed_Document .pdf

204_Sealed_Document.pdf

203_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment.pdf

202_Sealed_Document.pdf

201-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

201_Defendants_Motion_to_Seal.pdf

200_Sealed_Document.pdf

199_Third_Party_Defendants_Motion_to_Seal.pdf

198_Sealed_Document.pdf

197_Defendants_Motion_to_Exclude_incl_Exhibits_1_to_3.pdf

196_Sealed_Document.pdf

195-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

195_Plaintiffs_Motion_to_Seal.pdf

194_Defendants_Motion_for_Sanctions_incl_Exhibits_1_to_16.pdf

Update  23.03.2017

193_Amended_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

192_Order_on_Motion_for_Extension_of_Time.pdf

Update  22.03.2017

189-01_Text_of_Proposed_Order.pdf

188_Motion_for_leave_to_file_excess_Pages .pdf

187-01_Text_of_Proposed_Order.pdf

187_Motion_to_seal.pdf

186-01_Text_of_Proposed_Order.pdf

186_Motion_for_Extension_of_Time.pdf

185_ Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  21.03.2017

184_Defendants_amended_appeal_incl_Exhibit_5_OCR.pdf

183_Defendants_Appeal_incl_Exhibits_1_to_5_OCR.pdf

182_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

181_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

180_Order.pdf

Update  18.03.2017

179_Motion_for_Sanctions_incl_Exhibits_1_to_8.pdf

Fogelman-1

174-01_Text_of_proposed_Order.pdf

174_Plaintiffs_Motion_to_Seal.pdf

Update  17.03.2017

173_Order.pdf

Update  16.03.2017

172-01_Text_of_proposed_Order.pdf

172_Notice_of_Filing.pdf

Update  14.03.2017

170_Order.pdf

Update  14.03.2017

168_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  10.03.2017

167-Exhibit_4_to_7_searchable.pdf

167_Plaintiffs_Motion_for_Sanctions_incl_Prop_Order_and_3_Exhibits.pdf

Nobel-1

166_Order.pdf

163_Order.pdf

162_Notice_of_Hearing.pdf

Update  09.03.2017

160-01_Proposed_Order.pdf

160_Plaintiffs_Motion_to_seal.pdf

159_Notice_of_Hearing_by_Attorney.pdf

Update  03.03.2017

158-01_declaration_of_dewey_weaver.pdf

158_defendants_reply-memorandum_of_law.pdf

Update  25.02.2017

157_defendants_reply_memorandum_of_law.pdf

153_plaintiffs_memorandum_of_law.pdf

Update  24.02.2017

152_order.pdf

Update  22.02.2017

151_plaintiffs_memorandum_of_law.pdf

Update  22.02.2017

150_notice_of_hearing.pdf

149_answer_and_affirmative_defenses.pdf

148_order.pdf

146_order_on_discovery.pdf

145_order_on_discovery.pdf

Update  21.02.2017

144_amended_notice_of_hearing.pdf

Update  18.02.2017

143_memorandum_of_law.pdf

Update  16.02.2017

142_order_to_show_cause.pdf

141_answer_to_third_party_complaint.pdf

Update  15.02.2017

140_answer_to_counterclaim.pdf

139_order_on_motion_for_protective_order.pdf

138-02_exhibit_b.pdf

138-01_exhibit_a.pdf

138_defendants_motion_for_a_protective_order.pdf

Update  15.02.2017

137_notice_of_attorney_hearing.pdf

Update  08.02.2017

135_notice_of_hearing.pdf

boeing1

Update  07.02.2017

133_notice_of_hearing.pdf

Update  02.02.2017

132_fourth_amended_answer.pdf

131_notice_of_hearing.pdf

130_order_on_motion_for_leave_to_file.pdf

Update  01.02.2017

129-01_exhibit_1.pdf

129_defendants_reply.pdf

128_response_in_opposition_to_motion.pdf

128-02_exhibit_2.pdf

128-01_exhibit_1.pdf

127_response_in_opposition_to_motion.pdf

Update  31.01.2017

126_response_in_opposition_to_motion.pdf

125_order.pdf

124_defendants_motion_for_leave_-to_file_incl_all_exhibits_searchable.pdf

123_order_on_discovery.pdf

122-01_text_of_proposed_order.pdf

122_notice_of_filing.pdf

Update 18.01.2017

121_order_on_motion_for_extension_of_time.pdf

120_order_on_-motion_to_dismiss.pdf

Update 14.01.2017

119-01_text_of_proposed_order.pdf

119_notice_of_filing_proposed_order.pdf

118-02_exhibit_b.pdf

118-01_exhibit_a.pdf

118_defendants_motion_for_extension.pdf

117_mediators_report_and_notice_of_impasse.pdf

Update 13.01.2017

116_order_on_discovery.pdf

115-01_attachment_1.pdf

115_notice_of_filing_proposed_order_on_discovery.pdf

114_order_on_motion_for_leave_to_appear.pdf

Update 11.01.2017

113_motion_for_leave_to_appear.pdf

112_order_on_motion_for_sanctions.pdf

111_order_on_motion_to_appear_pro_hac_vice.pdf

110_reply_to_response_to_motion.pdf

Update 11.01.2017

109-02_attachment_2.pdf

109-01_attachment_1.pdf

109_motion_to_appear_pro_hac_vice.pdf

108-04_exhibit_d.pdf

108-03_exhibit_c.pdf

108-02_exhibit_b.pdf

Industrial Heat Patent 2016 US20160051957A1
108-01_exhibit_a.pdf

108_motion_for_sanctions.pdf

Update 10.01.2017

105_01_attachment.pdf

105_notice_of_hearing.pdf

Update 06.01.2017

103_order_on_discovery.pdf

Update 05.01.2017

102_02_attachment.pdf

102_01_attachment.pdf

102_notice_of_hearing.pdf

101_opposition_to_motion.pdf

Update 29.12.2016

100_order_on_motion_for_leave_to_file.pdf

Update 29.12.2016

99_response_to_motion_for_leave_to_file.pdf

98_1_text_of_proposed_order.pdf

98_renewed_motion_for_leave_to_file.pdf

Update 27.12.2016

pacer_96-1

Update 27.12.2016

95_Motion_for_leave_to_file.pdf

Update 21.12.2016

pacer3t-1

94_certificate_of_interested_parties.pdf

93_certificate_of_interested_parties.pdf

91_defendants_objection_to_notice_of_hearing.pdf

Update 21.12.2016

90_3rdparty_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

Update 15.12.2016

89_Answer_to_counterclaim.pdf

Update 06.12.2016

pacer13

Update 01.12.2016

pacer12.jpg

Update 24.11.2016

79_-defendants_notice_of_filing_third_amended_answer.pdf

78_third_amended_answer_to_complaint.pdf

rossi_-vs_darden_78

Update 19.11.2016

77_third_party_defendants_combined_reply.pdf

Update 17.11.2016

76_order_denying_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

75_01_attachment_to_notice.pdf

75_notice_of_attorney_hearing.pdf

Update 13.11.2016

74_order_on_informal_discovery_conference.pdf

request-1

73_opposition_to_third_party_motion.pdf

Update 28.10.2016

72_Reply_to_Defendants.pdf

Update 21.10.2016

70_Notice_of_hearing_by_attorney_plus_4_Exhibits_OCR.pdf

NOTICE OF HEARING – (Special Set – 60 minutes) plus 4 Exhibits


hearing_27_10_2016-1

Update 21.10.2016

69_Motion_to_dismiss_for_failure_to_state_a_claim.pdf

Update 18.10.2016

68_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion.pdf

Update 16.10.2016

67_Order_on_Motion_to_Strike.pdf

65_Order_on_Motion_for_Protective_Order.pdf

Update 14.10.2016

64-01_Text_of_Proposed_Order.pdf

64_Motion_for_Protective_Order.pdf

63_Reply_to_Response_to_Motion.pdf

62_Order_on_Motion_to_Dismiss_for_failure_to_state_a_claim.pdf

Update 13.10.2016

60_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

fabiani_1

61_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

jm_product-1

Update 11.10.2016

Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike In Part Defendants’ Second Amended Answer, Affirmative [Sic.] Defenses, Counterclaims And Thirdparty Claims, Or In The Alternative, Motion For A More Definite Statement

59-1

Update 30.09.2016
Leonardo_Motion_to_Dismiss

presure-3.jpg

presure-1

Update 27.09.2016

Update  25.09.2016

motion_sep_2016

Update  22.09.2016

Rossi’s Lawyer John Annesser (ex. Silver Law Group) now Litigation Counsel at Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright, P.L. – PBY&A http://pbyalaw.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-annesser-esq-8b13b013

Update 21.09.2016

Update 20.09.2016

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER, ADDITIONAL DEFENSES,COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRDPARTY CLAIMS 50_Rossi_vs_Darden_et_al_Second_Amended_Answer_with_all_Exhibits_OCR.pdf

Update 17.09.2016

order-21

Update 16.09.2016

https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/exhibit_a_sep_2016.pdf

https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/motion_for_extension_of_time_sep_2016.pdf

Update 11.09.2016

Update 03.09.2016

Pleading

Darden et al ask the court to move for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I of the complaint!

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c), Industrial Heat, LLC (“IH”) and IPH International, B.V. (“IPH”) hereby move for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I of the complaint (“Complaint”) [D.E. 1] of Andrea Rossi (“Rossi”) and Leonardo Corporation (“Leonardo”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) based upon the allegations in the Complaint, the Amended Answer, Additional Defenses, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims (“AACT”) [D.E.30], and the exhibits attached to the Complaint and AACT.”

As already stated in the Motion to Dismiss Judgment the court will have to prove, if the “six-cylinder-unit is simply another name for the E-Cat Unit”, or if it is a different device.

This could be crucial for Rossi et.al, the question is if the six-cylinder-unit is in its core an E-Cat and will the court accept, that even if the device is looking completely different, the 1MW Container plant is suitable to meet the license conditions.

Rossi_vs_Darden_Motion_for_judgment_on_the_pleadings

Rossi_vs_Darden_Motion-to-Dismiss-Judgment (Page 8)

ECAT Core Lugano Test

ECAT_Lugano2

1 MW ECAT Plant in Florida

ecat+MW1-USA+team+at+working

ECAT Six-Cylinder-Uni, still in North Carolina

CpdrfxfWgAAax60

CpdriSEXgAQ1taA

Update 01.09.2016

PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW (PDF searchable)

sep-1

Update 27.08.2016

Update 24.08.2016

Fernando S. Aran on behalf of J.M. Products http://acg-law.com/about-us/fernando-s-aran/

D. Porpoise Evans on behalf of Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. http://pbyalaw.com/attorney/porpoise-evans/

Paul Dewey Turner on behalf of Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. http://pbyalaw.com/attorney/paul-turner/

Update 17.08.2016



Update 11.08.2016

Facts are facts, or why Darden et.al will lose the ECAT Case


Update 10.08.2016 – ANSWER AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

The Texas Hold’em Heads up between Thomas Darden and Andrea Rossi is in the final phase, the River card was uncovered Thomas Darden is gone all in, uncovering  of all cards is imminent.

https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rossi_vs_darden_et_al_counterclaims_with_all_exhibits_2016_searchable.pdf

Again a very weak Jones Day defense; denying many allegations and delivering the disproof in own exhibits at the same time.


Update 21.07.2016 – Order by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga

ORDER granting in part and denying in part17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Counts II, V, VII, and VIII are DISMISSED without prejudice. All other counts remain intact. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 7/19/2016.

According to the analysis of  http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/20/industrial-heats-motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-part-granted-in-part/

The district court has more or less simplified the complex case to make it judge-able by setting following premises:

1. The factual allegations of the Leonardo Corp./Rossi are accepted as true.

2. The Second Amendment is valid as it is.

3. The Case is now Leonardo Corp./Rossi vs. Cherokee Investment Partners, because Cherokee entirely owns and funds IH, one of its holding companies, IPH is a wholly owned subsidiary and holding entity of IH furthermore, Darden is the CEO of Cherokee and president of IH; and Vaughn is the manager of Cherokee and vice president of IH.

The intact counts compress the case to its core, the risk for Cherokee Investment Partners to lose the case is high, because they have obviously no facts (or hold them back), that stand against the factual allegations, that are accepted as true by the court. (Including an ERV approved E-Cat 1MW Reactor)

Count I: Breach of Contract (Non-Payment) Intact
Count III: Unjust Enrichment Intact
Count IV: Misappropriaton of Trade Secrets Intact
Count VI: Fraud and Deceit Intact

The dismissed counts are interesting to discuss, but from now on no longer part of the trial at court.

Count II: Breach of Contract (Exceeding Scope of License) Dismissed
Count V: Civil Conspiracy to Misappropriate Trade Secrets Dismissed
Count VII: Constructive and Equitable Fraud Dismissed
Count VIII: Patent Infringement Dismissed

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Motion-to-Dismiss-Judgment-Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0024.0.pdf

fraud-4

fraud-2

fraud-1



Update 06.07.2016 – New Trial Schedule Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga

trial-1


Update 01.07.2016 – As predicted Darden et.al Motion to Dismiss failed, Begin of 10 days trial period September 18, 2017

Rossi_vs_Darden_Joint_Schedule_Report

ECAT_Trail-1


Rossi_vs_Darden_Joint_Proposed_Scheduling

ECAT_Trail-2.jpg


This is what happened before:

The Cherokee Investment Partners  Jones Day attorney Christopher R.J. Pace and the new added Jones Day attorney Christopher M. Lomax , who focuses their practice on complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal matters,  are trying to force the rejection of the Leonardo Corp. lawsuit with a Motion to Dismiss and the threading of formal errors and matching precedents.

https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

http://ecat.org/2016/industrial-heat-files-motion-in-rossi-suit/

https://legaleasesolutions.com/lawstoreblog/motion-to-dismiss-for-failure-to-state-a-claim/

Update   17.06.2016 – Leonardo Corp. Answer to the Motion of Dismiss by John Annesser
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf

Update  27.06.2016 – Darden et.al Reply to Response to Motion by Christopher R.J. Pace
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0019.0.pdf

Motion_Answer

http://www.geldards.co.uk/corporate-directors-%E2%80%93-an-upcoming-change-in-uk-company-law.aspx

IPHBV Holdings Ltd
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09512550/filing-history

Thomas_Darden_Director-1

IH HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09553031/filing-history

Thomas_Darden_Director-2

http://cherokeefund.com/team/

Thomas_Darden_Director-3

Conclusion – It is US & EU Solar Power Industry vs. Leonardo Corp. ECAT


The reassignment of the lawsuit as patent law case to the District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga and her consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on the basis of technicalities.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=504

cecilia_altonaga

How Cecilia M. Altonaga guides lawsuits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_patent_law_cases


The informations that were gathered, after the lawsuit was send to the district court, especially the plagiarism of the Lugano Test Reports for one of the Industrial Heat LLC US patent application, and the connection of Cherokee/IH/IPHBV Holdings Ltd UK to NRG Energy (over the old owner of IPH International BV the European Generating S.A.R.L. a subsidiary of  NRG Energy) indicates conspiratorial and planned action and that will certainly be investigated.

https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/lenr-technology-impeded-by-american-fortune-150-energy-companies/

https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/lenr-ecat-the-fog-of-british-and-american-energy-companies/

https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/2016-industrial-heat-patentapplication-is-a-copy-of-lugano-report/

During the trial, IH must therefore remove all doubts and they will not succeed with the available data. The overall picture clearly shows the attempted theft of Andrea Rossi’s ECAT IP and unauthorized plagiarism of scientific texts and unapproved patent applications in Rossi’s name, and several findings of user in Mats Lewans Blog and by Siffercoll confirm the suspicion.

LENR_ECAT_FOG

The strategy of Rossi lawyers will be to invalidate the by Christopher R.J. Pace demanded split of liability to every single defendant for alleged to Leonardo/Rossi impermissibly lump defendants together in several counts, which is possible if an initial suspicion of conspiratorial action by Cherokee/Darden and NRG Energy/CEO David W. Crane may be suspected.

Where leads us the Cherokee Investment Partners – Industrial Heat LLC – NRG Energy trace?

The credibility of Cherokee and Thomas Darden plays a crucial role, therefore the in November 2015 settled enforcement action against Cherokee Investment Partners by the SEC are a bad light on Darden et.al and will play a role.

http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/private-equity-fees-2016-05.pdf


Additionally is the IH advocacy defense very weak and fault-bound:

One crucial argument in the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS by Jones Day attorney Christopher R.J. Pace for not to pay the $89 Million is the argument, that the guarantied performance test, as agreed in §5 of the license agreement, was not performed in time and must have ended at least in October 2014.

The lawyer was right that there was such a more or less indicated ‘timeline’ in the original license agreement, but  §5 was completely replaced in the second amendment, where no starting, or end-date is apparent, on the contrary, both parties (Rossi and Darden) commit themselves working cooperatively and result-oriented together by all means to successful carry out the 400-day trial.

LENR_Rossi_Darden_400_days

Christopher R.J. Pace declares that this second amendment, signed by Andrea Rossi and Thomas Darden, is in complete invalid, because of a (for unknown reasons) missing signature of AmpEnergo Inc.(AEG), notwithstanding that it is more than obvious, that AEG has nothing to do with the monetary arrangements between Rossi and Darden, or the timetable (see License Agreement §5-  as such time period may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion).

LENR_Rossi_Darden_400_days_2

Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corp. comments the dismiss document of Industrial Heat and the four major accusations, including the alleged delay of the test execution, in a short Q&A interview at Peter Glucks Blog:

1 -departing from the purported test plan,
The test plan has respected precisely the protocol; signed in the agreement which has been also the same protocol of the first test made on April 30- May 2, 2013 in Ferrara”

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.de/2016/06/june-04-2016-lenr-and-limits-of.html

Additionally having a look into the citations of the Darden et.al 2011 “Systems and methods for microgrid power generation and management” US patent 9225173 B2 makes it very implausible, that Industrial Heat/Thomas Darden could have been tricked by a simple fraud of measurement http://www.google.com/patents/US9225173#backward-citations

And it is unlikely and does not make sense that Andrea Rossi, having a US resident, ruins himself by commiting a crime by false accusations of fraud vs. Darden et.al, if he himself is acting fraudulently, because it would be very easy for the court to clarify this by checking the facts.


The Motion to Dismiss Paper by Jones Day attorney Christopher R.J. Pace appears as an attempt by superelevation of trivialities to distract from the attempted fraud and raises more questions than giving answers and therefore gives much more reason why there should be held a trial to investigate the case, than it does the opposite.

In the light of all this it is not likely that District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga simply close the case on technicalities, so the prospects for Rossi and Leonardo Corp. are good.

First of all the attempted fraud is not sufficiently refuted, second, the arguments that the performance test was not accomplished within a specific time period seams to be wrong, third, the assertion, that the four other mayor arguments, ‘ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, using unsuitable measuring devices, testing the wrong device’ are accurate and crucial for the fulfillment of the agreement, is more than questionable and forth, if the developing trial reveals everything, it is simply impossible to deny an attempted fraud conspiracy with the aim to steal the ECAT-IP of Rossi/Leonardo and it is then no longer important what kind of agreements are written in the license agreement and the two amendments, this will be invalidated, if the license agreement was part of the attempted fraud/theft.

Thus, the announcement of Leonardo Corporation that IH was revoked the license is basically just a formality.
http://ecat.com/news/pressrelease-industrial-heat-loses-license-for-rossis-e-cat

Developing Storys at LENR FORUM:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3312-Industrial-Heat-Files-Motion-to-Dismiss-Rossi-Lawsuit/
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3311-Now-IH-have-lost-E-Cat-License-and-IP-who-will-manufacture-E-Cats-in-the-US/

Blog of Mats Lewan:
Let’s join forces to bring out the truth on Rossi-IH affair

Original Leonardo lawsuit:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-0.pdf

License Agreement:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

First Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf

Second Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-4.pdf


LENR Newsroom-
www.the-new-fire.com

Uns auf Twitter folgen –
https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire icon_twitter

Für die aktuellesten News zum Thema –
https://twitter.com/hashtag/lenr

Für den Gedankenaustausch mit Interessierten aus der Welt –
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/

Unsere Beiträge:

1. Disruptive Energie Revolution – Low Energy Nuclear Reaction – LENR – Die  Auswirkungen von LENR – Kalter Fusion

2. LENR technology impeded by American Fortune 150 Energy Companies?

3. Warum ist LENR das neue Feuer?

4. Why ist LENR the new Fire?

5. Investition in die Zukunft – Der Leonardo ECAT – als wertebasierte Marke

6. Investment in the Future – The Leonardo ECAT – as value-based brand

7. Deutschland und LENR = Nicht zweckmäßig!

8. LENR ECAT – The Fog of British and American Energy Companies

9. 2016 Industrial Heat Patent Application is basically a copy of 2014 Ecat Lugano Report

10. NASA – Sustained Human Presence on Mars with LENR

11. World Energy Consumption 2024

12. Stromkosten Einsparungspotential am Beispiel der deutschen Industrie durch LENR Technologie

13. Das Große Bild – Die LENR Revolution und der Elefant

14. The big picture – The LENR Revolution and Peter Gluck’s Elephant

15. LENR – Die Lösung für alle Probleme der Menschheit?

16. Signals in the LENR background noise

17. Signale im LENR Hintergrundrauschen

18. Good prospects for Rossi and Leonardo Corp. lawsuit

19. How Cecilia M. Altonaga guides lawsuits

20. Where leads us the Cherokee Investment Partners – Industrial Heat LLC – NRG Energy trace?

21. Where leads us the Darden et.al micro grid patent trace?

22. Conclusion – It is US & EU Solar Power Industry vs. Leonardo Corp. ECAT

23. The mystery of the irrational withdraw of the ECAT support