I just posted a instant-blog in SA titled: CIT vs UniPixel: The Smoking Gun
It talks about EVIDENCE that UniPixel disclosed CIT's core technologies in a patent request. The patent request mentions CIT's core technology including the use of "palladium acetate and ethyl lactate" and the use of Xaar print heads. The fact that UniPixel is or is not currently using these technologies is irrelevant. Green River Assets argument that UniPixel is not using "palladium" (even though a recent patent by UniPixel says that they do) and that they don't use print heads is just is irrelevant. The fact is that UniPixel disclosed these CIT's core technologies in a patent request and that's the smoking gun!
There is no frivolous law suit here the evidence is point blank clear. This is not a patent dispute this is a "non-disclosure agreement dispute" but the discovery in this case is what CIT will use to build a patent dispute against UniPixel later after this case is over.
There is a can of worms here that UniPixel doesn't want to be opened. What is in there you can guess.
It looks like Ivan was shown to be wrong from a legal view by Albert Podell, and from a business point of view by GRA. here's the comment from the SA site....
Ivan, it's not going to surprise many people that you are wrong again, but Al Podell has put together a thoughtful response to your article explaining exactly how wrong you are from a legal perspective. http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1012473-albert-podell/1840421-unxl-smoking-gun-did-not-iinjure-anyone#comments_header
Outside of Al's great points, I would add that you are quite alone in thinking it's irrelevant that UniPixel has not used CIT's technology in creating UniBoss. Even Carclo disagrees with you. They plainly spell out in their claim and in the press release that accompanied the claim that they feel UniBoss relies on their technology.
You claim that you have found some kind of smoking gun. Your evidence: Carclo’s claim. Ivan, is this some kind of joke?
You don’t understand what you’re talking about. UniPixel’s first patent is all about matching the surface energy of the ink to the substrate so that there’s not excessive bleeding or beading. Carclo attacks them for referencing the use of solvents, catalysts, and inkjet technologies. But there’s two things wrong with Carclo’s arguments: 1) the ingredients and techniques they describe are industry standard (for instance, the use of palladiaum acetate dates to the 1950s); and even more importantly 2) the patents describe a process that one could use to apply the real technological advance that is the focus of the patent – the matching of surface energies. The patent has nothing to do with CIT’s supposed technologies (which are really industry standards.)
In the case of the second patent, Chris Malley, CEO of CIT undermines his own case so we don’t have to do the heavy lifting. In his witness testimony, Malley speaks to the fact that just having a list of variables used in the process of electroless plating and creating catalytic(more