Ivan Jimenez's  Instablog

Ivan Jimenez
Send Message
I'm an aircraft mechanic by trade.
  • CIT Vs UniPixel: The Smoking Gun! 9 comments
    May 8, 2013 12:02 PM | about stocks: UNXL

    Green River Assets is totally missing the point.

    The case is about a non-disclosure agreement is not about UniBoss or UniPixel's current process. CIT presented EVIDENCE of UniPixel breaking this agreement.

    The Smoking Gun

    On 29 April 2011 UniPixel filed patent which was published internationally. In this patent request UniPixel disclosed multiple of CIT's core technologies. See below:

    The 055 Application

    61. Paragraphs 0027 and 0029-0030 of the 055 Application set out the Defendant's reduction to practice of the invention claimed therein. This description corresponds to the essence of the Claimant's proprietary metal priming process which pre-dated, and was disclosed to the Defendant during, the TMOS Project.

    62. Paragraph 0027 also discloses the use of an ink which contains both palladium acetate and ethyl lactate. These are two of the primary components of the CIT ink. That combination of materials in catalytic inks for use in the Claimant's and the Defendant's applications was proprietary and confidential to the Claimant prior to the publication of the 055 Application.

    63. Paragraph 0027 also discloses the use of a Xennia Inkjet printer based on Xaar Printhead Technology. The use and advantages of using a Xennia Inkjet printer based on Xaar Printhead Technology in the type of application disclosed in the 055 Application were matters confidential to the Claimant when the 055 Application was filed.

    64. Claim 1 of the 055 Application constitutes a four step process. The first step is expressed to relate to the alteration of the surface energy of the substrate. It would be more accurately described as a disclosure of the need to match the surface energy of the substrate with that of the catalytic ink to create the correct hydro-dynamic relationship between the two. This need was disclosed by Xennia to the Defendant at page 9 of the 2006 Presentation, and development work relative, to the matching of the surface energies of the ink and substrate was subsequently included within the scope of the TMOS Project and disclosed to the Defendant by Xennia pursuant to the TMOS Project (see, for example, pages 8-9 of the Project Completion Report).

    65. The second, third and fourth steps in the process of claim 1 comprise a basic description of the Claimant's method of metalizing a substrate. This was disclosed to the Defendant as part of the TMOS Project in, for example, pages 3-4 of the First Proposal.

    66. Similarly, the second, third and fourth steps in the process of claim 17 comprise a basic modification of the Claimant's method of metalizing a substrate. Pending disclosure further information and/or cross-examination herein, the Claimant is unable to say whether or not the first and second steps in the process of claim 17, which differentiate it from the Claimant's core method, constitute or derive from the unauthorized use of Disclosed C1T Technology.

    The 882 Application

    67. The abstract and paragraph 0008 each disclose the use of a catalytic ink in the printing process and the use of electroless plating to coat the substrate. This was disclosed to the Defendant as part of the TMOS Project in, for example, pages 3-4 of the First Proposal and pages 5 and 7 of the 2006 presentation.

    68. The further embodiment of the invention described in paragraph 0009 discloses the electroless plating technique and use of a catalytic ink as a seed layer for the plating process. This was disclosed to the Defendant as part of the THOS Project in, for example, pages 3-4 of the First Proposal and pages 6-7 of the 2006 presentation.

    69. Claims 2 and 3 each disclose and claim the application of a catalytic ink to the substrate and the subsequent electroless plating of the substrate in a refined embodiment of claim 1. This application was disclosed to the Defendant during the TMOS Project.

    Other misuses of the CIT Information and Xennia Information

    70. In the premises of paragraph 54 above, it is to be inferred that the Defendant has disclosed Disclosed CIT Technology to Rambus, Inc. without the consent of the Claimant.

    71. Prior and subsequent to its disposal of the TMOS Project to Rambus, Inc., the Defendant has developed what it has named its "UniBoss" process for the printing of bulk conductive metals. The Defendant is now commercialising the "UniBoss" process in competition with the Claimant and the Current CIT Technology (as defined at paragraph 6.7 of the first witness statement of Mr Christopher Malley). Pending disclosure, further information and/or cross-examination herein, the Claimant will rely upon the following matters in support of the contention that the UniBoss process includes and/or has been developed using Disclosed CIT Technology:

    i. The UniBoss process is a process for printing fine metallic lines of copper onto substrates for use in display and touch-screen applications, as demonstrated by the datasheet accessible on its website, a copy of which can be found at pages 517 of Exhibit CM1 to the first statement of Mr Christopher Malley;

    ii. The statement by the Defendant's Chief Technology Officer, Mr Robert Petcavich, published on the "Printed Electronics Now" website on 16 May 2012, which included the following admission:

    "[The Defendant] kept all the film micro embossing and printing technology for our internal products....During the TMOS development we had to learn how to inkjet very fine conductive lines of 5 microns or less. That know-how was sufficient for small scale batch processing, but not large scale roll to roll printing. But the knowledge we gained from that exercise taught us a lot about inks and printing, which we translated into a roll to roll process."

    iii. The UniBoss process makes use of a "Secret Sauce", understood by the Claimant to be a catalytic ink of the nature developed for the Defendant by Xennia as part of the TMOS Project, as disclosed in the Defendant's November 2010 "Investor Overview" document, a copy of which can be found at pages 487-516 of Exhibit CM I to the first statement or Mr Christopher Malley.

    iv. Each of the Applications in Suit, which were filed subsequent to the Defendant's disposal of the TMOS Project, relates to the UniBoss process.

    72. The Defendant's development of UniBoss technology, and its use of the Disclosed CIT Technology for that purpose; has:

    i. at all material times been for commercial purposes;

    ii. at all material times been other than for the purposes of the TMOS Project; and

    iii. not otherwise been authorized by the Claimant.


    The point here is that UniPixel tried to get a patent for CIT's core technology including "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.

    Stocks: UNXL
Back To Ivan Jimenez's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (9)
Track new comments
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (756) | Send Message
    Ivan, you do great research but consistently seem to come to illogical conclusions.


    Lets assume that UniBoss does NOT utilize any of the specifications within the NDA. You claim that UNXL is still 'guilty' simply for pursuing patents related to TMOS. Lets also assume that you are right in this regard. Given that TMOS is not currently a product that they are producing, what do you think the penalty will be? Certainly not an injunction or even a license on UniBoss.


    Most likely a one time fine of sorts. So really there is no major risk to Uni-Pixel.


    On the other hand, what is the risk to CIT if UniPixel actually has created a better/cheaper method of producing these screens? the risk is huge.
    8 May 2013, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Ivan Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (1022) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Hi Chris


    This article is just to refute GRA's article. I won't argue your points. My point is that there was a clear breach of the non-disclosure agreement and that this is not a frivolous law suit.


    I won't say nothing else.


    8 May 2013, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (756) | Send Message
    because you know that the facts aren't on your side. Look at GRA's most recent comment on his own article.... CIT even admits themselves that this lawsuit is regarding UniBoss only, and not TMOS. That completely refutes your entire thesis.
    8 May 2013, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ivan Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (1022) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » No because I don't want to argue ;-)
    8 May 2013, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Northpith
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
    News flash! 'Charges' are not EVIDENCE.
    9 May 2013, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • Ivan Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (1022) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » The patent it self is the EVIDENCE
    9 May 2013, 02:01 AM Reply Like
  • Northpith
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
    Sorry, I missed it. I'm looking for EVIDENCE of INJURY.
    9 May 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (756) | Send Message
    This is all you need to know, from a real lawyer:


    9 May 2013, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Green River Asset
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
    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.co...


    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 are 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 more importantly 2) the patent in question describes 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 ink doesn’t imply anything proprietary. He notes that a specific recipe is what makes the process proprietary and unique.


    Nothing referenced in the patent makes use of a CIT proprietary recipe. In fact, CIT never even disclosed its proprietary recipe to UNXL. Again, CIT doesn’t own the industry practices and standards behind printing catalytic ink or electroless plating, and UNXL doesn’t use their proprietary formula.


    I stand behind everything stated in my entire blog post. You’re wrong from a legal perspective and from a business/technology/co... perspective as well. CIT is risking not only all the legal fees that UniPixel is incurring, but they’ll also likely be paying damages.


    If that’s what they consider money well spent, it’s their business, but their shareholders should take note.
    9 May 2013, 11:06 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »

Latest Comments

Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.