Ivan Jimenez's  Instablog

Ivan Jimenez
Send Message
I'm an aircraft mechanic by trade.
  • CIT 1, UniPixel 0 1 comment
    Oct 29, 2013 8:45 AM | about stocks: UNXL

    UniPixel CIT Defeats CIT UniPixel in First Round of Litigation

    The U.K. High Court takes the CIT vs. UniPixel case

    Why CIT won?

    The reason the CIT won is because the 2005 non-disclosure (NDA) agreement was upheld. The 2010 NDA that mentioned Texas as the sole litigation avenue was not valid.

    The 2005 NDA was between UniPixel Displays and Xennia for the TMOS project. In 2010 UniPixel approached Xennia interested in CIT technology. Xennia informed UniPixel that they were not longer working with CIT and advised UniPixel to ask CIT directly.

    CIT requested a NDA from UniPixel to work with them. UniPixel did the NDA but later UniPixel asked for the NDA to be revoked because no exchange of information took place.

    "Since CIT is not in a position to supply the materials to UniPixel Displays, and as no information exchange has taken place between CIT and UniPixel, we feel that the NDA that we mutually signed is not valid."

    24 March 2010, Mr Ram Ramakrishnan, the director of materials and process engineering at UniPixel Displays

    The 2010 NDA was not a continuation of the 2005 NDA. The parties were different and the scope of the NDA was different (no longer for the TMOS project). And both parties agreed that the 2010 NDA was not valid.

    The 2005 NDA has been upheld and CIT is free seek litigation in the U.K. at UniPixel's expense. Many longs believe that the case is fishing expedition and it is. But it is a fishing expedition likely to catch fish.

    I would like to mention that any ruling in the U.K. will be upheld by the European Union.

    Here is a link of the ruling.

    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 (1)
Track new comments
  • LindonT
    , contributor
    Comments (231) | Send Message
    Well done Ivan, you have pointed out the simple truths of this case. The more I read this judgement the more I wonder why UNXL thought they could get away with it. Its just so obvious that they never had a leg to stand on. The only conclusion I can come to... is they must be very desperate indeed to have tried this (& risking all the expense) rather than proceeding straight to defending the case against them. To also have tried to hide some very pertinent evidence from their own expert witness & thought that would be suffcient to fool the judge... defies belief! No wonder he was "surprised". UNXL's proffesional credibility is now in the sewer... how can anybody trust one single word they say.
    30 Oct 2013, 05:30 PM 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.