RE:RE:RE:RE:predictionsI personally do not see any merit in the lawsuit. MWX stated publicly that they are using a different class of solvents. Additionally the process for catalytic convertors would be materially different due to the material differences. Then there is the third party engineering verification, and the discovery of potential Rhodium recovery.
The lawsuit always struck me as a temper tantrum thrown by DN, and a perfect example of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Any ahole can make claims to a nontechnical judge and make a 'case'. ETI hasn't advanced anything materially on their own where MWX has. It also occured to me that ETI was fishing around to see how MWX had advanced what has eluded ETI. They may just want to have a peek under the hood so to speak.
The only merit I could potentially see is if ETI shared a catalytic convertor process with MWX at somepoint in the relationship that they never pursued. Though that certainly wouldn't have fallen under the original patent protection, or under the terms of the LOI. If that is the case then there could be a judgement as to a royalty % owed to ETI depending on how close the the production plant final design was to the process flow diagrams that ETI shared.
That seems to me to be a tenuous claim that could be severed by altering a portion of the process that too closely resembled an ETI process. The case would seem to be weak indeed. MWX would have had to use exact concentrations, flow rates, and process sequences which would have been dumb, but perhaps that is what happened. I think Fabricio is much smarter than that. Anyway it is in the hands of the fickle judicial system where anything can happen.
My risk assessment has me owning more MWX than ETI. Personally the only reason I own any ETI is for Group11 exposure. I only bought those shares after DN stepped down.
DD101 BB101