Posted On: 08/12/2016 11:15:06 PM
Post# of 9144
Why do you guys always do this? We have hit this issue back and forth for years. The Flatpack was not produced in the NanoLogix labs or with NanoLogix funds or by someone who had the responsibility to do technical research. That patent was outside the company but NanoLogix was given an exclusive license for the Flatpack. EXCLUSIVE LICENSE.
The N-Assay was developed with NanoLogix funds, with a specific agreement with the Faros and as a clear part of the NanoLogix product agenda. NanoLogix OWNS the N-Assay patent. Now could you two just cut it out and try to understand the legal situation. My wife had an uncle who had his name on 32 patents but they were developed as part of the companies he worked for so even though his name was on as inventor the companies he worked for owned the patents. At this point I am afraid I believe the two critics are deliberately raising false issues in an effort to confuse people and alarm potential licensing or buyout relationships. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to keep bringing up things that were already dealt with on three or four different boards?
The N-Assay was developed with NanoLogix funds, with a specific agreement with the Faros and as a clear part of the NanoLogix product agenda. NanoLogix OWNS the N-Assay patent. Now could you two just cut it out and try to understand the legal situation. My wife had an uncle who had his name on 32 patents but they were developed as part of the companies he worked for so even though his name was on as inventor the companies he worked for owned the patents. At this point I am afraid I believe the two critics are deliberately raising false issues in an effort to confuse people and alarm potential licensing or buyout relationships. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to keep bringing up things that were already dealt with on three or four different boards?
(12)
(2)
