Q. Here is a document that's previously been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 36.
A. When was that marked?
Q. Huh?
A. When was that marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 36?
Q. In one or the other of the depositions in this case.
A. In Atlanta?
Q. No, sir, it was not marked in Atlanta, because I haven't taken any depositions in this case in Atlanta.
A. When was it marked Exhibit 36?
Q. Well, sir, I don't happen to recall.
A. You don't know?
Q. No, sir. At either the deposition of Mr. Smith5 or perhaps at the -- perhaps at the deposition of Mr. Moffitt. I don't recall which.
MR. LELAND: I believe that would be Kelmer Smith.
MR. RUE: Is it?
MR. LELAND: One-page document, October the 17th, 2006.
MR. RUE: That's it.
Q. (By Mr. Rue) Are you familiar with this press release?
A. No. And had I seen it, I would have hit the roof.
Q. Why is that?
A. Why is that? Because anything that has to do with the patent or the patent pending or anything with my proprietary catalyst, I would have never allowed to be published in the public market. Even though the SEC claims that I've never had a patent or patent pending with the patent office, even though you have copies of both, you know, you -- you continue with this silliness.
Q. Well, maybe; maybe not.
A. Excuse me? You don't have copies of the patent pendings.
Q. I do, and I've looked at them.
A. Do I have patent pending technology, or did I have patent pending technology at the time.
Q. Not in the strictest sense of the word.
A. Whose word?
Q. I'm asking you about this press release, Mr. Rivera.
A. I have no idea. No direct knowledge of this press release.
Q. Thank you. All right.
A. They're putting the -- the patent attorneys' contact information on that damn press release.
Q. Okay. Let me show you another one. This one is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 37. I bet it was marked the same day. And Exhibit 37 is an e-mail from Kelmer Smith sent Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 7:06 a.m. to Alex Machado, Gerald Brent, Jens Dalsgaard, jhrivera@ussec.us, and some other people. Do you remember receiving this e-mail, Mr. Rivera?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Well, the first paragraph reads, "FYI, current plan is to protect the USSEC/Rivera process technology by a trade secret. Specifically the catalyst will be protected by a trade secret" -- and will seek -- "and will seek patents on the equipment used in the Rivera process. "We will withdraw the current patent applications, hence will not have the molecular structure or the Rivera process patented (we would have to disclose the catalyst in the patent which we will not do)." Is that an accurate statement of the patent process at or around this time?
A. No.
Q. What would be accurate at this time?
A. Several things would be accurate. Kelmer Smith had a e-mail address which he was authorized to use--- the only one he was authorized to use for company business which was kelmersmith@usse.com, not krs235@hotmail.com. That would go directly into spam, No. 1. No. 2, Kelmer Smith knows nothing whatsoever of the catalyst.No. 3, he is an engineer, which I have trouble talking to because you ask him what time it is, and they tell you how to build a clock and then they don't give you the right time. No. 3, to secure a patent on the nuts and bolts of my process is ludicrous at best, because I have published the blueprints and all the details of my system other than -- without the catalyst on the Internet, given copies to various people. So for me to even consider taking a patent on the nuts and bolts of it is even crazier than I was at that time. So A, I know nothing about this communication. B, if it was, in fact, sent, okay, it would have been spammed out because I have no idea who krs235@hotmail.com is.
Q. All right. Had you decided not to disclose the formula for your catalyst and protect it as a trade secret at this time, the end of January 2006?
A. Since I have no knowledge of this correspondent or the time that it happened, I have nothing further to say on the subject.
Q. That's not responsive to my question. I didn't ask you whether you had seen this. That was asked and answered.
A. Okay.
Q. I asked you: Did you decide not to complete your patent applications because you didn't want to disclose the makeup of your catalyst?
A. On or about this time?
Q. At any time.
A. At any time, yes.
Q. When was that?
A. Sometime after my patent attorneys told me that I would have to insert the -- not only the ingredients but the formulation on how everything has to be added into the patent. And I told them I would never do that.
Q. All right. Just so we're clear, is there any patent whatsoever outstanding on any aspect of the Rivera process?
A. At the time that the press release made, there was a patent pending application.
Q. Patent pending is not what I asked. What I asked: Was there a patent on the process? That is to say, a patent pending application that had approved the patent?
A. I never claimed to have a patent on the process. I claimed to have a patent pending process, which I did.
Q. That's fine. The answer to my question is you didn't have a patent?
A. I never claimed to have a patent.
Q. Well, okay. Thank you. Did there come a time, sir --
A. Sir?
OCR extract
Doc 102 PDF file
scribd.com |
