Ann: Change in substantial holding for LPD, page-40

I will add to this and state that this is my opinion and my deductions of present situation and have been posted seeking answers.
All references to the patent for Sileach has ceased. Back in Feb there was an announcement that LIT had applied for an international patent. This was followed with several media announcements. Since then there has been nothing. All references to PAT pending has ceased. There was no mention of international patent application in the bidder's statement. This was a deliberate omission as LiEna was mentioned. On the Australian IP site the sileach application shows as lapsed. On the WIPO site the Australian patent application shows but no international application.

AG states that sileach and LMax are similar and interchangeable in the same plant. The principle difference is the addition of a fluorine based reagent making Sileach a fluorine chemistry extraction process.

A simple patent search brings up Patent (US20170022068) Process for obtaining lithium from aluminosilicates and intermediate compounds. Also Process for extracting lithium from lithium pyroxene concentrate by using fluorine chemistry CN102417995A (rejected) . Both cover the key point Sileach stands on Fluorine chemistry. And prior art.

Now all the questions arise. Are LIT BOD aware of this prior art? Are LIT BOD aware that they will not get a patent? If so why have not the market been made aware? Will this mean that LIT will have get a license from someone else to operate and pay fees? What will this mean for their MOU's with PLS, MTH and TIN? What is the true position of LIT?

So Fish instead of getting on your high horse and demanding proof and references, get on your Al Capone and ring your fearless leader and ask him for confirmation as to the questions I have just raised.