A patent is just a piece of paper that establishes a line for the later defence of a product. It by no means suggests you'll win against a party that can establish earlier providence. Not does it mean that the problems that are identified have been solved.
When I read Tekton's patent, I was struck by its liberal use of normative statements. What was suggested as revolutionary sounded to me like stuff that had been tried before, by other manufacturers, with mixed results.
Eric seems to swing this patent around like a cudgel, linking it to every one of his products. It is from that perspective that I kind of see it as more philosophic than scientific. The fact the patent number appears on a spec sheet appears to me to be a bit odd too... never seen a company do that. At least not under the heading of specs.
But that's just my personal view. Google it and read it for yourself.
The claimed sensitivity of 94db/W/m sounds impressive, though the 4 ohm rating suggests it might be a tad difficult to drive. That said, one could read's the results of JA's measurements of another model from the company and come to the conclusion that a certain degree of optimism is at work. Or one could ignore or dismiss JA's measurements entirely. (I know which one I place greater faith in but leave it to readers to decide this on their own).
This is not to say that failing to live up to an ad claim for one product means that another product will come up short too. It does, however, open a number of possibilities that cannot be reasonably resolved until somebody completes an independent and methodologically rigorous review of this particular product.
I raised this in another forum with Eric, who basically fobbed me off. He had every right to do so, but I would have thought that anyone with full confidence in a well developed product would have shut me down with a series of independent test results.