LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES INC - Annual Report: 2003 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003

Commission File No. 000-31332

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

25800 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100
Lake Forest, California 92630
(address of principal executive office, zip code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (949) 206-8000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Title of each Class
Common Stock, .001 par value

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for at least the past 90 days. Yes o  No x
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K  o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).Yes x No o
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2004 was approximately $34,793,699. For purposes of this calculation only, (i) shares of Common Stock are deemed to have a market value of $1.42 per share, the closing price of the Common Stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market on June 30, 2004, and (ii) each of the executive officers, directors and persons holding more than 10% of the outstanding Common Stock as of June 30, 2004 is deemed to be an affiliate.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

     This annual report on Form 10-K of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. contains “forward-looking statements” that may state our management’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about the company and its business. Any statement in this report that is not a statement of historical fact is a forward-looking statement, and in some cases, words such as “believe,” “estimate,” “project,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “anticipate,” “plans,” “seeks,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the anticipated outcomes or result. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, and undue reliance should not be placed on these statements. It is important to note that Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.’s actual results could differ materially from what is expressed in our forward-looking statements due to the risk factors described in the section of this report entitled “Factors Affecting Future Results,” as well as the following risks and uncertainties:

     Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Item 1. Business

Overview

     We are a materials technology company that develops and commercializes products made from amorphous alloys. Our Liquidmetal® family of alloys consists of a variety of proprietary coatings, powders, bulk alloys, and composites that utilize the advantages offered by amorphous alloy technology. We develop, manufacture, and sell products and components from bulk amorphous alloys to customers in various industries, and we also partner with third-party licensees and distributors to develop and commercialize bulk Liquidmetal alloy products. We believe that our proprietary bulk alloys are the only commercially viable bulk amorphous alloys currently available in the marketplace. In addition to our bulk alloys, we market and sell a line of proprietary amorphous alloy-based industrial coatings under the Liquidmetal® Armacor^TM Coatings brand.

     Amorphous alloys are unique materials that are distinguished by their ability to retain a random atomic structure when they solidify, in contrast to the crystalline atomic structure that forms in other metals and alloys when they solidify. Liquidmetal alloys possess a combination of performance, processing, and potential cost advantages that we believe will make them preferable to other materials in a variety of applications. The amorphous atomic structure of our alloys enables them to overcome certain performance limitations caused by inherent weaknesses in crystalline atomic structures, thus facilitating performance and processing characteristics superior in many ways to those of their crystalline counterparts. For example, our zirconium-titanium Liquidmetal alloys are approximately 250% stronger than commonly used titanium alloys such as Ti-6Al-4V, but they also have some of the beneficial processing characteristics more commonly associated with plastics. We believe these advantages could result in Liquidmetal alloys supplanting high-performance alloys, such as titanium and stainless steel, and other incumbent materials in a wide variety of applications. Moreover, we believe these advantages could enable the introduction of entirely new products and applications that are not possible or commercially viable with other materials.

General Corporate Information

     We were originally incorporated in California in 1987, and we reincorporated in Delaware in May 2003. Our principal executive offices are located at 25800 Commercentre Dr., Suite 100, Lake Forest, California 92630. Our telephone number at that address is (949) 206-8000. Previously, our principal executive offices were located in Tampa, Florida. In December 2003, we consolidated all corporate functions into our Lake Forest facility, which had previously

3

served as our principal research and development office. Our Internet website address is www.liquidmetal.com and all of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission are available free of charge on our website.

Our Technology

     The performance, processing, and potential cost advantages of Liquidmetal alloys are a function of their unique atomic structure and their proprietary material composition.

     Unique Atomic Structure

     The atomic structure of Liquidmetal alloys is the fundamental feature that differentiates them from other alloys and metals. In the molten state, the atomic particles of all alloys and metals have an amorphous atomic structure, which means that the atomic particles appear in a completely random structure with no discernible patterns. However, when non-amorphous alloys and metals are cooled to a solid state, their atoms bond together in a repeating pattern of regular and predictable shapes, or crystalline grains. This process is analogous to the way ice forms when water freezes and crystallizes. In non-amorphous metals and alloys, the individual crystalline grains contain naturally occurring structural defects that limit the potential strength and performance characteristics of the material. These defects, known as dislocations, consist of discontinuities or inconsistencies in the patterned atomic structure of each grain. Unlike other alloys and metals, bulk Liquidmetal alloys can retain their amorphous atomic structure throughout the solidification process and therefore do not develop crystalline grains and the associated dislocations. Consequently, bulk Liquidmetal alloys exhibit superior strength and other superior performance characteristics compared to their crystalline counterparts. Our Liquidmetal alloy coatings, in contrast to our bulk alloys, have a crystalline atomic structure when initially applied, but their atomic structure becomes amorphous as the coatings rub against surfaces under force, thus improving their performance over time.

     Prior to 1993, commercially viable amorphous alloys could be created only in thin forms, such as coatings, films, or ribbons. However, in 1993, researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) developed the first commercially viable amorphous alloy in a bulk form. Today, bulk Liquidmetal alloys can be formed into objects that are up to one inch thick, and we are not aware of any other commercially available amorphous alloys that can achieve this thickness. We have the exclusive right to commercialize bulk amorphous alloy technology through a license agreement with Caltech and other patents that we own.

     Proprietary Material Composition

     The constituent elements and percentage composition of Liquidmetal alloys are critical to their ability to solidify into an amorphous atomic structure. We have several different alloy compositions that have different constituent elements in varying percentages. These compositions are protected by various patents that we own or exclusively license from third parties, including Caltech. The raw materials that we use in Liquidmetal alloys are readily available and can be purchased from multiple suppliers.

Advantages of Liquidmetal Alloys

     Liquidmetal alloys possess a unique combination of performance, processing and cost advantages that we believe makes them superior in many ways to other commercially available materials for a variety of existing and potential future product applications.

4

     Performance Advantages

     Our bulk Liquidmetal alloys provide several distinct performance advantages over other materials, and we believe that these advantages make the alloys desirable in applications that require high strength, strength-to-weight ratio, elasticity and hardness. The following graphs compare the strength, strength-to-weight ratio, elasticity and hardness properties of our zirconium-titanium bulk alloy composition (as measured in laboratory tests) against those of several other alloys that are widely used today in commercial applications.

Strength

     The strength of a material is frequently measured in terms of yield strength, which is the stress at which definite damage or deformation occurs to the material with little or no increase in load. Yield strength is an important performance measure in many structural applications where the potential cost of damage is high, such as orthopedic devices.

Strength-to-Weight Ratio

     A material’s strength-to-weight ratio, or specific strength, can be defined as its yield strength divided by its specific gravity. A high strength-to-weight ratio is particularly important in applications in which the damage costs are high and weight is a consideration, such as protective casings for electronic devices.

Elasticity

     Elasticity is a measure of a material’s ability to return to its original shape after being stretched or forced out of shape. The elastic strain limit, or elastic limit, of a material is the point at which permanent damage or deformation starts. Elasticity is an important performance measurement in applications that need to resist permanent damage from impact to protect aesthetics or in applications where energy transfer is important, such as golf club heads.

5

Hardness

     Hardness measures a material’s ability to resist penetration and wear by another material. In the widely used Vickers hardness test, a diamond point is pressed slowly against the surface of the material with a prescribed force. The area of the dent is measured to yield the Vickers hardness number. Hardness is important in applications that are subject to wear and cosmetic durability, such as cell phone casings.

Data Source: http://www.matweb.com (other than data relating to bulk Liquidmetal alloys). This online database contains comprehensive information regarding the properties of various materials. Data relating to bulk Liquidmetal alloy comes from Scripta Metallurgica, Vol. 30, pp. 431 and 433, 1994, and Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 71, p. 476, 1997, both of which describe laboratory tests performed by the California Institute of Technology.

     The high yield strength of bulk Liquidmetal alloys means that a high amount of stress must be exerted to create permanent deformation. However, because the yield strength is so high, the yield strength of many of our bulk Liquidmetal alloy compositions is very near their ultimate strength, which is the measure of stress at which total breakage occurs. Therefore, very little additional stress may be required to break an object made of bulk Liquidmetal alloys once the yield strength is exceeded. Although we believe that the yield strength of many of our bulk alloys exceeds the ultimate strength of most other commonly used alloys and metals, our bulk alloys may not be suitable for certain applications, such as pressurized tanks, in which the ability of the material to yield significantly before it breaks is more important than its strength advantage. Additionally, although our bulk alloys show a high resistance to crack initiation because of their very high strength and hardness, certain of our bulk alloys are sensitive to crack propagation under certain long-term, cyclical loading conditions. Crack propagation is the tendency of a crack to grow after it forms. We are currently developing new alloy compositions that have improved material properties to overcome these limitations.

     Processing Advantages

     The processing of a material generally refers to how a material is shaped, formed, or combined with other materials to create a finished product. Bulk Liquidmetal alloys possess processing characteristics that we believe make them preferable to other materials in a wide variety of applications. In particular, our alloys are amenable to processing options that are similar in many respects to those associated with plastics. For example, we believe that bulk Liquidmetal alloys have superior net-shape casting capabilities as compared to high-strength crystalline metals and alloys. “Net-shape casting” is a type of casting that permits the creation of near-to-net shaped products that do not require much costly post-cast processing or machining. Additionally, unlike most metals and alloys, our bulk Liquidmetal alloys are capable of being thermoplastically molded in bulk form. Thermoplastic molding consists of

6

heating a solid piece of material until it is transformed into a moldable state, although at temperatures much lower than the melting temperature, and then introducing it into a mold to form near-to-net shaped products. Accordingly, thermoplastic molding can be beneficial and economical for net shape fabrication of high-strength products.

     Bulk Liquidmetal alloys also permit the creation of composite materials that cannot be created with most non-amorphous metals and alloys. A composite is a material that is made from two or more different types of materials. In general, the ability to create composites is beneficial because constituent materials can be combined with one another to optimize the composite’s performance characteristics for different applications. In other metals and alloys, the high temperatures required for processing could damage some of the composite’s constituent materials and therefore limit their utility. However, the relatively low melting temperatures of bulk Liquidmetal alloys allow mild processing conditions that eliminate or limit damage to the constituent materials when creating composites. In addition to composites, we believe that the processing advantages of Liquidmetal alloys will ultimately allow for a variety of other finished forms, including a coating or a spray. Most high-strength metals and alloys cannot be processed into these forms.

     Notwithstanding the foregoing advantages, our bulk Liquidmetal alloys possess certain limitations relative to processing. The beneficial processing features of our bulk alloys are made possible in part by the alloys’ relatively low melting temperatures. Although a lower melting temperature is a beneficial characteristic for processing purposes, it renders certain bulk alloy compositions unsuitable for certain high-temperature applications, such as jet engine exhaust components. Additionally, the current one-inch thickness limitation of our zirconium-titanium bulk alloy renders our alloys currently unsuitable for use as structural materials in large-scale applications, such as load-bearing beams in building construction. We are currently engaged in research and development with the goal of developing processing technology and new alloy compositions that will enable our bulk alloys to be formed into thicker objects.

     Cost Advantages

     Liquidmetal alloys have the potential to provide cost advantages over other high-strength metals and alloys in certain applications. Because bulk Liquidmetal alloys have processing characteristics similar in some respects to plastics, which lends itself to near-to-net shape casting and molding, Liquidmetal alloys can in many cases be shaped efficiently into intricate, engineered products. This capability can eliminate or reduce certain post-casting steps, such as machining and re-forming, and therefore has the potential to significantly reduce processing costs associated with making parts in high volume.

     Additionally, because the near-to-net shape processing of Liquidmetal alloys reduces the need for capital-intensive heavy industrial equipment such as that found in foundry and forging operations, Liquidmetal alloys can be processed with a smaller machinery footprint, which allows for more efficient development of facilities and reduced permitting and regulatory costs. We believe that these advantages may allow our customers an opportunity to maintain or improve the performance of their products without a commensurate increase in cost.

Our Strategy

     As a result of the experience and knowledge that we have gained through our manufacturing activities to date, and recognizing that developing and commercializing a revolutionary new technology is an evolutionary process, we are continually modifying our business strategy to enable us to better capitalize on our evolving core strengths and more effectively pursue revenue growth and profitability. The key elements of our strategy include:

7

Initial Applications

     We have focused our commercialization efforts for Liquidmetal alloys on five identified product areas. We believe that these areas are consistent with our strategy in terms of market size, building brand recognition, and providing an opportunity to develop and refine our processing capabilities. Although we believe that strategic partnering transactions could create valuable opportunities beyond the parameters of these target markets, we anticipate continuing to pursue these markets both internally and in conjunction with partners.

     Casings for Electronic Products

     We produce casing components for electronic devices using our bulk Liquidmetal alloys and believe that our alloys offer enhanced performance and design benefits for these casings in certain applications. Bulk Liquidmetal alloys can be used for various structural components of a cellular phone, including the shield, faceplate, hinge, hinge housings, back plate, side plates, and the “clamshell” on so-called flip-phones. We initially targeted the electronic casings market because of its potential for high product volumes and branding opportunities; however, unpredictable customer adoption practices, short product model lives, processing limitations, and intense pricing pressures make it very challenging to compete in this high-volume market. Accordingly, we are currently limiting our focus in this market to higher-margin applications that have the potential to benefit from the unique performance characteristics of bulk Liquidmetal alloys. We continue to believe that the high strength-to-weight ratio and elastic limit of bulk Liquidmetal alloys enable the production of stronger and thinner electronic devices as compared to plastic, zinc, and magnesium, and we intend to limit our casings focus on products in which our customers are willing to pay a premium for these design and performance benefits.

     Through our shipments to date, we have demonstrated that bulk Liquidmetal alloys can be used for structural components of cellular phones and other electronic devices. During 2003, we shipped production quantities of cell phone components to Samsung Electronics Company and KTFT (Korea Telecom) for inclusion in various cellular phone models, and more recently have begun manufacturing production units of cellular phone casing components for Vertu Limited, the luxury communication products subsidiary of Nokia.

8

     Sporting Goods and Leisure Products

     We are developing a variety of applications for Liquidmetal alloys in the sporting goods and leisure products area.

     In the sporting goods industry, we believe that the high strength, hardness, and elasticity of our bulk alloys have the potential to enhance performance in a variety of products, and we further believe that many sporting goods products are conducive to our internal manufacturing strategy of focusing on high-margin products that meet our design criteria. Substantial opportunities also exist for our amorphous alloy coatings, powders and composites. In 2003, Rawlings Sporting Goods Company launched a new line of baseball and softball bats that utilize a Liquidmetal alloy coating, and HEAD NV Sport launched a new line of HEAD® Liquidmetal® tennis racquets that incorporates Liquidmetal alloy in composite form in their racquet design. We are continuing to work with golf companies for the development of golf club components made from bulk Liquidmetal alloys. Other potential applications for our alloys in this industry include eyewear, fishing, hunting, diving, bicycle, skate and snow skiing products.

     In the leisure products category, we believe that bulk Liquidmetal alloys can be used to efficiently produce intricately engineered designs with high-quality finishes, such as premium watchcases, and we further believe that Liquidmetal alloy technology can be used to make high-quality, high-strength jewelry from precious metals. We have successfully produced prototype rings made from an amorphous Liquidmetal platinum alloy that is harder (and hence more scratch resistant) than conventional platinum jewelry. In 2003, a special-edition concept chronograph timepiece featuring our titanium-zirconium Liquidmetal alloy was showcased by luxury watchmaker TAG Heuer at the renowned Basel Watch and Jewelry Show in Basel, Switzerland.

     In order to accelerate the commercialization of Liquidmetal alloys in the jewelry and high-end luxury products market, in June 2003 we entered into a strategic licensing transaction with LLPG, Inc., a corporation headed by a former director of our company with ties to the Swiss jewelry and luxury goods market. Under this agreement, LLPG was granted a 10-year exclusive worldwide license to manufacture and sell a variety of luxury goods, including watchcases and precious-metal jewelry, utilizing Liquidmetal alloys. Under the agreement, we are entitled to royalties over the life of the contract on all products produced and sold by LLPG. The transaction with LLPG is indicative of our secondary strategy to license our technology in select markets where it is advantageous to leverage the financial resources of qualified outside partners.

     Medical Devices

     We are engaged in product development efforts relating to various medical devices that could be made from Liquidmetal alloys. We believe that the unique properties of bulk Liquidmetal alloys provide a combination of performance and cost benefits that could make them a desirable replacement to incumbent materials, such as stainless steel and titanium, currently used in various medical device applications. Our greatest emphasis in 2003 and ongoing in 2004 has been on surgical instrument applications for Liquidmetal alloys. These include, but are not limited to, specialized blades, orthopedic instruments utilized for implant surgery procedures, ultrasonic devices, dental devices, external fixation devices and general surgery devices. The potential value offered by our alloys is high performance in some cases and cost reduction in others, the latter stemming from the ability of Liquidmetal alloys to be net shape cast into components, thus reducing costs of secondary processing. The status of most components in the prototyping phase is subject to non-disclosure agreements with our customers; however, certain products in the aforementioned categories are expected to move into production by the end of 2004 or early 2005.

     We believe that our future success in the medical device market will be driven largely by strategically aligning ourselves with well-established companies that are uniquely positioned to facilitate the introduction of Liquidmetal alloys into this market, especially as it relates to the unique processing challenges and stringent material qualification requirements that are prevalent in this industry. We also believe that our prospects for success in this market will be enhanced through our focus on optimizing existing alloy compositions and developing new alloy compositions to satisfy the industry’s rigorous material qualification standards. For example, we are currently working with DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company, to develop an alloy for orthopedic implants and instruments in the knee replacement device market. Our agreement with DePuy gives them the exclusive worldwide right and license to market and sell knee replacement devices that incorporate Liquidmetal alloys. We are also in the early stages of working with other orthopedic companies to identify surgical instrument or device applications that would benefit from utilizing Liquidmetal alloys.

9

     Industrial Coatings and Powders

     We continue to market and sell amorphous alloy industrial coatings and powders under the Liquidmetal® Armacor^TM Coatings brand name. Liquidmetal alloy coatings are used primarily as a protective coating for industrial machinery and equipment. Since the inception of this business in the late 1980s, our proprietary coatings have demonstrated a high degree of hardness and low coefficient of friction which, when combined with their strong adhesion properties, reduce the wear and consequent failure of the machinery and equipment on which they are used. In contrast to our bulk alloys, we sell Liquidmetal coatings primarily in the form of a wire or powder feedstock that is melted and applied to machinery or equipment through welding or thermal spray processes.

     Our Liquidmetal coatings are widely used in the oil drilling industry as a protective coating on drill pipe and casings, and we estimate that our coatings represent a dominant share of annual worldwide sales of hard band coatings for new oil drill pipe. Drilling often places tremendous stress on pipes and casings, especially whenever the drill changes direction. Both the drill pipe and casing experience excessive wear, which leads to higher replacement costs and greater failure rates. Liquidmetal coatings are used to provide a protective coating, or hard band, around the outside of the drill pipe and the inside of casings to reduce wear and failure rates and accordingly reduce operating costs. Our principal coatings customers currently include Grant Prideco, Inc., and TAFA, Inc. among other distributors and applicators.

     Liquidmetal coatings have also been sold into the power generation industry specifically for the purpose of coating boiler tubes in coal-burning power plants in order to extend the lives of these boilers. Boiler tubes are subject to high heat, erosion, and corrosion and often require costly replacement, both in terms of replacement parts and length of downtime for installation. Additionally, residue build-up in boiler tubes of coal burning power plants creates operating inefficiencies. Historic performance and testing of Liquidmetal coatings have demonstrated that our coatings extend the life of these boiler tubes meaningfully beyond their current average life depending on the specific environment. In addition, our coatings have demonstrated the ability to reduce build-up of residue on boiler tubes, helping to improve the efficiencies of the boilers. Historically, we have not concentrated sales efforts on the boiler tube market in a substantial way. However, given the size of the market and potential opportunities for our coatings, we have recently dedicated greater effort to this area by, among other initial steps, establishing a team of independent industrial sales representatives who are now including our coatings in their product portfolios. In addition to boiler tubes, these sales representatives are soliciting other OEM product applications for Liquidmetal coatings.

     Defense Applications

     We are working with the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a variety of defense-related research and development agencies and large defense contractors, to develop various defense-related applications for Liquidmetal alloys. For example, we are currently developing prototype kinetic energy penetrator rods for use in armor-piercing ammunition systems. Kinetic energy penetrators, or KEPs, are armor piercing munitions that are currently made primarily from depleted uranium or tungsten. Initial live-fire ballistic tests under the Liquidmetal KEP program have demonstrated that tungsten KEPs perform better whenever Liquidmetal alloy is combined with the tungsten to create a composite material. In August 2003, we signed a new $3.0 million research and development contract with the U.S. Army for the development of KEPs. Our strategy is to orient the KEP program toward future systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter program and the Army’s Future Combat System.

     In addition to funding the Army KEP program in 2005, the Department of Defense Spending Bill for 2005 contains money to support the development of an advanced Liquidmetal alloy for use in aerospace applications. Lockheed Martin has joined Liquidmetal Technologies for this new program that will be managed by the U.S. Navy. Liquidmetal is also working with NASA to conduct an experiment to use Liquidmetal alloys as the optical surface for spaced-based telescopes.

     We also continue to work with a number of defense-related research and development agencies and large defense companies to identify additional military applications that may benefit from using Liquidmetal alloys. We believe that our alloys are well-positioned to capitalize on the trend toward lighter but stronger weapon systems in the U.S. military, and our strategy is to align ourselves with the largest and most significant players in this industry. Product development programs for defense applications are currently underway with several leading defense contractors, including Alliant Techsystems, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin.

Liquidmetal Golf

     From 1997 until September 2001, we engaged in the retail marketing and sale of golf clubs through a majority owned subsidiary, Liquidmetal Golf. The retail business of Liquidmetal Golf was discontinued in September 2001 and

10

is now treated as a discontinued operation in our consolidated financial statements. Although the retail golf club business has been discontinued, Liquidmetal Golf will be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling golf club components to golf original equipment manufacturers that will integrate these components into their own clubs and then sell them under their respective brand names. Liquidmetal Technologies owns 79% of the outstanding common equity in Liquidmetal Golf.

     Our Liquidmetal Golf subsidiary has the exclusive right and license to utilize our Liquidmetal alloy technology for purposes of golf equipment applications. This right and license is set forth in an intercompany license agreement between Liquidmetal Technologies and Liquidmetal Golf. This license agreement provides that Liquidmetal Golf has a perpetual and exclusive license to use Liquidmetal alloy technology for the purpose of manufacturing, marketing, and selling golf club components and other products used in the sport of golf. In consideration of this license, Liquidmetal Golf has issued 4,500,000 shares of Liquidmetal Golf common stock to Liquidmetal Technologies.

Our Intellectual Property

     Our intellectual property consists of patents, trade secrets, know-how, and trademarks. Protection of our intellectual property is a strategic priority for our business, and we intend to vigorously protect our patents and other intellectual property. Our intellectual property portfolio includes 24 owned or licensed U.S. patents and numerous patent applications relating to the composition, processing, and application of our alloys, as well as various foreign counterpart patents and patent applications.

     Our initial bulk amorphous alloy technology was developed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”). We have purchased patent rights that provide us with the exclusive right to commercialize the amorphous alloy and other amorphous alloy technology acquired from Caltech through a license agreement (“Caltech License Agreement”) with Caltech. Under the Caltech license agreement, we have the exclusive worldwide right to make, use, and sell products from all of Caltech’s inventions, proprietary information, know-how, and other technology relating to amorphous alloys existing as of September 1, 2001. We also have an exclusive worldwide license to nine issued patents and four patent applications held by Caltech relating to amorphous alloy technology, as well as all related foreign counterpart patents and patent applications. Of the patents currently issued to Caltech and licensed by the Company, the earliest expiration date is 2013 and the latest expiration date is 2021. Furthermore, the license agreement gives us the exclusive right to make, use, and sell products from substantially all amorphous alloy technology that is developed in Professor William Johnson’s Caltech laboratory during the period September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2005. All fees and other amounts payable by us for these rights and licenses have been paid in full, and no further royalties, license fees, or other amounts will be payable in the future under this license agreement.

     Our rights under the license agreement are perpetual in duration. However, Caltech has the right to convert the license to a non-exclusive license if we fail to utilize the licensed technology for a period of 18 or more consecutive months, provided that Caltech must give us 180-days advance written notice of the conversion and we may cure the failure at any time during the 180-day notice period. If we cure the failure, then the license will not be converted into a non-exclusive license.

     Under the license agreement, we have the right to sublicense any of the licensed technology or patents. The license agreement also provides that Caltech reserves the right to use the licensed technology and patents for noncommercial educational and research purposes. The patents and patent applications that we license from Caltech relate primarily to the composition and processing of our alloys. The currently issued U.S. patents covered by the license agreement will expire between 2013 and 2021.

     Under the Caltech license agreement, the parties are obligated to provide reasonable cooperation to each other in connection with any threatened or actual infringement of the licensed technology by third parties. We have the right to commence an action for infringement of any of the licensed technology, and although Caltech is not obligated to bring suit or take action against infringers, Caltech is obligated to join in any such lawsuit upon our request.

     In addition to the patents and patent applications that we license from Caltech, we are building a portfolio of our own patents to expand and enhance our technology position. These patents and patent applications primarily relate to various applications of our bulk amorphous alloys, the composition of our coatings and powders, and the processing of our alloys. The patents relating to our coatings expire on various dates between 2005 and 2017, and the patents relating to our bulk amorphous alloys expire on various dates between 2013 and 2021. Our policy is to seek patent protection for all technology, inventions, and improvements that are of commercial importance to the development of our business, except to the extent that we believe it is advisable to maintain such technology or invention as a trade secret.

     In order to protect the confidentiality of our technology, including trade secrets, know-how, and other proprietary technical and business information, we require that all of our employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the use or disclosure of information that is deemed confidential. The

11

agreements also obligate our employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators to assign to us developments, discoveries and inventions made by such persons in connection with their work with us.

Research and Development

     We are engaged in ongoing research and development programs that are driven by the following key objectives:

     We conduct our research and development programs internally and also through strategic relationships that we enter into with third parties. Our internal research and development efforts are currently focused on product and process development. Our internal research and development efforts are conducted by a team of 21 scientists, engineers and researchers whom we either employ directly or engage as consultants. Included among this team are Professor William Johnson, who discovered our initial bulk amorphous alloy at Caltech in 1993, and his graduate student at the time, Atakan Peker, who is employed as our Vice President of Technology. Professor Johnson was an employee of our company from October 2001 through December 2003 and then became a consultant to the Company. Professor Johnson continues to be a member of our board of directors.

     In addition to our internal research and development efforts, we enter into cooperative research and development relationships with leading academic institutions. Professor Johnson continues to supervise a laboratory at Caltech, and through our license agreement with Caltech, we have a continuing relationship with the other researchers in Professor Johnson’s Caltech laboratory. We have also entered into research relationships with several other academic institutions for the conduct of research relating to the properties and characteristics of our alloys.

     We also enter into development relationships with other companies for the purpose of identifying new applications for our alloys and establishing customer relationships with such companies. Some of our product development programs are partially funded by our customers. We are also engaged in negotiations with other potential customers regarding possible product development relationships. Our research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001 were $8.9 million, $11.8 million, and $1.7 million, respectively.

Manufacturing

     We currently own and operate a 166,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Pyongtaek, South Korea, which became operational in the third quarter of 2002. We believe that this facility will meet our anticipated manufacturing needs for the foreseeable future, although these needs may change depending upon the actual and forecasted orders we receive for our products. We currently intend to develop supplemental research and development, prototyping and manufacturing capabilities elsewhere, including the United States, for purposes of meeting our long-term manufacturing needs and our customers’ requirements. In December 2003, we entered into a license agreement with Florida Custom Mold, Inc., a Clearwater, Florida-based company that specializes in high-quality mold design and injection molding services, under which Florida Custom Mold is currently acting as a contract manufacturer to our company for purposes of producing prototypes of certain defense and medical products.

12

Raw Materials

     Liquidmetal alloy compositions are comprised of many elements, all of which are available commodity products. We believe that each of these raw materials is readily available in sufficient quantities from multiple sources on commercially acceptable terms. However, any substantial increase in the price or interruption in the supply of these materials could have an adverse effect on our profitability.

Customers

     During 2003, three customers accounted for 10% or more of our revenue from continuing operations. After giving effect to the restatement described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K, revenue from Samsung represented 10% of revenue, revenue from LLPG, Inc. represented 12% and defense-related contracts with three departments of the United States of America represented 16% of revenue from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2003. During the year ended December 31, 2002, revenue from Samsung represented 15% of revenue while revenue earned on contracts with the government represented 16% of revenue from continuing operations. During the year ended December 31, 2001, revenue earned on contracts with the United States of America represented 7% of revenue. We expect that a significant portion of our revenue may continue to be concentrated in a limited number of customers, even as our bulk Liquidmetal alloy business grows.

Competition

     We are not aware of any other company or business that manufactures, markets, distributes, or sells bulk amorphous alloys or products made from bulk amorphous alloys. We believe it would be difficult to develop a competitive bulk amorphous alloy without infringing our patents. However, we expect that our bulk Liquidmetal alloys will face competition from other materials, including metals, alloys, plastics and composites, which are currently used in the commercial applications that we pursue. Our alloys could also face competition from new materials that may be developed in the future, including new materials that could render our alloys obsolete.

     Our Liquidmetal alloy coatings face competition from industrial coatings currently manufactured or sold by other companies. At present, the primary competitors of our coatings business are Varco International, Inc. and Arnco Technology Trust, Limited. Although we believe, based on market data gathered by us, that our coatings compete favorably with these companies’ products and that we continue to maintain the dominant market share with respect to protective coatings for oil drill pipe and casings, these competitors are larger well-established businesses that have substantially greater financial, marketing, and other resources than we do.

     We will also experience indirect competition from the competitors of our customers. Because we will rely on our customers to market and sell finished goods that incorporate our components or products, our success will depend in part on the ability of our customers to effectively market and sell their own products and compete in their respective markets.

Backlog

     In our bulk alloy segment, because of the minimal lead-time associated with orders of bulk alloy parts, we generally do not carry a significant backlog. In our coatings segment, we typically ship our coating products shortly after receipt of an order, and our coatings backlog is therefore also insignificant. In both our bulk alloy segment and coatings segment, the backlog as of any particular date gives no indication of actual sales for any succeeding period.

Sales and Marketing

     We direct our marketing efforts towards customers that will incorporate our components and products into their finished goods. To that end, we will continue to hire business development personnel who, in conjunction with engineers and scientists, will actively identify potential customers that may be able to benefit from the introduction of Liquidmetal alloys to their products. In some cases, we will develop applications in conjunction with existing or potential customers. By adopting this strategy, we intend to take advantage of the sales and marketing forces and distribution channels of our customers to facilitate the commercialization of our alloys. We also direct business development efforts toward companies who we believe could be viable candidates for potential partnering transactions, such as licensing relationships, distribution arrangements, joint ventures, and the like.

13

Employees

     As of September 1, 2004, we had 103 full-time employees and 17 part-time employees. As of September 1, 2004, 59 of our Korean operation employees were represented by a labor union. We have not experienced any work stoppages and we consider our employee relations to be favorable.

Governmental Regulation

     Medical instruments incorporating our Liquidmetal alloys, such as scalpel blades and phacoemulsification tips, will be subject to regulation in the United States by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign regulatory agencies. Any orthopedic devices that we develop will be regulated in a similar manner. Medical device manufacturers to whom we intend to sell our products may need to obtain FDA approval before marketing their medical devices that incorporate our products. Medical device manufacturers may need to obtain similar approvals before marketing these medical device products in foreign countries.

     Because we intend to sell our medical device products to medical device manufacturers, we do not believe that we will need to obtain FDA approval or similar foreign approvals before selling products to medical device manufacturers. Nonetheless, as a manufacturer of medical device components, we would be subject to quality control and record keeping requirements of FDA and other federal and state statutes and regulations, as well as similar regulations in foreign countries.

     The process of obtaining and maintaining required FDA and foreign regulatory approvals for medical devices that incorporate our products could be lengthy, expensive, and uncertain for our customers. Additionally, regulatory agencies can delay or prevent product introductions. Generally, before a medical device manufacturer can market a product incorporating one of our products, our customer must obtain for their finished product marketing clearance through a 510(k) premarket notification or approval of a pre-market approval application, or PMA. The FDA will typically grant a 510(k) clearance if the applicant can establish that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device. It generally takes a number of months from the date of a 510(k) submission to obtain clearance, but it may take longer, particularly if a clinical trial is required.

     The FDA may find that a 510(k) is not appropriate for a medical device that incorporates our product or that substantial equivalence has not been shown and as a result will require a PMA. A PMA application must be submitted if a proposed medical device does not qualify for a 510(k) pre-market clearance procedure. PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device, typically including the results of clinical trials, bench tests, and laboratory and animal studies. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy, requires detailed and comprehensive data, and generally takes significantly longer than the 510(k) process. Additionally, the FDA may never approve the PMA.

     Similar regulations in foreign countries vary significantly from country to country and with respect to the nature of the particular medical device. The time required to obtain these foreign approvals to market our products may be longer or shorter than that required in the United States, and requirements for such approval may differ from FDA requirements.

Factors Affecting Future Results

     This report contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) that are based on management’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about the Company and its business. In addition, other written or oral statements which constitute forward-looking statements may be made from time to time by or on behalf of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. Any statement in this report that is not a statement of historical fact is a forward-looking statement, and in some cases, words such as “believe,” “estimate,” “project,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “anticipate,” “plans,” “seeks,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the anticipated outcomes or result. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, and undue reliance should not be placed on these statements. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

     Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in our forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

14

     We have not sustained profitability and may incur losses in the future.

     We had an accumulated deficit of approximately $112.6 million at December 31, 2003. Of this accumulated deficit, $42.7 million was attributable to losses generated by our discontinued retail golf business through December 31, 2003. After giving effect to the restatement described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K, we realized a net loss of $33.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, $19.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2002 and $24.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2001, excluding the results of our discontinued retail golf business. We may incur additional operating losses in the future. Consequently, it is possible that we may not achieve positive earnings and, if we do achieve positive earnings, we may not be able to achieve them on a sustainable basis.

     We have a limited history of developing, manufacturing, and selling products made from our bulk amorphous alloys.

     We have marketed and sold industrial coatings to distributors in the coatings industry since 1987. Prior to the third quarter of 2002, our experience selling products made from bulk amorphous alloys has been limited to our discontinued retail golf business, which had a different marketing strategy than the one we are currently employing. Therefore, we have a relatively limited history of producing bulk amorphous alloy components and products on a mass-production basis. Many of our relationships with potential customers for bulk alloy products are at an early stage, and there can be no assurance that these customers will enter into purchase commitments with us.

     We rely on assumptions about the markets for our products and components that, if incorrect, may adversely affect our profitability.

     We have a relatively short history producing bulk amorphous alloy components on a mass-production basis. We have made assumptions regarding the market size for, and the manufacturing requirements of, our products and components based in part on information we received from third parties and also from our limited history. If these assumptions prove to be incorrect, we may not achieve anticipated revenue targets or profitability.

     If we cannot establish and maintain relationships with customers that incorporate our components and products into their finished goods, we will not be able to increase our revenue and commercialize our products.

     To increase our revenue, we must establish and maintain relationships with customers that will incorporate our components and products into their finished goods. We expect to rely on the marketing, distribution, and, in some cases, the manufacturing, research, and development abilities of our customers to assist us in developing, commercializing, and marketing our products in different markets. Our future growth and success will depend in large part on our ability to enter into these relationships and the subsequent success of these relationships. If our products are selected for use in a customer’s products, we still may not realize significant revenue from that customer if that customer’s products are not commercially successful.

     It may take significant time and cost for us to develop new customer relationships, which may delay our ability to generate additional revenue or achieve profitability.

     Our ability to generate revenue from new customers will be affected by the amount of time it takes for us to, among other things:

15

     We currently do not have a sufficient history of selling products made from our bulk amorphous alloys to predict accurately the length of our average sales cycle. We believe that our average sales cycle from the time we deliver an active proposal to a customer until the time our customer fully integrates our bulk amorphous alloys into its product could be a significant period of time. Our history to date has demonstrated that the sales cycle could extend significantly longer than we anticipate. The time it takes to transition a customer from limited production to full-scale production runs will depend upon the nature of the processes and products into which our alloys are integrated. Moreover, we have found that customers often proceed very cautiously and slowly before incorporating a fundamentally new and unique type of material into their products.

     After we develop a customer relationship, it may take a significant amount of time for that customer to develop, manufacture, and sell finished goods that incorporate our components and products.

     Our experience has shown that our customers will perform numerous tests and extensively evaluate our components and products before incorporating them into their finished products. The time required for testing, evaluating, and designing our components and products into a customer’s products, and in some cases, obtaining regulatory approval, can take a significant amount of time, with an additional period of time before a customer commences volume production of products incorporating our components and products, if ever. Moreover, because of this lengthy development cycle, we may experience a delay between the time we accrue expenses for research and development and sales and marketing efforts and the time when we generate revenue, if any. We may incur substantial costs in an attempt to transition a customer from initial testing to prototype and from prototype to final product. If we are unable to minimize these transition costs, or to recover the costs of these transitions from our customers, our operating results will be adversely affected.

     A limited number of our customers generate a significant portion of our revenue.

     For the near future, we expect that a significant portion of our revenue will be concentrated in a limited number of customers. For example, for the year ended December 31, 2003, revenue from two customers represented approximately 26% of total revenue from continuing operations and for the year ended December 31, 2002, revenue from two customers represented approximately 31% of total revenue from continuing operations. A reduction, delay, or cancellation of orders from one or more of these customers or the loss of one or more customer relationships could significantly reduce our revenue. Unless we establish long-term sales arrangements with these customers, they will have the ability to reduce or discontinue their purchases of our products on short notice.

     We expect to rely on our customers to market and sell finished goods that incorporate our products and components, a process over which we will have little control.

     Our future revenue growth and ultimate profitability will depend in part on the ability of our customers to successfully market and sell their finished goods that incorporate our products. We will have little control over our customers’ marketing and sales efforts. These marketing and sales efforts may be unsuccessful for various reasons, any of which could hinder our ability to increase revenue or achieve profitability. For example, our customers may not have or devote sufficient resources to develop, market, and sell their finished goods that incorporate our products. Because we typically will not have exclusive sales arrangements with our customers, they will not be precluded from exploring and adopting competing technologies. Also, products incorporating competing technologies may be more successful for reasons unrelated to the performance of our customers’ products or the marketing efforts of our customers.

     Our growth depends on our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize new applications for our technology.

     Our future growth and success will depend in part on our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize, either alone or in conjunction with our customers, new applications and uses for Liquidmetal alloys. If we are unable to identify and develop new applications, we may be unable to develop new products or generate additional revenue. Successful development of new applications for our products may require additional investment, including costs associated with research and development and the identification of new customers. In addition, difficulties in developing and achieving market acceptance of new products would harm our business.

     We may not be able to effectively compete with current suppliers of incumbent materials or producers of competing products.

16

     The future growth and success of our bulk amorphous alloy business will depend in part on our ability to establish and retain a technological advantage over other materials for our targeted applications. For many of our targeted applications, we will compete with manufacturers of similar products that use different materials. For example, we have targeted the cellular phone casing market as an application for bulk Liquidmetal alloys. In this market, we believe we will compete with other manufacturers of cellular phone casings who use plastics or metal to construct their casings. In other markets, we will compete directly with suppliers of the incumbent material. In addition, in each of our targeted markets, our success will depend in part on the ability of our customers to compete successfully in their respective markets. Thus, even if we are successful in replacing an incumbent material in a finished product, we will remain subject to the risk that our customer will not compete successfully in its own market.

     Future advances in materials science could render Liquidmetal alloys obsolete.

     Academic institutions and business enterprises frequently engage in the research and testing of new materials, including alloys and plastics. Advances in materials science could lead to new materials that have a more favorable combination of performance, processing, and cost characteristics than our alloys. The future development of any such new materials could render our alloys obsolete and unmarketable or may impair our ability to compete effectively.

     Our growth depends upon our ability to retain and attract a sufficient number of qualified employees.

     Our future growth and success will depend in part on our ability to retain key members of our management and scientific staff, particularly John Kang, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Professor William Johnson, a member of our board of directors and a professor at Caltech, and Dr. Atakan Peker, our Vice President of Technology. We do not have “key man” or similar insurance on either of these individuals. If we lose either their services or the services of other key personnel, our financial results or business prospects may be harmed. Additionally, our future growth and success will depend in part on our ability to attract, train, and retain scientific engineering, manufacturing, sales, marketing, and management personnel. We cannot be certain that we will be able to attract and retain the personnel necessary to manage our operations effectively. Competition for experienced executives and scientists from numerous companies and academic and other research institutions may limit our ability to hire or retain personnel on acceptable terms. In addition, many of the companies with which we compete for experienced personnel have greater financial and other resources than we do. Moreover, the employment of non-citizens may be restricted by applicable immigration laws.

     We may not be able to successfully identify, consummate, or integrate strategic partnerships.

     As a part of our business strategy, we intend to pursue strategic partnering transactions that provide access to new technologies, products, markets, and manufacturing capabilities. These transactions could include licensing agreements, joint ventures, or even business combinations. For example, we may pursue transactions that will give us access to new technologies that are useful in connection with the composition, processing, or application of Liquidmetal alloys. We may not be able to successfully identify any potential strategic partnerships. Even if we do identify one or more potentially beneficial strategic partnering, we may not be able to consummate these transactions on favorable terms or obtain the benefits we anticipate from such a transaction.

     We may encounter manufacturing problems or delays or may be unable to produce high-quality products at acceptable costs.

     We have relatively limited experience in manufacturing our products and may be required to manufacture a range of products in high volumes while ensuring high quality and consistency. Although we currently own and operate a 166,000 square foot manufacturing facility in South Korea, we cannot guarantee that this facility will be able to produce its intended products with production yields, quality controls, and production costs that provide us with acceptable margins or profitability or satisfy the requirements of our customers.

     We expect to derive a substantial portion of our revenue from sales outside the United States, and problems associated with international business operations could affect our ability to manufacture and sell our products.

     We expect that we will continue to manufacture a substantial portion of our initial bulk Liquidmetal alloy products in our South Korean facility. As a result, our manufacturing operations are subject to risks of political instability, including the risk of conflict between North Korea and South Korea and tensions between the United States and North Korea. In addition, we anticipate that sales to customers located outside of the United States will account for a significant portion of our revenue in future periods and that the trend of foreign customers accounting for an increasing

17

portion of our total sales may continue. Specifically, we expect to continue to derive a significant amount of revenue from sales to customers located in Asia. A downturn in the economies of Asian countries where our products will be sold, particularly South Korea’s economy, could materially harm our business.

     Consequently, our operations and revenue likely will be subject to a number of risks associated with foreign commerce, including:

     Our business is subject to the potential adverse consequences of exchange rate fluctuations.

     We expect to conduct business in various foreign currencies and will be exposed to market risk from changes in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. Fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and such foreign currencies may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition and could specifically result in foreign exchange gains and losses. The impact of future exchange rate fluctuations on our operations cannot be accurately predicted. To the extent that the percentage of our non-U.S. dollar revenue derived from international sales increases in the future, our exposure to risks associated with fluctuations in foreign exchange rates will increase further. Moreover, as a result of operating a manufacturing facility in South Korea, a substantial portion of our costs are and will continue to be denominated in the South Korean won. Adverse changes in the exchange rates of the South Korean won to the U.S. dollar will affect our costs of goods sold and operating margins and could result in exchange losses.

     Our inability to protect our licenses, patents, and proprietary rights in the United States and foreign countries could harm our business because third parties may take advantage of our research and development efforts.

     We have an exclusive license from Caltech to several patents and patent applications relating to amorphous alloy technology, and we have obtained several of our own patents. We also have the exclusive right to Caltech’s inventions, proprietary information, know-how, and other technology relating to bulk amorphous alloys existing as of September 1, 2001. Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary right protection for our technologies and products in the United States and other countries. If we are unable to obtain or maintain these protections, we may not be able to prevent third parties from using our proprietary rights. Specifically, we must:

     Caltech owns several issued United States patents covering the composition and method of manufacturing of the family of Liquidmetal alloys. We also hold several United States and corresponding foreign patents covering the manufacturing processes of Liquidmetal alloys and their use. The patents relating to our coatings expire on various dates between 2005 and 2017, and those relating to our bulk amorphous alloys between 2013 and 2021. If we are unable to protect our proprietary rights prior to the expiration of these patents, we may lose the advantage we have established as being the first to market bulk amorphous alloy products. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries

18

do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter significant problems and costs in protecting our proprietary rights in these foreign countries.

     Patent law is still evolving relative to the scope and enforceability of claims in the fields in which we operate. Our patent protection involves complex legal and technical questions. Our patents and those patents for which we have license rights may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated, or circumvented. We may be able to protect our proprietary rights from infringement by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or design around our patented technologies. Litigation or other proceedings to defend or enforce our intellectual property rights could require us to spend significant time and money and could otherwise adversely affect our business.

     Other companies may claim that we infringe their intellectual property rights, which could cause us to incur significant expenses or prevent us from selling our products.

     Our success depends, in part, on our ability to operate without infringing on valid, enforceable patents or proprietary rights of third parties and not breaching any licenses that may relate to our technology and products. Future patents issued to third parties may contain claims that conflict with our patents and that compete with our products and technologies, and third parties could assert infringement claims against us. Any litigation or interference proceedings, regardless of their outcome, may be costly and may require significant time and attention of our management and technical personnel. Litigation or interference proceedings could also force us to:

     The time and cost associated with complying with government regulations to which we could become subject could have a material adverse effect on our business.

     Some of the applications that we have identified or may identify in the future may be subject to government regulations. For example, any medical devices such as precision ophthalmic instruments and orthopedic devices made from our alloys likely will be subject to extensive government regulation in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. Any medical device manufacturers to whom we sell Liquidmetal alloy products may need to comply with FDA requirements, including premarket approval or clearance under Section 510(k) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act before marketing in the United States Liquidmetal alloy medical device products. These medical device manufacturers may be required to obtain similar approvals before marketing these medical devices in foreign countries. Any medical device manufacturers with which we jointly develop and sell medical device products may not provide significant assistance to us in obtaining required regulatory approvals. The process of obtaining and maintaining required FDA and foreign regulatory approvals could be lengthy, expensive, and uncertain. Additionally, regulatory agencies can delay or prevent product introductions. The failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in substantial fines, civil and criminal penalties, stop sale orders, loss or denial of approvals, recalls of products, and product seizures.

     In addition, the processing of beryllium, a minor constituent element of some of our alloys, can result in the release of beryllium into the workplace and the environment and in the creation of beryllium oxide as a by-product. Beryllium is classified as a hazardous air pollutant, a toxic substance, a hazardous substance, and a probable human carcinogen under environmental, safety, and health laws, and various acute and chronic health effects may result from exposure to beryllium. We are required to comply with certain regulatory requirements and to obtain a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other government agencies to process beryllium. Our failure to comply with present or future governmental regulations related to the processing of beryllium could result in suspension of manufacturing operations and substantial fines or criminal penalties.

     To the extent that our products have the potential for dual use, such as military and non-military applications, they may be subject to import and export restrictions of the U.S. government, as well as other countries. The process of obtaining any required U.S. or foreign licenses or approvals could be time-consuming, costly, and uncertain. Failure to comply with import and export regulatory requirements can lead to substantial fines, civil and criminal penalties, and the loss of government contracting and export privileges.

19

     We may require additional funding, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all.

     Our future capital requirements will depend on the amount of cash generated by our operations. Our projections of cash flows from operations and, consequently, future cash needs are subject to substantial uncertainty. If our available funds and cash generated from operations are insufficient to satisfy our liquidity requirements, we may need additional funds in the future to support our working capital requirements and for other purposes, and we may seek to raise additional funds through public or private equity financing, bank debt financing, or from other sources. Adequate funds may not be available when needed or may not be available on favorable terms. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, existing shareholders may be diluted. If funding is insufficient at any time in the future, we may not be able to develop or enhance our products or services, take advantage of business opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures, any of which could harm our business.

     Antitakeover provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and provisions of applicable corporate law could delay or prevent a change of control that you may favor.

     Provisions in our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, and Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be beneficial to our shareholders. These provisions could discourage potential takeover attempts and could adversely affect the market price of our shares. Because of these provisions, you might not be able to receive a premium on your investment. These provisions:

     Our bulk amorphous alloy technology is still at an early stage of commercialization relative to many other materials.

     Our bulk amorphous alloy technology is a relatively new technology as compared to many other material technologies, such as plastics and widely-used high-performance crystalline alloys. Historically, the successful commercialization of a new materials technology has required the persistent improvement and refining of the technology over a sometimes lengthy period of time. Accordingly, we believe that our Company’s future success will be dependent on our ability to continue expanding and improving our technology platform by, among other things, constantly refining and improving our manufacturing processes, optimizing our existing amorphous alloy compositions for various applications, and developing and improving new bulk amorphous alloy compositions. Our failure to further expand our technology base could limit our growth opportunities and hamper our commercialization efforts.

     Our stock price may experience volatility.

     The trading price of our common stock could fluctuate widely due to:

20

     In addition, the securities markets in general have experienced extreme price and trading volume volatility in the past. The trading prices of securities of many companies at our stage of growth have fluctuated broadly, often for reasons unrelated to the operating performance of the specific companies. These general market and industry factors may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. If our stock price is volatile, we could face securities class action litigation, which could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources and could cause our stock price to fall.

Item 2. Properties

     Our principal executive offices and principal research and development offices are located in Lake Forest, California and consist of approximately 30,000 square feet. This facility is occupied pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in June 2007. Prior to December 31, 2003, our principal executive offices were located in Tampa, Florida; however, as an outgrowth of various cost reduction measures in the fourth quarter of 2003, activities of the Tampa office were transferred to and consolidated with the Lake Forest office. In Conroe, Texas, we lease an office and warehouse for our coatings business segment. This facility, which is approximately 10,000 square feet, is leased through September 2006.

     Our principal prototyping and manufacturing facility is in Pyongtaek, South Korea, and consists of approximately 166,000 square feet. We lease the land on which this facility is located, although we own the buildings, fixtures, and all personal property located on the land. The parcel of land consists of approximately four acres and is leased through 2022. We currently expect that this facility will meet our anticipated internal manufacturing needs for the foreseeable future. Until June 2004 we also leased a facility in Incheon, South Korea, where an equipment manufacturing division of the Company assembled die casting equipment. This facility is approximately 22,430 square feet, and its lease expired in February 2005; however, that die casting equipment division was divested as of June 14, 2004 and the lease was terminated.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

     Liquidmetal Technologies and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in nine purported class action complaints filed in the United States District Courts for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and the Central District of California, Southern Division, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who purchased Liquidmetal Technologies’ common stock between May 22, 2002, and March 30, 2004, inclusive. The complaints contain varying allegations, but generally allege that the defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect to the Company’s transactions with Growell Metal Co., Ltd. and that the defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business and operations, including unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for Liquidmetal products, with the result of artificially inflating the Company’s share price. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In August 2004, four complaints were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ. John Lee, Chris Cowley, Dwight Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold, were appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the “Lead Plaintiffs”). Subsequently, in September 2004, the five complaints filed in the Central District of California were transferred to the Middle District of Florida for consolidation with the Primavera Investors action. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint is presently due on or before November 1, 2004, but the Lead Plaintiffs have requested an enlargement of time until 30 days after this Form 10-K is filed. Liquidmetal Technologies and the other defendants will have 45 days from the service date to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against the class action. We cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of this litigation or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, which could be material. The resolution of this lawsuit may harm our business and have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

     In addition, certain present and former officers and directors of Liquidmetal Technologies, as well as Liquidmetal Technologies as a nominal defendant, have been named in three shareholder derivative actions. Two shareholder derivative complaints were filed in California state court styled Brian Clair, Derivatively on Behalf of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. v. John Kang, et al., Case No. 04CC00551, and Joseph Durgin Derivatively on Behalf of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. v. John Kang, et al., Case No. 04CC00553, both commenced in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. A third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Florida federal court styled Robert Story v. John Kang, et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-1587-T23TBM, commenced in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. These shareholder derivative lawsuits allege that the defendants breached various fiduciary duties and

21

otherwise violated state law based primarily upon the same underlying facts and circumstances as the federal shareholder class action lawsuits. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law and other relief. The two shareholder derivative complaints in California state court have been consolidated. Plaintiffs served a Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint on October 12, 2004. The defendants have 40 days, or until November 22, 2004, to file a response to the Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint. The defendants have filed a Motion to Stay the California derivative action and are awaiting a ruling on that Motion. The Company’s response to the Florida derivative complaint is due on October 25, 2004. We intend to vigorously defend against the derivative actions. We cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of this litigation or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, which could be material. The resolution of these lawsuits may harm our business and have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

     Two separate lawsuits were filed in July and September 2004 by two former employees of our Pyongtaek manufacturing facility in South Korea. The suits are based on a claim of wrongful termination and breach of employment contract. The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

     No matters were submitted to a vote of our security holders during the fourth quarter of 2003.

PART II

Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

     Prior to July 16, 2004, our common stock was quoted on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “LQMT.” On July 14, 2004, the Company was notified by the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel that the Company’s common stock would be delisted from the Nasdaq National Market effective with the open of business on Friday, July 16, 2004. The Company was delisted for its failure to comply with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) due to the Company’s inability to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2003 and Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2004. As of July 19, 2004, the shares of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. common stock commenced trading in the Over the Counter (OTC) Pink Sheets Market under the symbol “LQMT.PK.”

     The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sale prices for our common stock as reported by The Nasdaq National Market:

     The closing price of our common stock as reported on The OTC Pink Sheets Market on October 1, 2004 was $1.88 per share. As of October 1, 2004, there were 238 holders of record of our common stock.

     We have never paid a cash dividend on our common stock. We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, and we plan to retain our earnings to finance future growth.

     Pursuant to our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-73716), as amended, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2001 and declared effective May 21, 2002, we closed an initial public offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock on May 28, 2002, plus an additional 229,000 shares on June 10, 2002 pursuant to an overallotment option, at a price of $15.00 per share (which sale is referred to herein as the “Offering”). The Offering generated aggregate cash proceeds during the second quarter 2002 of $78.4 million. The net proceeds were $70.7 million after deducting underwriting commissions of $5.5 million and other transaction fees of $2.2 million. The managing underwriters for the Offering were Merrill Lynch & Co., UBS Warburg, and Robert W. Baird & Co.

     As of December 31, 2003, we had used the $70.7 million of net proceeds from the Offering. In 2002, we used approximately $7.8 million of the net proceeds from the Offering to repay all outstanding promissory notes and accrued

22

interest, $11.1 million to fund the construction of our manufacturing facility in South Korea, $14.3 million to purchase equipment used to manufacture Liquidmetal parts, $0.4 million to purchase assets related to production and sale of equipment used in the production process of Liquidmetal alloy products, and $0.3 million to purchase the 51% interest in our majority owned Dongyang subsidiary. During the third quarter of 2002, we used $2.0 million to invest in the common stock of Growell Metal, which supplied a portion of the Liquidmetal alloy ingots used in our manufacturing operations in Korea. We have since sold such stock. We used the remaining proceeds of $32.7 million for working capital in 2002 and 2003, excluding $2.1 million paid to Paul Azinger in 2002 and 2003 for amounts due under the terms of his terminated endorsement agreement with our discontinued retail golf operations.

Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial Data

     We derived the selected consolidated financial data below as of and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2003 from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K. The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 and as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 have been derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements not included in this Form 10-K. The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K In addition, readers should note the following information regarding the selected historical consolidated financial data presented below.

     We have restated our previously reported consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. The restatement adjustments resulted in a cumulative net reduction to shareholders’ equity of $2.0 million as of December 31, 2002 and an increase in previously reported net loss of $1.1 million and $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The selected consolidated financial data presented below includes all such restatements. See Note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements, which reflects the restatements of prior year transactions.

23

24

25

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     This management’s discussion and analysis should be read in the conjunction with the condensed consolidated financial statements and notes included elsewhere in this report on Form 10-K.

     This management’s discussion and analysis, as well as other sections of this report on Form 10-K, may contain “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, including statements regarding our plans, future events, objectives, expectations, forecasts, or assumptions. Any statement that is not a statement of historical fact is a forward-looking statement, and in some cases, words such as “believe,” “estimate,” “ project,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “anticipate,” “plans,” “seeks,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the anticipated outcomes or results, and undue reliance should not be placed on these statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the matters discussed under the caption “Factors Affecting Future Results” in Item 1 of this report and other risks and uncertainties discussed in filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (including risks described in subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, Form 10-K, Form 8-K, and other filings). Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

OVERVIEW

     We are a materials technology company that develops and commercializes products made from amorphous alloys. Our Liquidmetal® family of alloys consists of a variety of coatings, powders, bulk alloys, and composites that utilize the advantages offered by amorphous alloy technology. We develop, manufacture, and sell products and components from bulk amorphous alloys that are incorporated into the finished goods of our customers, and we also market and sell amorphous alloy industrial coatings. We also partner with third-party licensees and distributors to develop and commercialize Liquidmetal alloy products. We have the exclusive right to develop, manufacture, and sell what we believe are the only commercially viable bulk amorphous alloys.

     Amorphous alloys are unique materials that are distinguished by their ability to retain a random atomic structure when they solidify, in contrast to the crystalline atomic structure that forms in ordinary metals and alloys when they solidify. Liquidmetal alloys possess a combination of performance, processing, and cost advantages that we believe makes them preferable to other materials in a variety of applications. The amorphous atomic structure of our alloys enables them to overcome certain performance limitations caused by inherent weaknesses in crystalline atomic structures, thus facilitating performance and processing characteristics superior in many ways to those of their crystalline counterparts. For example, our zirconium-titanium Liquidmetal alloys are approximately 250% stronger than commonly used titanium alloys, such as Ti-6Al-4V, but they have processing characteristics similar in many respects to plastics. We believe these advantages could result in Liquidmetal alloys supplanting other incumbent materials in a wide variety of applications. Moreover, we believe these advantages will enable the introduction of entirely new products and applications that are not possible or commercially viable with other materials.

     Our revenues are derived from two principal operating segments: Liquidmetal alloy industrial coatings and bulk Liquidmetal alloy products. Liquidmetal alloy industrial coatings are used primarily as a protective coating for industrial machinery and equipment, such as drill pipe used by the oil drilling industry and boiler tubes used in coal-burning power plants. The Company’s historical operating information for fiscal year 2001 is based substantially on sales of Liquidmetal alloy coatings. In the second half of 2002, we began producing bulk Liquidmetal alloy components and products for incorporation into our customers’ finished goods. Bulk Liquidmetal alloy segment revenue includes sales of parts or components of electronic devices, medical products, and sports and leisure goods; tooling and prototype parts (including demonstration parts and test samples) for customers with products in development; metal processing equipment; and research and development revenue relating primarily to defense and medical applications. We expect that these sources of revenue will continue to significantly change the character of our revenue mix.

     The cost of sales for our Liquidmetal coatings segment consists primarily of the costs of outsourcing our manufacturing to third parties. Consistent with our expectations, our cost of sales has been increasing over historical results as we further build our bulk Liquidmetal alloy business. Although we plan to continue outsourcing the manufacturing of our coatings, we will internally manufacture many products derived from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys.

     Selling, general, and administrative expenses currently consist primarily of salaries and related benefits, severance costs, travel, consulting and professional fees, depreciation and amortization, insurance, office and administrative expenses, and other expenses related to our operations.

     Research and development expenses represent salaries, related benefits expense, stock-based compensation, depreciation of research equipment, consulting and contract services, expenses incurred for the design and testing of

26

new processing methods, expenses for the development of sample and prototype products, and other expenses related to the research and development of Liquidmetal alloys. Costs associated with research and development activities are expensed as incurred. We plan to enhance our competitive position by improving our existing technologies and developing advances in amorphous alloy technologies. We believe that our research and development efforts will focus on the discovery of new alloy compositions, the development of improved processing technology, and the identification of new applications for our alloys.

     Impairment of goodwill represents the write-down of the goodwill balance of Dongyang Yudoro (“Dongyang”), our 51% owned subsidiary in South Korea. During 2003, Dongyang experienced net losses as a result of a continuing economic downturn in markets for its machinery products. These events, along with Dongyang’s operating cash flow losses and uncertainty surrounding its future cash flows, led us to evaluate our investment for recoverability as of December 31, 2003. As a result, we determined that the carrying value of our investment in Dongyang exceeded its fair value as of December 31, 2003 in the amount of $184. In March 2004, we sold our 51% investment in Dongyang to the 49% minority shareholder. No gain or loss was recorded for this transaction as of December 31, 2003, as the selling price of $80 was equal to our net carrying value for our 51% ownership held.

     Impairment of Long-Lived Assets consists of a write-down of the building of our manufacturing facility in South Korea on the basis that the fair value of this building was determined to be less than the book value as of December 31, 2003. Our significant operational difficulties in 2003 along with our history of operating or cash flow losses and uncertainty surrounding our future cash flows, led us to evaluate our long-lived assets for recoverability as of December 31, 2003. As a result, we determined that the carrying value of our manufacturing plant in Pyongtaek, South Korea exceeded its fair value as of December 31, 2003 in the amount of $2,684. The fair value of the building was based on the average of two independent appraisals of the building obtained in the first quarter of 2004.

     Our historical operations, prior to 2002, included our coatings business and our retail golf operation conducted through our majority owned Liquidmetal Golf subsidiary. On September 29, 2001, our board of directors and the board of directors of Liquidmetal Golf voted to discontinue the retail golf operations of Liquidmetal Golf in order to conform our operations to our broader corporate business strategy, although Liquidmetal Golf continues to develop golf club components for other golf club manufacturers. Pursuant to Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 30, Reporting the Results of Operations — Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of a Business, and Extraordinary, Unusual and Infrequently Occurring Events and Transactions, we reclassified our consolidated financial statements to reflect the discontinuation of Liquidmetal Golf’s retail golf operations. The revenue, costs and expenses, assets and liabilities, and cash flows of the retail golf business were segregated in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss, and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The net operating results, net assets, and net cash flows of the retail golf business were reported as discontinued operations in our annual consolidated financial statements and in the condensed consolidated financial statements included in this report on Form 10-K. On April 30, 2002, management terminated the operations of the retail golf segment by completing the liquidation of the retail golf assets and liabilities.

     On May 21, 2003, we completed a reincorporation by transitioning from a California corporation to a Delaware corporation. The reincorporation was effected through the merger of the former California entity into a newly created wholly owned Delaware subsidiary. The reincorporation changed the legal domicile of our company but did not result in any change to our business, management, employees, fiscal year, assets or liabilities, or location of facilities. As part of the reincorporation, each share of the California corporation was automatically converted into one share of the Delaware corporation. In addition, total authorized shares decreased from 200,000,000 shares to 100,000,000 shares.

     The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations focuses on the historical results of our continuing operations and reflects the effect of restating our 2001, 2002 and 2003 (2002 quarterly filings) financial statements for equipment sales made to Growell Metal Co., Ltd. (“Growell”), stock compensation restatements, the AM Corp revenue restatement, the JS Technologies allowance for bad debt restatement, and the Samsung revenue restatement as disclosed in Note 2 in the notes to the consolidated financial statements section of this document.

     As a part of the accompanying consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, the Company has restated certain previously issued financial statements due to the fact that revenues from equipment sales made to Growell Metal Co., Ltd., a South Korean metals processing company (“Growell”), in the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 should not have been recognized in those periods. Revenues of $873 and $681 from the sales of alloying equipment to Growell were previously recorded in the quarters ended September 30, 2002 and December 31, 2002, respectively, and revenue of $2,543 from the sale of die casting machines to Growell was previously recorded in the quarter ended March 31, 2003. The 2002 Growell sale of $1,554 had an associated cost of sales of $1,478, resulting in a profit of $78 during 2002. The 2003 Growell sales of $2,543 had an associated cost of sales of $840, resulting in profit of $1,703. The effect of the restatement is to eliminate the recognition of revenue on the alloying equipment sales and to defer the recognition of revenue on the die casting equipment in 2003 until the quarter ended March 31, 2004.

27

     The Company has reclassified the $757 and $720 of alloying equipment subject to the contingency as Machines held by customer at September 30, 2002 and December 31, 2002, respectively. The Company has reclassified the die casting equipment at March 31, 2003 and for subsequent quarterly periods as Machines held by customer, which are included in inventory.

     Under terms of a January 10, 2004 settlement of the dispute between Liquidmetal Korea and Growell, Liquidmetal Korea agreed to pay Growell $4,895 to purchase Growell’s investment in alloy inventories, proprietary alloying equipment purchased from Liquidmetal Korea, and supporting equipment purchased from other suppliers. Also as part of the settlement, Growell satisfied in full a balance of $2,058 owed to Liquidmetal Korea for the die casting machines Growell purchased from Liquidmetal Korea in the first quarter of 2003 as part of a license agreement to manufacture Liquidmetal alloy parts for the South Korean automotive industry. The remaining settlement payable of $2,873 and trade accounts payable of $14 will be paid to Growell (in cash or stock at the Company’s discretion) by December 31, 2004. The Company recorded a loss on the settlement at December 31, 2003 of $2,765 which is included in “Cost of Sales” in the December 31, 2003 Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. The loss on settlement reflects the write down of the assets received in the settlement to their fair market value. The loss is accrued for in the “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” section in the December 31, 2003, Consolidated Balance Sheet. The sale of the die casting machines to Growell will be reflected in the first quarter of 2004. Under the settlement agreement between the parties, the Company and Growell granted to the other party (and the other party’s affiliates) a release of all known and unknown claims of any nature arising between the parties through the date of settlement, as well as a release against future claims under agreements between the parties that were terminated as a part of the settlement. The settlement agreement provided that all agreements of any nature between the parties and their respective affiliates were terminated as of the date of settlement, with the exception of certain confidentiality agreements, a Liquidmetal coatings distribution agreement, and future rights under the die casting agreement pursuant to which Growell purchased the die casting machines and obtained a license to make auto parts from Liquidmetal alloys. The settlement agreement also includes, as an accommodation to Growell, if the Company becomes aware of any prospective customer that desires to purchase a proprietary Company casting machine at a time when Growell desires to sell any of its Liquidmetal die casting machines, then the Company will not sell such die casting machine to the prospective customer unless the Company first directs the prospective customer to Growell and encourages the prospective customer to purchase the machine from Growell. These and other transactions with Growell have been disclosed as related party transactions in our notes to the financials statements.

Stock Compensation Restatement

     As a part of the accompanying consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, the Company has restated certain previously issued financial statements due to the fact that stock option grants were not calculated in accordance with guidelines under APB Opinion No. 25, SFAS No. 123, and EITF 00-23.

     The Company recalculated stock compensation expense considering these corrections and increased unamortized stock-based compensation by $577 and increased stock compensation expense by $937 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001. The Company also decreased unamortized stock-based compensation by $797 and increased stock compensation expense by $533 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Samsung Restatement

     In 2002, the Company was engaged by Samsung to provide liquidmetal alloy parts for cell phones. The Company recognized approximately $315 of mold revenue in December 2002, which was subsequently written off in March 2003 as bad debt expense. It was determined that the revenue of $315 recognized in 2002 did not meet the requirement of revenue recognition under SAB 101 and accordingly the Company has restated its revenue and accounts receivable for 2002 by $315.

JS Technologies Restatement

     In September 2002, the Company was engaged by JS Technologies to provide molds and MP3 player compact disc cases and recognized approximately $782 of revenue. JS Technologies did not pay the remaining balance due of $172 because the MP3 player compact disc cases never launched into full production. The Company decided to write off this balance in January 2003. Consequently, the Company restated its selling, general and administrative expenses and the allowance for doubtful accounts as of and for the year ended 2002 by recognizing bad debt expense of $169 in 2002.

AM Corporation Restatement

     In December 2002, the Company was engaged by AM Corporation to develop knife prototypes for distribution of knives in Europe and recognized $250 of revenue in 2002 and $250 in 2003. The Company received payment on the revenue recognized in 2002; however, AM Corporation determined it would not continue with development and consequently did not pay the 2003 receivable of $250 and the Company recorded the $250 as bad debt expense in 2003.

28

It was determined that the $250 recorded as revenue in 2003 did not meet the requirement of revenue recognition per SAB 101 and, accordingly, the sale and bad debt expense were reversed

Results of Operations

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002

     Revenue. Revenue increased $5.7 million to $16.9 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 from $11.2 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. The increase was due to a $7.3 million increase in revenue earned by our bulk Liquidmetal alloy segment in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003. This increase in our bulk Liquidmetal alloy segment revenue consisted of a revenue increase of $5.0 million from the sale of metal processing equipment, an increase of $0.1 million from the sale and prototyping of parts manufactured from bulk Liquidmetal alloys, and an increase of $2.2 million from research and development services related primarily to defense and medical applications. The increase in revenue earned by our bulk Liquidmetal alloy segment was offset by a decrease of $1.6 million in the revenue earned by our coatings business as compared to the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 due to a slowdown in demand for drill pipe coatings.

     Cost of Sales. Cost of sales increased to $22.2 million, or 132% of revenue, during the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 from $7.2 million, or 64% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. The cost of sales as a percentage of revenue increased due to three primary factors: first, a higher percentage of plant operating costs allocated to manufacturing in the current period, as opposed to the same twelve month period in 2002 when our manufacturing facility was in the final stages of construction and significant in-plant spending was directed to research and development to support the ramp-up of manufacturing operations; second, the impact of unprofitable electronic casing components and prototypes moving through our manufacturing mix; and third, the impact of the write-down of excess raw material in the amount of $1.0 million and the write-down of raw material and equipment inventory in the amount of $2.8 million in connection with a settlement of a dispute with Growell which was finalized in January 2004.

     Although the cost to manufacture parts from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys is variable and differs based on the unique design of each product, we expect gross margin to improve as we limit production and prototyping to select products that require the high-performance qualities of Liquidmetal alloys and can be priced accordingly. Furthermore, we believe that strategic licensing agreements and other relationships to advance the development of our technology and processes that we will pursue could also contribute to improved gross margins. The cost of sales for the products sold by the coatings business is expected to remain generally consistent because Liquidmetal coatings products are produced by third parties and sold wholesale to various industries.

     Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses. Selling, general, and administrative expenses increased to $17.8 million, or 106% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 from $13.5 million, or 120% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. This increase was primarily a result of costs incurred for closing our Tampa, Florida offices, which included: an increase in severance costs of $2.2 million for releasing a substantial number of these employees as well as our expense and accrual of $0.8 million for terminating our office lease, due to the determination that we will be unable to sublease this space over the remaining term; an increase in professional fees, consultant fees, and contract services of $0.8 million; an increase in insurance expense of $0.5 million; an increase in data communications expense of $0.2 million; an increase in depreciation expense of $0.3 million; an increase of warranty expense of $0.5 million; and a $0.3 million increase in expenses associated with the disposition of certain assets in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses are associated with the aforementioned cost reduction measures, including the consolidation of offices, the staff reductions, and a corresponding shift in strategy for the continued development of our bulk Liquidmetal alloy business. This was partially offset by a decrease in advertising expense of $0.1 million; a decrease in bad debt expense of $0.9 million; and a $0.7 million decrease in stock compensation expense.

     Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses decreased to $8.9 million, or 53% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 from $11.8 million, or 105% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. This decrease was partially a result of the maturing of our manufacturing process and related processing capabilities, the consolidation of our facilities into our California Technology Center, and the discontinuation of certain prototyping and developmental activities that occurred extensively while the Company was identifying our current technology capabilities and limitations. These decreases were partially offset by increases in providing research grants to various institutions to advance the development of Liquidmetal alloys. In the category of research and development expenses: travel decreased by $0.2 million; professional fees, consultant fees, and contract services decreased by $1.6 million; laboratory and prototyping expenses decreased by $0.9 million; and stock compensation expense decreased by $1.4 million. These expenses were partially offset by increases in depreciation of research equipment of $0.4 million, increased research grants to educational institutions of $0.1 million, and increase to salaries, wages and severance net of $0.5 million.

29

     Impairment of Goodwill. Impairment of goodwill represents the write-down of the goodwill balance of Dongyang Yudoro (“Dongyang”), our 51% owned subsidiary in South Korea. During 2003, Dongyang experienced net losses as a result of a continuing economic downturn in the market for its machinery products. These events along with Dongyang’s operating, and cash flow losses, and uncertainty surrounding its future cash flows, led us to evaluate our investment for recoverability as of December 31, 2003. As a result, we determined that the carrying value of our investment in Dongyang exceeded its fair value as of December 31, 2003 in the amount of $184. In March 2004, we sold our 51% investment in Dongyang to the 49% minority shareholder. No gain or loss was recorded for this transaction as of December 31, 2003, as the selling price of $80 was equal to our net carrying value for our 51% ownership held.

     Impairment of Long Lived Assets. Impairment expense represents a write-down of the building of our manufacturing facility in South Korea. Due to the decreased production and usage of our Pyongtaek manufacturing operation, we decided to obtain independent appraisals as to the fair value of this building. Accordingly, the fair value of the building as determined by the average of the two independent appraisal was less than the carrying value of the building as of December 31, 2003.

     Interest Expense. Interest expense was $0.4 million, or 2% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 and was $1.1 million, or 10% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, interest expense was primarily due to interest accrued on the Kookmin Bank loan to our South Korean subsidiary made on February 4, 2003. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, interest expense was primarily due to the amortization of the fair value of warrants granted in connection with subordinated promissory notes we issued in February 2001.

     Interest Income. Interest income was $0.3 million, or 2% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 due to interest earned on short-term, investment grade, interest-bearing securities. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, interest income was $0.5 million, or 5% of revenue, which was interest earned from the proceeds of our May 22, 2002 initial public offering.

     Gain from Sale of Investment. In April 2003 we sold our remaining shares of Growell Metal Co., Ltd. that were purchased in July 2002. We recognized a $1.2 million gain on the sale of these shares.

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001

     Revenue. Revenue increased to $11.2 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 from $3.9 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2001. This increase was primarily due to increased revenues in our bulk Liquidmetal alloys segment. Included in sales related to our bulk Liquidmetal alloys were revenue derived from sales of parts and prototypes made from our alloys, equipment sales, revenue recognized from research and development contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense related to our bulk Liquidmetal alloys, and revenue recognized from the delivery of our first production products manufactured from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys. Additionally, revenue was derived from sales of our Liquidmetal coatings. Revenue from the sales and prototyping of parts manufactured from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys increased by $4.0 million over 2001. Revenue from the sales of Liquidmetal coatings products increased by $1.0 million. Additionally, revenue of furnace equipment increased by $0.2 million as a result of the purchase of a 51% interest in Dongyang Yudoro (“Dongyang”), a South Korean furnace equipment company, and revenue from our research and development contracts, including contracts with the Department of Defense, increased $2.1 million.

     Cost of Sales. Cost of sales increased to $7.2 million, or 64% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 from $1.9 million, or 50% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2001. This increase was primarily a result of costs to manufacture products made from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys and the cost of furnace equipment sold in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. The increase in cost of sales as a percentage of revenue was also the result of increased costs required to manufacture products made from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys and costs to manufacture the furnace equipment sold in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. Our Liquidmetal coatings products are produced by third parties and sold wholesale to various industries. The cost of sales for these coating products is generally fixed. However, the cost to manufacture parts from our bulk Liquidmetal alloys is variable and differs based on the part design. As expected, cost of sales as a percentage of revenue has continued to increase as our revenue mix has shifted more toward the bulk alloy business.

     Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses. Selling, general, and administrative expenses increased to $13.5 million, or 120% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 from $5.2 million, or 135% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2001. This increase was primarily a result of: an increase in wages of $3.2 million; an increase in professional fees, consultant fees, and contract services of $1.2 million; an increase in travel expenses of $0.7 million; an increase in property rent of $0.6 million; an increase in insurance expenses of $0.5 million; an increase in product warranty expense of $0.2 million; and an increase in bad debt expense of $0.9 million incurred in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. These and other increases in selling, general and

30

administrative expenses represent the continued additions to our corporate infrastructure required to prepare for and support the anticipated growth of our bulk Liquidmetal alloy business.

     Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses increased to $11.8 million, or 105% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 from $1.7 million, or 44% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2001. This increase was partially a result of expenses related to the continued research and development of new Liquidmetal alloys and related processing capabilities, including the hiring of additional research employees, developing new manufacturing techniques, and contracting with consultants to advance the development of Liquidmetal alloys. Salaries and wages increased by $2.8 million, professional fees, consultant fees, and contract services increased by $2.0 million, laboratory and prototyping expenses increased by $2.8 million, and travel related expenses increased by $0.4 million. The increase in research and development expenses in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 also included $0.2 million in accelerated depreciation attributable to the acceleration of the estimated useful lives of certain capitalized research and development equipment and an increase in stock-based compensation expense of $1.0 million, primarily triggered by modifications made to accelerate the remaining vesting periods of stock options in connection with the hiring of certain consultants as employees in March 2002.

     Interest (Expense) Income, Net. Interest expense, net was at ($0.6) million, or 5.0% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 and was ($1.1) million, or 28% of revenue, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2001. The interest expense, net was primarily due to the amortization of the fair value of warrants granted in connection with subordinated promissory notes we issued in February 2001. In the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, these subordinated promissory notes were paid, requiring the unamortized fair value of the warrants granted in connection with these subordinated promissory notes to be expensed fully in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 in an amount totaling $0.5 million. Also in the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, we earned $0.5 million in interest income from the investment of the net proceeds of our initial public offering.

     Gain from Sale of Investment. In December of 2002 we sold 30% of the shares of Growell Metal Co., Ltd. that were purchased in July 2002. We recognized a $0.8 million gain on the sale of these shares.

QUARTERLY RESULTS

     The following information presents our audited quarterly operating results for 2003 and 2002. The data has been prepared by Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. on a basis consistent with the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K, and includes all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, that we consider necessary for a fair presentation thereof. Included in our 2003 fourth quarter results are costs charged to our cost of sales for the write-down of raw materials of $1.0 million and a $2.8 million write-down of inventory and equipment recorded in connection with a dispute settlement with Growell. In addition, as a result of the Company’s cost reduction measures taken in the fourth quarter, our selling, general, and administrative expenses include severance costs of $2.4 million and office relocation costs of $0.8 million. These operating results are not necessarily indicative of our future performance.

     These statements should be read in conjunction with restatement footnote 2 which is in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. The Company is restating its 2001 financial results due to a stock compensation transaction. The Company is restating its 2002 and 2003 financial results due to the restating of revenue of machine sales to Growell Metal, the restatement of revenue from transactions with AM Corp and Samsung, the restatement of allowance for doubtful accounts and general & administrative expense for outstanding receivables from JS Technologies, and additional transactions associated with stock compensation expense.

     The quarterly results for the three months ended 12/31/03 and 9/30/03 did not require restatement. A summary of the significant effects of the restatement is as follows:

31

32

33

34

35

36

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

     Our operating activities, including our discontinued retail golf operations, used cash of $27.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 and $19.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. Cash used in operating activities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 resulted from net cash used by discontinued operations of $1.0 million and net cash used by continuing operations of $26.4 million. Cash used in operating activities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 resulted from net cash used by discontinued operations of $2.5 million and net cash used by continuing operations of $16.9 million. Our working capital was $.6 million as of December 31, 2003. Cash used by continuing operations, excluding discontinued retail golf operations, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 resulted primarily from operating losses from continuing operations of $33.7 million.

     Our investing activities used cash of $0.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 for the acquisition of property and equipment of $2.5 million and investment in patents and trademarks of $0.3 million. These expenditures were offset by the net proceeds from the sale of marketable securities of $2.6 million.

     Our financing activities provided $4.9 million in cash for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, which consists primarily of $5.5 million in proceeds from borrowings from Kookmin Bank and $0.9 million in proceeds from exercised stock options. On February 4, 2003, our Korean subsidiary received 6,500,000 in South Korean Won, or approximately $5,488, under a loan from Kookmin Bank of South Korea. The loan bears interest at an annual rate of 7.1%. In the event of delayed repayment, the interest increases to a maximum of 21%, depending on the length of time the repayment is delayed. As reflected in Footnote 13 to the accompanying financial statements, the balance of the Kookmin loan as of December 31, 2003 was $4,047.

     We currently anticipate substantially lower capital expenditures for at least the next twelve months. We anticipate that our capital expenditures will be approximately less than $0.5 million for the full year 2004 for the acquisition of furniture, fixtures, and other business equipment. This amount is subject to change, however, depending upon the nature and the amount of the product orders that we actually receive from customers.

     Our capital requirements during the next twelve months will depend on numerous factors, including the success of existing products either in manufacturing or development, the development of new applications for Liquidmetal alloys, the resources we devote to develop and support our Liquidmetal alloy products, and the success of pursuing strategic licensing and funded product development relationships with external partners. During the next twelve months, based on our current business plan, we expect to have sufficient resources to continue to devote limited capital to our research and development activities, to further develop and strengthen our manufacturing technology, and to provide for working capital and other general corporate purposes. However, based on our historical operating results and the continued development of our manufacturing capabilities and alloy compositions, there exists the possibility that these resources will not be adequate to operate at the proposed business plan levels. These expenses and capital expenditures could consume a material amount of our cash resources, but the amount of these requirements will depend on the nature and amount of orders we receive for the purchase of our bulk Liquidmetal alloy products.

     Our business is based on commercializing an entirely new and unique technology, and our current business plan contains a variety of assumptions and expectations that are subject to uncertainty, including assumptions and expectations about order flow, unit volumes, manufacturing efficiencies, product cost and pricing, continuing technology improvements, customer adoption practices, strategic licensing relationships and other relevant matters. These assumptions take into account recent significant cost reductions, as well as recent improvements to our manufacturing processes. We have experienced losses from continuing operations during the last two fiscal years and have an accumulated deficit of $112.6 million as of December 31, 2003. Cash used in continuing operations for the years ended December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 was $26.4 million and $16.9 million, respectively, and cash flow from continuing operations was negative throughout the first and second quarters of 2004. At December 31, 2003, our principal source of liquidity was $3.1 million of cash and cash equivalents and trade accounts receivables of $4.2 million. Such conditions raise substantial doubt that our Company will be able to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time without receiving additional funding. These operating results occurred while we were developing and attempting to commercialize and manufacture products from an entirely new and unique technology. This business plan required significant spending related to start-up costs and capital expenditures. These factors have placed a significant strain on our financial resources. The ultimate success of the Company depends on our ability to continue to reduce operating costs, generate higher revenue, achieve positive cash flow from continuing operations and achieve profitability.

     On March 3, 2004, we sold $9.4 million of 6.0% senior convertible notes due 2007 (the “March Notes”) to investor groups in a transaction led by Michigan Venture Capital Co., Ltd, a South Korea-based institutional investment firm, and IndiGo Ventures LLC, a New York-based investment firm that served as a financial advisor to the Company for the

37

transaction. The notes were convertible at any time into our common stock at a price of $3.00 per share. Investors in the private placement received warrants to purchase an aggregate amount of up to approximately 1.1 million shares of common stock, exercisable at $3.00 per share for varying periods but no later than 100 days following the effectiveness of a registration statement covering the resale of shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants. In addition, the investors had the right to call for repayment of the notes prior to maturity at any time after the second anniversary of the closing of the transaction. (see note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements),

     On August 19, 2004, we completed a private exchange offer for our March Notes. Under terms of the exchange offer, approximately $5.5 million in aggregate principal amount of the March Notes pursuant to a Note Exchange Agreement with the holders of the March Notes have been exchanged for an aggregate of (i) $2.75 million of 6% Senior Secured Notes Due 2007 (the “Long-Term Notes”) and (ii) $2.75 million of 10% Senior Secured Notes Due 2005 (the “Short-Term Notes”). In addition, we voluntarily redeemed approximately $4.5 million of the March Notes, in cash. The Short-Term Notes have a maturity date of July 29, 2005, and a conversion price of $2.00 per share (compared to a conversion price of $3.00 per share under the March Notes). The Long-Term Notes have a maturity date of July 29, 2007, and a conversion price of $1.00 per share. Holders of the Long-Term Notes will also have the right to call for repayment of the Long-Term Notes prior to maturity at any time after the second anniversary of the closing of the exchange offer. In addition, holders of both the Long-Term Notes and Short-Term Notes will have the right to call for repayment of the notes if we do not, within 180 days of the issuance of the notes, become compliant with our SEC reporting obligations and become listed or quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, the Nasdaq Stock Market, or other national securities exchange. A total of 562,151 warrants to purchase our common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share—all of which were previously issued in connection with the purchase of the March Notes—have been amended to provide for an extended expiration date of March 1, 2006. As of October 27, 2004, we were in breach of a covenant in the Note Exchange Agreement requiring us to become current in our SEC filings, as well as file a registration statement with the SEC for the shares into which the notes are convertible, within 90 days of the issue date of the new notes. If written notice of default is delivered to us for breach of this covenant, then we will have a period of 30 days to cure the breach before it becomes an event of default under the notes, and if the breach is not cured during such time period, the holders of the notes will become entitled to accelerate the remaining balance of their respective notes and declare them immediately due and payable. As of the date of the filing of this Form 10-K, we have not received a notice of default with respect to this matter.

     Our future success depends on our ability to continue reducing operating costs and ultimately to generate higher revenue and attain profitability. We cannot be certain that additional capital, whether through selling additional debt or equity securities or obtaining a line of credit or other loan, will be available to us or, if available, will be on terms acceptable to us. If we issue additional securities to raise funds, these securities may have rights, preferences, or privileges senior to those of our common stock, and our current stockholders may experience dilution.

     In March 1996, we entered into a distribution agreement whereby we granted to a third party exclusive rights to market and sell golf products incorporating Liquidmetal technology to certain Japanese sporting equipment companies. The third party paid us a $1.0 million distribution fee as part of this agreement, of which a portion was refundable according to a formula based on the gross profit earned by the third party. The remaining unearned distribution fee of $0.8 million has not been refunded as of March 31, 2004, and we do not believe the third party is entitled to a refund. On March 28, 2003, the distribution agreement was terminated and we entered into a new agreement to pay to the same third party a commission on the net sales price of all Liquidmetal golf equipment that is shipped by our Company or its affiliates to Japanese golf companies for sale into the Japanese end-market. This commission will apply to golf equipment shipped by our Company or its affiliates during the period beginning on March 28, 2003 and ending on March 28, 2006. If, by March 28, 2006, we have not paid $0.4 million in commission payments, the balance between commissions paid and $0.4 million will be paid by April 30, 2006, thereby guaranteeing the third party a $0.4 million minimum payment during the term of the agreement. We will recognize the unearned distribution fee of $0.8 million as revenue proportionately with the payment of commissions under the letter agreement.

USE OF PROCEEDS

     Pursuant to our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-73716), as amended, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2001 and declared effective May 21, 2002, we closed an initial public offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock on May 28, 2002, plus an additional 229,000 shares on June 10, 2002 pursuant to an overallotment option, at a price of $15.00 per share (which sale is referred to herein as the “Offering”). The Offering generated aggregate cash proceeds during the second quarter 2002 of $78.4 million. The net proceeds were $70.7 million after deducting underwriting commissions of $5.5 million and other transaction fees of $2.2 million. The managing underwriters for the Offering were Merrill Lynch & Co., UBS Warburg, and Robert W. Baird & Co.

     As of December 31, 2003, we have used the $70.7 million of net proceeds from the Offering. In 2002, we used approximately $7.8 million of the net proceeds from the Offering to repay all outstanding promissory notes and accrued

38

interest, $11.1 million to fund the construction of our manufacturing facility in South Korea, $14.3 million to purchase equipment used to manufacture Liquidmetal parts, $0.4 million to purchase assets related to production and sale of equipment used in the production process of Liquidmetal alloy products, and $0.3 million to purchase the 51% interest in our majority owned Dongyang subsidiary. During the third quarter of 2002, we used $2.0 million to invest in the common stock of Growell Metal, which supplied a portion of the Liquidmetal alloy ingots used in our manufacturing operations in Korea. We have since sold such stock, realizing a gain on the sale. We used the remaining proceeds of $32.7 million for working capital in 2002 and 2003, excluding $2.1 million paid to Paul Azinger in 2002 and 2003 for amounts due under the terms of his terminated endorsement agreement with our discontinued retail golf operations.

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

     An off-balance sheet arrangement is any transaction, agreement or other contractual arrangement involving an unconsolidated entity under which a company has (1) made guarantees, (2) a retained or a contingent interest in transferred assets, (3) an obligation under derivative instruments classified as equity, or (4) any obligation arising out of a material variable interest in an unconsolidated entity that provides financing, liquidity, market risk or credit risk support to the company, or that engages in leasing, hedging, or research and development arrangements with the company.

     We have made no arrangements of the types described in any of the categories that may have a material current or future effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. See Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

39

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

     The following table of material debt and lease commitments at December 31, 2003, summarizes the effect these obligations are expected to have on our cash flow in the future periods set forth below (in thousands):

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

     The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These estimates and assumptions are based on historical experience and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

     We believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to our consolidated financial statements since these policies require significant judgment or involve complex estimates that are important to the portrayal of our financial condition and operating results:

40

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

     In April 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 145, Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections. SFAS No. 145 rescinds SFAS No. 4, Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt, and an amendment of that Statement, SFAS No. 64, Extinguishments of Debt Made to Satisfy Sinking-Fund Requirements. This Statement also rescinds SFAS No. 44, Accounting for Intangible Assets of Motor Carriers. SFAS No. 145 amends SFAS No. 13, Accounting for Leases, to eliminate an inconsistency between the required accounting for sale-leaseback transactions and the required accounting for certain lease modifications that have economic effects that are similar to sale-leaseback transactions. This Statement also amends other existing authoritative pronouncements to make various technical corrections, clarify meanings, or describe their applicability under changed conditions. The provisions of this Statement related to the rescission of Statement 4 are required to be applied in fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002. The provisions in paragraphs 8 and 9(c) of this Statement related to Statement 13 are required to be applied to transactions occurring after May 15, 2002. Any gain or loss on extinguishment of debt that was classified as an extraordinary item in prior periods presented that does not meet the criteria in APB No. 30 for classification as an extraordinary item is required to be reclassified. All other provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements issued on or after May 15, 2002. We elected to early adopt SFAS No. 145 during the second quarter of 2002. The effect of adopting SFAS No. 145 was to increase interest expense by $0.5 million, increase net loss from continuing operations by $0.5 million, and to increase basic and diluted loss from continuing operations per share by $0.01.

     In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated With Exit or Disposal Activities. SFAS No. 146 addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities and nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3, Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring). SFAS No. 146 requires costs associated with exit or disposal activities to be recognized when the costs are incurred, rather than at a date of commitment to an exit or disposal plan. SFAS No. 146 is effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002. The adoption of SFAS No. 146 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

     In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others (“Interpretation 45”). Interpretation 45 changes the accounting for and the disclosure of guarantees. Interpretation 45 requires that guarantees meeting the characteristics described in the Interpretation be initially recorded at fair value in contrast to SFAS No. 5, which requires recording a liability when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The disclosure requirements of Interpretation 45 are effective for financial statements of annual periods ending after December 31, 2002. The initial recognition and initial measurement provisions of Interpretation 45 are effective on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The adoption of Interpretation 45 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

     In December 2002, SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure, was issued by the FASB. This standard amends SFAS No. 123 to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, this standard amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. SFAS No. 148 is effective for financial statements for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. We implemented SFAS No. 148 effective January 1, 2003 regarding disclosure requirements for condensed financial statements for interim periods. We have elected not to change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation.

41

     In January 2003, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 46 Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin (“ARB”) No. 51, Consolidated Financial Statements (“FIN 46”) and a revised interpretation of FIN 46 (FIN 46-R) in December 2003 in an effort to expand upon existing accounting guidance that addresses when a company should consolidate the financial results of another entity. FIN 46 requires “variable interest entities”, as defined to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of expected losses of the entity or is entitled to receive a majority of expected residual returns of the entity, or both. A company that is required to consolidate a variable interest entity is referred to as the entity’s primary beneficiary. The interpretation also requires certain disclosures about variable interest entities that a company is not required to consolidate, but in which it has significant variable interest. The consolidation and disclosure requirements apply immediately to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003. The Company is not the primary beneficiary of any variable interest entity created after January 31, 2003 nor does the Company have a significant variable interest in a variable interest entity created after January 31, 2003. For variable interest entities that existed before February 1, 2003, the consolidation requires for FIN 46-R are effective as of March 31, 2004. The adoption of FIN 46-R will not have a material impact on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

     In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. SFAS No. 149 is intended to result in more consistent reporting of contracts as either freestanding derivative instruments subject to Statement 133 in its entirely, or as hybrid instruments with debt host contracts and embedded derivative features. SFAS No. 149 is effective for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003. The adoption of SFAS No. 149 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

     In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity. SFAS No. 150 requires certain financial instruments that embody obligations of the issuer and have characteristics of both liabilities and equity to be classified as liabilities. Many of these instruments previously were classified as equity or temporary equity and as such, SFAS No. 150 represents a significant change in practice in the accounting for a number of mandatorily redeemable equity instruments and certain equity derivatives that frequently are used in connection with share repurchase programs. SFAS No. 150 is effective for all financial instruments created or modified after May 31, 2003, and to other instruments at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks

     We are exposed to various market risks in conducting the business of the company, and we anticipate that this exposure will increase as a result of our planned growth. In an effort to mitigate losses associated with these risks, we may at times enter into derivative financial instruments, although we have not historically done so. These may take the form of forward sales contracts, option contracts, foreign currency exchange contracts, and interest rate swaps. We have not, and do not intend to, engage in the practice of trading derivative securities for profit.

     Interest Rates. We are exposed to market risks relating to changes in interest rates. Some of the proceeds from our initial public offering have been invested in short-term, interest-bearing, investment grade securities. The value of these securities will be subject to interest rate risk and could fall in value if interest rates rise.

     Commodity Prices. We are exposed to price risk related to anticipated purchases of certain commodities used as raw materials by our businesses, including titanium and zirconium. Although we do not currently enter into commodity future, forward, and option contracts to manage the fluctuations in prices of anticipated purchases, we may enter into such contacts in the future as our business grows and as our purchases of these raw materials increases.

     Foreign Exchange Rates. As a result of our manufacturing presence in South Korea, a substantial portion of our costs will be denominated in South Korean won. Consequently, fluctuations in the exchange rates of the South Korean won to the U.S. dollar will affect our costs of goods sold and operating margins and could result in exchange losses. Although we do not currently enter into foreign exchange hedge transactions, we may do so in the future as our business grows.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

     The financial statements required by this item are located beginning on page 70 of this report. The supplementary financial information required by this item is located under the caption “QUARTERLY RESULTS” in Item 7 of this report.

42

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and financial Disclosures

     Information required by this Item may be found in our Form 8-K filed May 6, 2004 in connection with the resignation of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent auditors and our Form 8-K filed on May 21, 2004, in connection with our appointment of Stonefield Josephson Inc. as our independent auditors. Following is Item 4 of the respective Form 8-Ks:

May 6, 2004

     On May 6, 2004, Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”), the Registrant’s independent auditors, notified the Registrant that they were resigning from the client-auditor relationship with the Registrant effective as of that date.

     Deloitte was engaged by Registrant to serve as the Registrant’s independent auditors for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, although Deloitte has not issued a report on the financial statements of the Registrant and its subsidiaries for the 2003 fiscal year. The reports of Deloitte with respect to the Registrant’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the period from December 31, 2003 through the date of Deloitte’s resignation, there were no disagreements between the Registrant and Deloitte on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Deloitte, would have caused Deloitte to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreements in connection with its report on the Registrant’s financial statements for such year.

     The Registrant previously announced that it expects to restate revenues and results of operations for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 in connection with the Registrant’s sales of alloy melting and casting equipment during such quarters to Growell Metal Co., Ltd., a South Korea metals processing company (“Growell”). The Registrant’s Audit Committee conducted an internal inquiry at the request of Deloitte into the Registrant’s transactions with Growell and found that the original revenue recognition on the Growell equipment sales did not take into account all relevant documentation relating to the transactions. The Registrant announced in January 2004 that it entered into a dispute settlement agreement with Growell to resolve various outstanding claims between the parties relating to the Registrant’s transactions with Growell.

     In connection with the Audit Committee’s inquiry into the Growell equipment sales and dispute settlement, the Audit Committee also reviewed the facts and circumstances relating to a personal stock transaction between the Registrant’s CEO and Growell. In this transaction, as reported by the CEO, the CEO undertook a private sale of personal shares of Registrant common stock to Growell in February 2002, prior to the Registrant’s initial public offering. As part of the inquiry, the CEO reported that this sale included a previously undisclosed personal agreement to ensure that the purchase price of the stock purchased by Growell would be at a thirty percent discount to the Registrant’s initial public offering price, and he also provided information regarding his fulfillment of this personal agreement.

     As of May 6, 2004, certain details of the foregoing transactions had not been resolved to Deloitte’s satisfaction, and the audit for the 2003 fiscal year has therefore not been completed. As a result of the expected restatements and these unresolved issues, the Registrant’s previously issued financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2002 and Deloitte’s audit report thereon, as well as the Registrant’s quarterly financial statements for the third quarter of 2002 and the first, second, and third quarters of 2003 (and Deloitte’s related review reports thereon), should no longer be relied upon.

     Deloitte has communicated to the Registrant that it is unwilling to continue to rely on the representations of the Registrant’s CEO. Deloitte has also previously communicated to the Registrant that, in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the expected restatement, there were material weaknesses in the Registrant’s internal accounting controls relating to the execution, administration, and accounting for contracts, particularly in the Registrant’s South Korean operations. The Registrant has taken and is continuing to take steps to improve these internal controls.

     Other than the foregoing, none of the reportable events described under Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K occurred within the two most recent fiscal years of the Registrant ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 or within the subsequent interim period through the date of Deloitte’s resignation.

     The Registrant’s Audit Committee has discussed with Deloitte the matters disclosed above. The Registrant has authorized Deloitte to respond fully to the inquiries of the Registrant’s successor accountant concerning the matters disclosed above.

     The Registrant has provided Deloitte with a copy of the foregoing disclosure and has requested that Deloitte furnish

43

it with a letter addressed to the SEC stating whether or not it agrees with the above statements. A copy of that letter will be filed with the SEC promptly upon receipt. The Registrant’s Audit Committee has begun the process of selecting new independent certified public accountants and will file a Form 8-K upon the engagement of a new auditing firm.

May 21, 2004

     On May 21, 2004, the Audit Committee of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (the “Registrant”) appointed Stonefield Josephson, Inc. (“Stonefield Josephson”) as the Registrant’s independent auditors. A copy of the press release announcing the engagement of Stonefield Josephson is filed as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.

     During the two most recent fiscal years and through the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K, the Registrant did not consult Stonefield Josephson regarding (i) the application of accounting principles to a specific transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that may be rendered on the Registrant’s financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to the Registrant that Stonefield Josephson concluded was an important factor considered by the Registrant in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement” (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions thereto) or a “reportable event” (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

     (a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures. During the course of the audit of our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2001, 2002, and 2003, it was determined that revenues from certain equipment sales made by the Company to Growell Metal Co., Ltd. in the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 should not have been recognized in those periods. It was also determined that certain amounts relating to sales made to Samsung in December 2002, to JS Technologies in September 2002, and AM Corporation in December 2002 should not have been recognized. And lastly, it was determined that certain stock options granted in 2001 and 2002 were not calculated in accordance with guidelines under APB Opinion No. 25, SFAS No. 123, and EITF 00-23. These determinations and the associated restatement of previously issued financial statements, as described more fully elsewhere in this Form 10-K, suggest that, at the time of the subject transactions and the preparation of our financial statements for the relevant periods, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) were ineffective as of the period covered by this Form 10-K for purposes of ensuring that all information required to be disclosed by the Company was adequately accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management at such time. However, since that time, the Company has made various improvements to enhance the reliability of its disclosure controls and procedures and the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer believe that these improvements will ensure that our disclosure controls and procedures will be effective pursuant to Rule 13a-15 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

     (b) Changes in internal controls. There were no changes in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2003 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

44

PART III

Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

Set forth below is a table identifying our current directors and executive officers:

          John Kang has been our Chief Executive Officer and President since June 2001 and was re-elected as Chairman of our board of directors in August 2003. He has been a director of our Company since 1994. From December 1994 to December 2000, he served as Chairman of our board of directors in a non-employee capacity, and from December 2000 to June 2001 he served as Chairman of our board of directors in an employee capacity. From July 1996 to September 2000, Mr. Kang served variously as Chief Executive Officer, President, and a director of Medical Manager Corporation, a public company traded on the Nasdaq National Market until its sale in September 2000 to WebMD Corporation. From 1988 to 1995, he was Chairman of the board of directors of Clayton Group, Inc., a private company engaged in the distribution of waterworks equipment. Mr. Kang received a B.A. degree in Economics from Harvard College in 1985. Mr. Kang is the brother of James Kang, the former Chairman of our board of directors.

          James Kang has served as a director since December 1994 and as executive Founder of our company since August 2003. From December 1994 to August, he served variously as our Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman. Mr. Kang received a B.A. degree in Marketing from the University of Illinois in 1983, and an M.B.A. degree from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in 1985. Mr. Kang is the brother of John Kang, our Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President.

          William Johnson, Ph.D., has served as a director since June 2000. From October 2001 to September 2003, he was employed as our executive Vice Chairman of Technology. Since 1997, Professor Johnson has been the Mettler Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics at Caltech. He held a Visiting Professor appointment at the Metal Physics Institute in Gottingen, Germany (1983) and received a Von Humbolt Distinguished Scientist Fellowship in Gottingen (1988). He is the 1995 recipient of the TMS/AIME Hume Rothery Award for his experimental work. He received a B.A. degree in Physics from Hamilton College and a Ph.D. degree in Applied Physics from Caltech. He spent two years at IBM’s Research Center (1975-1977). At Caltech, Professor Johnson directed the research that led to the discovery of our bulk Liquidmetal alloy. Professor Johnson is currently a consultant to the Company.

          Tjoa Thian Song has served as a director since 1996. Since 1995, Mr. Tjoa has been the Executive Director of Greatland Company Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-based distributor and manufacturer of tobacco products. Since 1972, Greatland Company has been the international distributor for P.T.Gudang Garam, an Indonesian cigarette manufacturer listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange. Mr. Tjoa received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1986 and also received an M.B.A. degree from the National University of Singapore.

          Dean G. Tanella was elected as a director in February 2004. Mr. Tanella is a 20-year veteran of the institutional investment business and has worked for such leading firms as Raymond James & Associates, CS First Boston Corp., Adams Harkness & Hill, Drexel Burnham Lanbert, Inc., Kidder Peabody & Co. and the Vanguard Group. Since 1999, Mr. Tanella has served as President of Safe Harbor Capital, LLC and HarborLight Capital, LLC, both of which are private investment

45

firms. Mr. Tanella received his bachelors degree from Princeton University and his MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.

          Vincent Addonisio was elected as a director in May 2004. Mr. Addonisio is President and CEO of Regency Strategic Advisors, Inc., a firm he founded to advise select corporate clients on strategy, business development, and mergers and acquisitions. Previously, he served as a director, executive vice president and chief administrative officer for IMRglobal Corp., a public company that was subsequently acquired in 2001. Prior to joining IMRglobal, he was a director, executive vice president and chief financial officer for ABR Information Services, Inc., a public company which he also helped lead through initial and secondary public offerings and strategic acquisitions. A CPA, Addonisio began his career with an international accounting firm and subsequently joined W.R. Grace, where he held positions of progressive management responsibility. He holds a BS degree in accounting from Binghamton University and earned an MSM from Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

          David Binnie has been Senior Vice President-Administration and Corporate Secretary since December 2003. Previously, he served as Senior Vice President for Human Resources, a position he had held since October 2001. Prior to joining Liquidmetal Technologies, Binnie was a senior official with the School District of Hillsborough County, Florida, where he served as the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. Hillsborough County is currently the 10th largest school system in the United States with over 191,000 students and over 32,000 employees. Binnie earned degrees at the Bachelors (Education 1971), Masters (Education, 1973) and Doctorate (Education Leadership, 1985) levels at the University of South Florida.

          Tony Chung has been our Vice President of Finance since October 2004, prior to which he served as our Director of Finance upon joining the Company in May 2004. From September 1992 to May 2004, Mr. Chung served in a variety of senior finance capacities at various companies including Everdream Corporation, a startup venture specializing in IT outsourcing, and MAI Systems Corporation, a publicly traded company that develops and licenses hotel management software. Mr. Chung is a Certified Public Accountant and served eight years at KPMG as an Audit and Consulting Manager for several large multinational companies. He received his B.S. degree from The Haas School of Business specializing in accounting and finance from the University of California at Berkeley in 1992.

Change in Principal Financial Officer

On November 3, 2004, David Nail resigned as our Vice President of Finance and ceased to be our principal financial officer. On the same day, our board elected Tony Chung to serve as our Vice President of Finance and become our company’s principal financial officer. Additional information regarding Mr. Chung is set forth above in this Item 10.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Terms of Directors

          Our board of directors is divided into three classes (designated “CLASS I,” “CLASS II,” and “CLASS III”), as nearly equal in number as possible, with each class serving three-year terms expiring at the third annual meeting of stockholders after their elections or until their respective successors have been elected and qualified. CLASS I currently consist of the following three directors whose term is scheduled to expire at the 2005 annual meeting of stockholders: John Kang, William Johnson, and Tjoa Thian Song. CLASS II currently consists of the following director whose term is scheduled to expire at the 2006 annual meeting of stockholders: Dean Tanella. CLASS III currently consists of the following two directors whose term will expire at the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders: James Kang and Vincent Addonisio. Vincent Addonisio replaced David Browne who resigned in May 2004 upon the originally scheduled expiration of his term.

Audit Committee

          Our board of directors has an Audit Committee that is currently comprised of Messrs. Addonisio and Tanella. The Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing the independence, qualifications, and activities of our independent certified accountants and our financial policies, control procedures, and accounting staff. The Audit Committee is also responsible for the review of transactions between us and any officer, director, or entity in which an officer or director of Liquidmetal has a material interest. Our board of directors has determined that Messrs. Addonisio and Tanella each qualify as “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Audit Committee is governed by a written charter approved by the board of directors.

Compensation Committee

          The Compensation Committee is comprised of Messrs. Song and Addonisio. All of the members of the Compensation Committee are “independent directors,” as defined by the rules applicable to members of the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing the compensation of our senior management,

46

including salaries, bonuses, termination arrangements, and other executive officer benefits. The Compensation Committee also administers our equity incentive plans.

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

          A Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (“the Committee”) was formed on February 18, 2003, and is comprised of Messrs. Song and Tanella. All members of the Committee are “independent directors,” as defined by the rules applicable to members of the Committee. The Committee is generally responsible for adopting policies, procedures, and practices designed to help ensure that our corporate governance policies, procedures, and practices continue to assist the board and our management in effectively and efficiently promoting the best interests of our shareholders. The Committee is also responsible for selecting and recommending for approval by the Board and the Company’s shareholders a slate of director nominees for election at each of the Company’s annual meetings of shareholders, and otherwise for determining the Board committee members and chairmen, subject to Board ratification, as well as recommending to the Board director nominees to fill vacancies or new positions on the Board or its committees that may occur or be created from time to time, all in accordance with the Company’s Bylaws and applicable law.

          The Corporate Governance Committee’s principal functions include:

Code of Ethics

          Our board of directors has adopted a Code of Ethics that is applicable to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions. The Code of Ethics is attached as Exhibit 14 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

          During the year ended December 31, 2003, our executive officers and directors filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on a timely basis all required reports relating to transactions involving shares of our common stock beneficially owned by them, except that David Browne, Henri Tchen, Tjoa Thian Song, Jeffrey Oster (a former director), Betsy Atkins (a former director), Ricardo Salas (a former director), and Jack Chitayat (a former director) each received an automatic option grant of 10,000 shares on January 1, 2003 that was not reported until they filed their respective Form 5s on February 14, 2003. We have relied solely on the written representation of its executive officers and directors and copies of the reports they have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in providing this information.

          On November 2004, we entered into an agreement with John Kang, our Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, in which Mr. Kang agreed that certain stock transactions by him in the year 2002 involving our common stock should have resulted in a liability under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Section 16(b)”). These transactions include Mr. Kang’s private sale of 285,715 shares of his personal Liquidmetal Technologies common stock to Growell Metal Co., Ltd. in February 2002, prior to our initial public offering. They also include Mr. Kang’s subsequent indirect purchase and disposition of Liquidmetal Technologies common stock in order to satisfy a personal agreement Mr. Kang made to Growell Metal in February 2002 regarding the guaranteed minimum value of the stock purchased by Growell Metal in February 2002 (the purchases and dispositions incident to this agreement occurred in August and November 2002, respectively). Lastly, the transactions include open-market purchases of an aggregate of 89,300 shares of our common stock made by Mr. Kang in August 2002.

     The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors conducted an independent inquiry into the above-described transactions with the aid of independent legal counsel and, as a result of such inquiry, the Audit Committee concluded that the transactions should have resulted in a liability to the Company under Section 16(b) in the amount of $301,944.73. Mr. Kang has acknowledged this liability, and in an agreement negotiated between Mr. Kang and the Audit Committee and approved by the full Board, Mr. Kang will pay this liability in 24 equal monthly installments beginning in January 2005. The above-

47

described transactions involving Growell Metal will be reported on a new Form 4 filed by Mr. Kang on or about the date of the filing of this Form 10-K, and the open-market purchases were previously reported on a timely basis in August 2002.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

     The following table describes the compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer and our four other most highly compensated executive officers during the last fiscal year.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

          The following table sets forth information with respect to the aggregate stock option exercises by the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table during 2003 and the year-end value of unexercised options held by such executive officers.

48

Aggregate Option Exercises in Last Year and Year-End Values

(1) Represents the difference between the fair market value of the underlying shares at the time of exercise and the exercise price of the options exercised.

(2) Based upon a value of $2.84 per share as of December 31, 2003.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

          We have entered into employment agreements with the individuals identified in the Summary Compensation Table above, as follows:

          John Kang. On December 31, 2000, we entered into an employment agreement with John Kang that, as amended, provides for his employment as our Chief Executive Officer and President, and on August 22, 2003, Mr. Kang was named Chairman of our Board of Directors. Mr. Kang’s employment agreement expires on December 31, 2005. Mr. Kang receives an annual base salary equal to $200,000 per year, and his employment will terminate upon the earlier of his death, resignation, disability, or termination by the board of directors for any reason. If we terminate Mr. Kang’s employment without cause, or if Mr. Kang terminates his own employment upon a change of control of our company or for other good reason, as defined in the agreement, we are responsible for paying Mr. Kang a lump-sum cash payment equal to 200% of Mr. Kang’s annual base salary plus the average cash bonus during the two full fiscal years immediately preceding the termination. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Kang was issued options to purchase 1,612,904 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $4.65 per share. The options expire on December 31, 2010 and vested immediately upon grant. In addition, Mr. Kang is prohibited, during his employment with us and for one year after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or competing with us in any manner. Starting in May 2003, Mr. Kang and other members of senior management took a 10% voluntary decrease in their base salary and returned to full salary in June 2004.

          James Kang. On May 1, 2001, we entered into an employment agreement with James Kang that, as amended, provides for his employment as the named executive Founder of our company. Mr. Kang’s employment agreement expires on May 1, 2006. Mr. Kang receives an annual base salary equal to $300,000 per year, and his employment will terminate upon the earlier of his death, resignation, disability, or termination by the board of directors for any reason. If we terminate Mr. Kang’s employment without cause, or if Mr. Kang terminates his own employment upon a change of control of our company or for other good reason, as defined in the agreement, we are responsible for paying Mr. Kang a severance benefit equal to a lump-sum cash payment equal to 200% of Mr. Kang’s annual base salary plus the average cash bonus during the two full fiscal years immediately preceding the termination. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Kang was issued options to purchase 2,580,646 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $6.20 per share. The options expire on April 30, 2011 and vest at a rate of 33% per year for three years, with the first 33% vesting on May 21, 2002 and an additional 33% on May 21, 2003 and 2004. In addition, Mr. Kang is prohibited, during his employment with us and for two years after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or customers. Starting in May 2003, Mr. Kang and other members of senior management took a 10% voluntary decrease in their base salary and returned to full salary in June 2004.

          Scott Wiggins. On December 31, 2000, we entered into an employment agreement with Scott Wiggins that provided for his employment as an Executive Vice President of our company. Under this employment agreement, Mr. Wiggins was entitled to an annual base salary of $175,000 per year. Mr. Wiggins’ employment with the company ceased as of December 31, 2003, and pursuant to his employment agreement, we paid him severance compensation in January 2004 in

49

the form of lump-sum payment equal to one year’s annual base salary. Under Mr. Wiggins’ employment agreement, Mr. Wiggins is prohibited, for one year after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or competing with us in any manner.

     Brian McDougall. On May 21, 2001, we entered into an employment agreement with Brian McDougall that provided for his employment as our Chief Financial Officer and an Executive Vice President, and in March 2003, Mr. McDougall was named our Chief Financial and Operating Officer. Mr. McDougall ceased to be an employee of the Company as of February 28, 2004, and under the terms of a separation agreement entered into between Mr. McDougall and the Company, Mr. McDougall is entitled to severance compensation in the form of salary continuation for a period of two years. At the time of Mr. McDougall’s separation from the Company, his base salary was $190,000 per year. In addition, Mr. McDougall will continue to have the right to exercise up to 409,032 of his previously granted stock options through February 28, 2006. Under Mr. McDougall’s employment agreement and separation agreement, Mr. McDougall is prohibited, for two years after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or competing with us in any manner.

     Thomas Trotter. On December 1, 2002, we entered into an employment agreement with Thomas Trotter that provided for his employment as our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing. Mr. Trotter ceased to be an employee of the Company as of December 31, 2003, and under the terms of a separation agreement between Mr. Trotter and the Company, Mr. Trotter is entitled to severance compensation in the form of salary continuation for a period of one year after termination, and he was also paid one lump-sum payment of $70,000 in January 2004. At the time of Mr. Trotter’s separation from the Company, his annual base salary was $200,000. Under Mr. Trotter’s employment agreement and separation agreement, Mr. Trotter is prohibited, for two years after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or competing with us in any manner.

     William Johnson. On October 1, 2001, we entered into an employment agreement with Professor Johnson that provided for his employment as our Vice Chairman of Technology. Professor Johnson’s employment agreement expired on September 30, 2003, at which time Professor Johnson’s employment continued on an “at-will” basis through January 1, 2004. Professor Johnson’s employment agreement provided for a base salary of $300,000 per year. Professor Johnson continues to serve as a director of our Company and beginning on April 1, 2004 also serves as a paid consultant to us at a rate of $10,000 per month. Professor Johnson is prohibited, for two years after he is no longer employed by us, from soliciting any of our employees or competing with us in any manner.

REPORT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

General

     The Compensation Committee of our board of directors was established in 2002 and currently consists of Tjoa Thian Song and Vincent Addonisio. The Compensation Committee is comprised entirely of non-employee directors and is responsible for establishing the compensation of our senior management, including salaries, bonuses, termination arrangements, and other executive officer benefits. The Compensation Committee also administers our equity incentive plans. The Compensation Committee also annually reviews and approves the compensation of John Kang, our Chief Executive Officer.

Compensation Philosophy

     The Compensation Committee’s goal is to establish and maintain compensation policies that will enable us to attract, motivate, and retain high-quality executives and to ensure that their individual interests are aligned with our long-term interests and our stockholders. The committee places heavy emphasis on paying for performance and believes that a significant portion of an executive’s total compensation opportunity should be at risk and tied to company performance. Our compensation package consists of three principal components:

     Base Salary. Base salary is the largest portion of the cash compensation package received by each of our executive officers. The base salary of each of our executive officers is governed by employment agreements that were entered into during 2000 through 2002. Subject to the minimum amounts set forth in their respective employment agreements, we generally establish the base salary of each executive officer based, among other factors, on the Compensation Committee’s assessment of that executive officer’s position, responsibilities, experience, and performance. Our philosophy is to pay base salaries sufficient to attract and retain highly qualified executives. An executive officer’s level

50

of responsibility is the primary factor used in determining base salary. Individual performance also is considered in determining any salary adjustment.

     The Compensation Committee reviews and approves all executive officer salary adjustments as recommended by the Chief Executive Officer and determines whether to increase the base salary above the amount set forth in their employment agreements. The Compensation Committee reviews annually the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and establishes his base salary, subject to the minimum $200,000 base salary set forth in his employment agreement. In 2002 and 2003, the Compensation Committee did not increase the base salary of any of the executive officers.

     Annual Bonus. Our executive officers are eligible for an annual cash bonus under our Performance Bonus Plan. The plan is designed to:

     Awards of incentive bonuses generally are based on achieving corporate goals and a subjective evaluation of the contributions of individual executives toward the achievement of our business goals. Eligibility for the bonus will be contingent upon the Company meeting or exceeding company-wide financial goals and successful attainment of individual goals for the position. Both elements must be successfully met in order to be eligible for the bonus. None of our executive officers received bonuses for 2003 because the company-wide financial goals were not satisfied.

Equity-Based Compensation.

     Our equity-based awards to our executive officers consist principally of stock options granted from time to time under our 2002 Equity Incentive Plan and our 1996 Stock Option Plan. Stock option grants are based on various factors, including the executive officer’s position, responsibility and tenure, each executive officer’s ability to contribute to our future success, and the other elements of such executive officer’s compensation. Generally, we use equity-based compensation to better align the interests of our executive officers with those of our stockholders. For 2003, the Compensation Committee approved awards of options to executive officers and certain members of senior management, with the sizes of the awards determined with reference to the scope of the position and the employees’ relative contributions to the Company. In addition, three of our executive officers, John Kang, our Chief Executive Officer, James Kang, our executive Founder, and William Johnson, our Vice Chairman, own a significant amount of our common stock.

CEO Compensation

     John Kang’s base salary for 2003, as our President and Chief Executive Officer, was originally set at $200,000, although Mr. Kang and other members of senior management took a 10% voluntary decrease in their base salary starting in May 2003, at which time Mr. Kang’s base salary was reduced to $180,000 per year. This represents a decrease over Mr. Kang’s 2002 salary of $200,000. Mr. Kang’s compensation reflects his status as a significant stockholder of the Company. Accordingly, his base salary is lower than the base salary of CEOs of comparable companies. Mr. Kang voluntarily waived his base salary from January 2004 through May 2004 in support of the Company’s strategic cash objectives. In June 2004, Mr. Kang returned to his base salary of $200,000 and will receive his differential retroactive pay in equal installments over the remaining months of 2004. As a significant stockholder in the Company, his overall compensation is tied directly to sustained increases in the Company’s value.

     No bonus payments were made to Mr. Kang for 2003 because the Compensation Committee determined not to pay any bonuses to any of our executive officers due to the Company missing its financial goals. In addition, no options were granted to Mr. Kang in 2003. As of October 1, 2004, Mr. Kang held options to purchase 1,935,485 shares of our common stock, all of which were fully vested.

     The Internal Revenue Code imposes a limitation on the deduction under Section 162(m) for certain executive officers’ compensation unless certain requirements are met. Our policy is to have all compensation fully deductible; however, we reserve the right to pay compensation that is not deductible if it is in our best interests.

51

Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

Tjoa Thian Song
Vincent Addonisio

October 6, 2004

     The report of the Compensation Committee shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual Report on Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such acts.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

     Our non-employee directors receive an annual fee of $10,000 for their service to our board and are reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings. Non-employee directors are also entitled to receive a $10,000 annual cash stipend for each standing board committee (excluding the Audit Committee) on which the director serves. For Audit Committee service, the Audit Committee chairman is entitled to a $35,000 annual stipend, and the other members of the Audit Committee are entitled to a $27,500 annual stipend. In addition to the annual stipends, each non-employee director is entitled to receive a per-meeting fee of $1,000 for each meeting of the board of directors or any board committee attended in person. Effective May 2004, Vincent Addonisio was elected as the lead independent director of the Company. The lead independent director is entitled to a $30,000 annual stipend.

     We also have a 2002 Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan pursuant to which our non-employee directors are entitled to receive stock options. Under this plan, when a director is first elected or appointed to our board of directors, the non-employee director is entitled to receive an initial stock option grant to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock. Thereafter, on the first business day of January of each year in which the director continues to serve as a member of our board, the director is entitled to an annual stock option grant to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock. All options granted under the plan have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant. These stock options have a 10-year term, vest, and are exercisable pursuant to an equal 5-year vesting schedule, and remain exercisable for certain periods of time after a person is no longer a director.

     No director who is an employee will receive separate compensation for services rendered as a director. However, our employee directors are eligible to participate in our 2002 Equity Incentive Plan.

52

STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE GRAPH

     The following graph presents a comparison of the cumulative total stockholder return since our initial public offering on May 21, 2002 and through December 31, 2003, on our common stock with the cumulative stockholder return on the Russell 2000® Index and the Russell 3000® Materials and Processing Index. This graph assumes that $100 was invested on May 21, 2002, in each specified group with reinvestment of dividends, if any. Historical stock performance during this period may not be indicative of future stock performance.

     The stock price performance graph shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual Report on Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such acts.

53

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of October 1, 2004 by:

Beneficial ownership is determined under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission and generally includes voting or investment power with respect to securities. Unless otherwise indicated, each of the stockholders has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned, subject to applicable community property laws. As of October 1, 2004, there were 238 holders of record of our common stock. For purposes of calculating amounts beneficially owned by a stockholder, the number of shares deemed outstanding includes 41,609,652 shares of common stock outstanding as of October 1, 2004. In addition, shares of common stock subject to options or warrants that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of October 1, 2004 are deemed to be outstanding and to be beneficially owned by the person holding the options or warrants for the purpose of computing the beneficial ownership of that person but are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the beneficial ownership of any other person.

* Less than 1.0%

(a) 1,612,904 shares that are issuable pursuant to outstanding stock options that are exercisable currently or within 60 days of October 1, 2004;

(b) 322,581 shares issuable pursuant to a warrant held jointly by John Kang and Ricardo Salas (a former director of the company) that is currently exercisable; and

(c) 32,240 shares held by Mr. Kang’s minor children.

54

55

Equity Compensation Plan Information

     The following table sets forth certain information regarding the securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2003.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

     We are a party to an amended and restated licensed agreement with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) under which we exclusively license from Caltech certain inventions and technology relating to amorphous alloys. Professor William Johnson, a member of our board of directors and beginning April 1, 2004 became a paid consultant of our Company, is a professor at Caltech, and substantially all of the amorphous alloy technology licensed to us under the Caltech license agreement was developed in Professor Johnson’s Caltech laboratory. Under the Caltech license agreement, we have a fully paid, exclusive license to make, use, and sell products from inventions, proprietary information, know-how, and other rights relating to amorphous alloys owned by Caltech and existing as of September 1, 2001. The license agreement also gives us the exclusive right to make, use, and sell products derived from substantially all amorphous alloy technology developed in Professor Johnson’s Caltech laboratory during the period September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2005. During 2003, we paid Caltech aggregate fees of $50,000 under the license agreement which is the final one-third payment of the $150,000 aggregate fee under the license agreement, although no royalties were paid under the license agreement during 2003, and no additional license fees or royalties are payable in the future to Caltech under the agreement.

     In addition to the Caltech license agreement, we occasionally assist in the funding of Caltech research programs that are aimed at facilitating the further development of amorphous alloy technology. Although this funding assistance is not required by the Caltech license agreement, the purpose of the funding is to help facilitate the more rapid development of amorphous alloy technology to which we will ultimately acquire rights under the Caltech license agreement. During 2003, we did not pay Caltech for such programs. Also, during 2003, Professor Johnson was an employee of our Company and was individually paid aggregate compensation of $242,509 for the year.

     In June 2003, we entered into an exclusive ten-year license agreement with LLPG, Inc., a company founded and owned by Jack Chitayat, a former director of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. Under the terms of the license agreement, LLPG has the exclusive right to commercialize Liquidmetal alloys, particularly precious-metal based compositions, in the jewelry and high-end luxury products market for a ten year term. In conjunction with this license agreement, LLPG purchased from us two proprietary Liquidmetal alloy melting machines and three proprietary Liquidmetal alloy casting machines for a total purchase price of $2 million, which was paid to the Company in installments during 2003 and 2004.

     We are a party to a consulting agreement with Chitnis Consulting, Inc., which is owned 100% by Shekhar Chitnis, a former director and executive officer of our Company. Under this agreement, we have engaged Chitnis Consulting to provide consulting services on an as-needed basis through December 31, 2005. During 2003, we incurred $50,000 in consulting fees from Chitnis Consulting.

     During 2003, Soo Buchanan, the sister of John Kang and James Kang, was employed by our Company and was paid aggregate compensation of $76,003 during the year. Additionally, Otis Buchanan, the husband of Ms. Buchanan, was employed by the Company during 2003 and was paid aggregate compensation of $89,615 during the year.

56

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services

     Prior to May 2004, Deloitte & Touche LLP was our independent public accountant; however, effective May 2004, Deloitte & Touche LLP resigned as our independent accountant. Liquidmetal Technologies subsequently engaged Stonefield Josephson, Inc. Item 14 includes the principal accounting fees and services for both Deloitte & Touche LLP and Stonefield Josephson, Inc.

Stonefield Josephson, Inc.

     Stonefield Josephson, Inc. was engaged in May 2004 and has served as our independent public accountants during the year ended December 31, 2003. In connection with the fiscal years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001 Stonefield Josephson provided audit services to us and billed us for these services as follows:

     The following table summarizes the aggregate fees billed to the Company by Stonefield for professional services:

Deloitte & Touche LLP

     The following table summarizes the aggregate fees billed to the Company by Deloitte & Touche LLP for professional services performed in 2003 and 2002:

     1. Audit Fees.

     Fees for audit services billed in 2002 consisted of:

57

     The Audit Committee pre-approves all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent directors on a case-by-case basis. The Audit Committee approved 100% of the services performed by Deloitte & Touche LLP and Stonefield Josephson, Inc. in 2004, 2003, and 2002 as identified above.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K

58

EXHIBIT INDEX

59