The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Sycurio are certainly not holding back on hiring staff at the moment. Look to be making a strong push in the healthcare segment in America. Three vacancies at the moment and six new employees in the past four weeks.
Victor,
It’s worth remembering that Gary cleaned up to the extent of around £3.4m from the “successful
exit”.
As for the four supposed patent inventors, their haul was: David Jackson & Richard Cooper-Driver around £5m each; Tim Crichtley around £4m; and Andy Tew about a “meagre” £0.4m.
Lucretuis
And I only posted this yesterday.
"Before joining Rulai, Gary was the CEO at Sycurio and led it to record recurring revenue growth, resulting in a highly successful exit in 2021"
https://rul.ai/about-rulai/
Victor,
The real growth area is in the net debt of Sycurio and its holding companies: up from £116.8m at 31/12/2021 to £128.7m at 31/12/2022.
Also remarkable that the bank loans in the Sycurio group at 31/12/2022 of £29.77m just exceed the market capitalisation of PCIP!
Lucretuis
"litigation machine with a side hustle in provision of data security attached" Is this where the growth is coming from?
--------------------------------------
I found this withdrawn Semafone Patent, without the usual inventors
Authentication and authorisation
EP3724796A1
Inventor Ben RAFFERTY Dirk Niggemann
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3724796A1/en?inventor=Dirk+Niggemann
Victor,
“Business as usual” meaning Sycurio is a litigation machine with a side hustle in provision of data security attached?
Adam, no idea. I think it's more about the how they will appeal. Judge Bacon *** see below
180. It is also not, strictly speaking, necessary for me to consider the infringement arguments. These were, however, the subject of considerable evidence at the trial, which went not only to the issue of infringement of the current variants of Agent Assist but also the question of the declarations of non-infringement sought in relation to the proposed enhancements of Agent Assist. ***I will therefore address the issues below in case this matter goes further and these points become relevant***
INFRINGEMENT
181. Two issues arise in relation to infringement. The first is whether any of the Agent Assist variants infringe claim 9, either on a normal basis or under the doctrine of equivalents, and including consideration of whether a Gillette/Formstein defence is available on the basis of the Proctor prior art. The second is whether PCI-Pal should be granted a declaration of non-infringement in relation to nine proposed Agent Assist enhancements.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2023/2361.html
------------------------------
UK Court finds patent invalid for obviousness, supports availability of Gillette and Formstein defence
On 25 September 2023, Mrs Justice Bacon handed down her decision in Sycurio v PCI-Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat), finding the subject patent invalid for obviousness and not infringed. The Judge also noted that she would have accepted PCI-Pal’s reliance on a Gillette/Formstein defence. Decision here.
Sycurio sued PCI-Pal for infringement of GB 2473376 (the Patent) which related to methods of processing calls in a call centre. PCI-Pal counterclaimed that the patent was invalid and sought various declarations of non-infringement in relation to certain enhancements to the system covered by the Patent.
PCI-Pal relied on three pieces of prior art in challenging the validity of the Patent. The Judge found the Patent invalid for obviousness over two of the cited prior art documents.
At the time of writing, the sections of the judgment which address infringement on normal construction and under the doctrine of equivalents remain redacted, as do those considering in detail the applicability of a Gillette/Formstein defence. However, the Judge referred to the comments of Birss LJ in Facebook Ireland v Voxer regarding the Gillette and Formstein defences. The Gillette defence relies on asserting that the allegedly infringing product or method is itself an obvious variant of the prior art at the priority date.
More here
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=11828c2d-6a73-4aae-bd57-ea8c384f5896
So just 3 business days left for Sycurio to appeal in the UK right?
Always assumed the appeal would come late given the need to prepare the paperwork. Does anyone have any experience of when these appeals are typically lodged?
Thanks
Lucretuis
Nice summery. The impression that I was left with is "It is business as usual at Sycurio"
"Needless to say, today's ruling does not in any way impact our ability to deliver and sell our products to customers globally. Nor does it affect our relationships with customers and partners. It is business as usual at Sycurio."
Nick Viney
26 September, 2023
https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1695761883038545700/update-sycurio-to-appeal-ruling-on-pci-pals-patent-infringement-case.aspx
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
As with Humpty, so with Mathys & Squire, Sycurio’s patent attorneys. This is one of the impressions I am left with after reading Sycurio’s recent reply to PCIP’s/Eckoh’s objections to one Sycurio’s European patents (EP2286576): words/phrases mean whatever Mathys says the ‘skilled person’ would say they mean. So, for instance, and very obviously, a ‘verification message’ means exactly the same as a ’confirmation signal’. In a similar vein, where Eckoh’s lawyers pointed out key wording is absent from the patent, Mathys accuses them of ‘drawing unwarranted conclusions from the absence of specific wording in the application as filed’. And then helpfully adds: ‘The applicant is of course free to use whatever words they wish in a patent application to convey the workings of the invention.’ Quite.
A rather sizeable problem for Livingbridge/Sycurio is that the EPO has already decided some of the issues in play with EP2286576 with its decision to revoke one of Sycurio’s European patents earlier this year. At least three of the claims in the revoked patent that were found by the EPO to be ‘unallowable generalisations’ or ‘not disclosed in the application as filed’ are also present in EP2286576.
Then comes the question of obviousness. In its latest submission, Mathys reheats the same arguments that it has used twice before about the inventive step in disputed Sycurio patents over Van Volkenberg, a US patent from 2004. The first time was when the UK IPO raised an objection in 2011 that the invention claimed in the UK patent was obvious in view of Van Volkenberg, and the second time was when the EPO raise the same objection in 2017 in respect of what is now EP2286576, the closest of Sycurio’s European patents to the UK one.
In its latest offering, Mathys blithely opines: “Crucially, the opponents have not demonstrated why the skilled person would have sought to combine teachings from specific documents or shown how the combination would have resulted in the claimed invention.”
As we know PCIP, did just that for Sycurio’s UK patent, using expert witness, in the UK court case. Mrs Justice Bacon found that “Claim 9 [of the UK patent] is obvious over Van Volkenberg.” Van Volkenberg is one of the patents cited by Eckoh/PCIP in the EPO proceedings.
11 October 2023
Rulai and Sycurio join forces to automate the payment and customer experience
Sycurio™, the leading provider of seamless and secure multi-channel payment experiences for contact centers, today announced a global partnership with Rulai, a low-code, omnichannel, and end-to-end conversational AI platform. This partnership will provide Rulai customers with secure and intuitive payment solutions that make it possible to interact in voice and digital channels
Using Sycurio’s solutions, Rulai will be able to offer their customers convenient and flexible ways to make payments in the channel of their choice, including voice, SMS, email, messaging, and chat.
“We’re delighted to announce our partnership with Rulai. Customers will be able to simplify the payment experience at every touchpoint in every channel,” said Salimah Karimbhoy, VP of Partner Program and Ecosystems at Sycurio. “In addition to simplifying PCI DSS, this partnership will enable Rulai customers to put payment CX and security at the forefront of their conversational AI platform.”
Rulai customers can benefit from improved CX and payment security with Sycurio by:
Removing their contact center and remote agents from the scope of PCI DSS
Processing payments quickly with automatic validation of payment card data before transactions are processed
Keeping customer payment transaction records automatically updated
Protecting sensitive payment data, by keeping it out of call recordings and not storing in their contact center environment
Significantly reducing the cost and burden of maintaining PCI DSS compliance
Achieving measurable improvements in customer satisfaction scores and a reduction in average handling times
“This partnership represents the perfect marriage of omni-channel Conversational AI and e-commerce through the frictionless integration of Sycurio’s secure digital payment platform into Rulai’s advanced automated AI solutions across all channels.,” said Gary Barnett, CEO at Rulai. “Rulai customers will benefit from Sycurio’s intuitive digital payment interfaces available in the Rulai Console designer platform for easy access by any BOT.”
https://sycurio.com/knowledge/press/rulai-and-sycurio-join-forces-to-automate-the-payment-and-customer-experience
-------------
"Before joining Rulai, Gary was the CEO at Sycurio and led it to record recurring revenue growth, resulting in a highly successful exit in 2021"
https://rul.ai/about-rulai/
Lucrestuis
Thanks. After all what's gone on over the last two years between the two sides, it did seem like a tame ending.
Victor,
PCIP’s no reply brief was a no reply to Sycurio’s reply to PCIP’s filing about the arbitrator’s confidential claim construction ruling in the Sycurio/Eckoh arbititration. I guess PCIP hasn’t got anything to add to its initial filing, in which it filed the arbitration ruling under seal & asked the judge to make it public. PCIP has drawn the arbitration ruling, which it says supports its case (this is disputed by Sycurio), to the judge’s attention. I guess there’s not much more to say. Irrespective of whether the arbitration ruling is made public or not, the judge will have to decide whether to take it into account in his own forthcoming claim construction ruling. It would be a bonus if the arbitration ruling were made public.
Lucretuis
Next up is EP3603043
Any thoughts on the NOTICE of No Reply Brief by PCI Pal.
Do PCIP think that they now have enough, or is there another reason?
Thanks, NoCheddar
GOV.UK Digital Marketplace Suppliers
https://www.applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/suppliers
No Sycurio
https://www.applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/suppliers?prefix=S&page=5&framework=g-cloud
Victor,
These are two excellent sites:
Find a Tender
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Search
Contracts Finder
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search
Looking through Contracts Finder there is a contract from 2017 for the DVLA's PCI DSS which was won by The Logic Group, who were subsequently acquired by Barclays. 1st time I've come across them. Contract value £3m.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/69e3eb45-c456-418a-950d-35fc3acdaf25?origin=SearchResults&p=2
https://home.barclays/content/dam/home-barclays/documents/who-we-are/our-governance/s.172%20-%20The%20Logic%20Group%20Enterprises%20Limited-2.pdf
Victor,
I intend to go through the filing but I guess it is all about keeping up appearances, as you suggest. It also conveniently kicks this EPO case into touch (for up to a year would be my guess).
I think more new infornation will surface but its production is being held up by illness. However, I doubt the three inventors have been questioned yet; hopefully that will happen soon.
Lucretuis
Thanks. We have gone from the “unanswerable to the unrecognizable. Letters from Dentons and Dummett on the way?
Then Oral hearing
This was the Patent that Is closest to the UK one, so I suppose that they had to make an attempt.
The questioning of the three inventors is a "Reason for urgency" the information is needed prior to the close of the discovery period. Hopefully that will happen or has happened? As well as being questioned the three will be presented with Documents for review and oral examination.
Apart from the press release and licence agreements, I wonder if there is any new information that has surfaced that could bring an early end in the US?
Victor,
Have you seen that Mathys & Squire has submitted a 52-page reply to the “unanswerable” objections of Dentons for Eckoh?
If ECK win, they'll RNS it straightaway. Wouldn't hurt PCIPs 2024 forecasts much but would reduce the 2025 turnover by c.£1m.
Let's hope the Open Banking solution, AI Speech Recognition and keen pricing keep it with PCIP.
It looks a very juicy contract. Wonder if Sycurio tendered and Key IVR.
Key IVR state on their job openings that demand for their offerings is skyrocketing.
Afternoon, NoCheddar
Thanks, for that. It will be interesting to see who gets it after the Eckoh v DWP case.
Case Concluded (Settled)
https://caseboard.io/cases/481f1b4c-d8aa-4325-9c42-8b395c80c0f2
--------------------
DWP Market Engagement Event: Secure Card Payment Services Procurement
On Thursday 30 March (10:00-11:30)*, techUK is delighted to be hosting the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for an online market engagement event on their upcoming Secure Card Payment Services Procurement.
The DWP is responsible for administering welfare, pensions, and child maintenance policy in the UK, serving around 20 million claimants. The DWP operates the largest contact centre in the UK government, providing support to customers from around 135 locations and offering specialist services such as debt recovery, card payments, and assistance for customers with complex needs.
More here
https://www.techuk.org/what-we-deliver/events/dwp-market-engagement-event-secure-card-payment-services-procurement.html
---------------
Contract will show up here when released
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/?ntype=tender
Afternoon Victor,
According to this notice the decision is due today - see full notice text:
https://www.sell2wales.gov.wales/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=FEB428330
Going back to the original post in this thread, I'm not sure how appealing in the UK helps them in the US. A US court will make a decision on their own and even if they did look at the UK case and it was being appealed, they'd see that a judge has made a decision and the rationale for that.
If they do decide to appeal, it'll be interesting to see what grounds they come up with and whether its material enough for it not to be immediately dismissed. ChatGPT tells me there are 4 grounds for appealing:
"Yes, when appealing a UK court decision, the party making the appeal is generally required to specify the grounds for their appeal at the time of filing the appeal. This means that the appellant (the party appealing) must outline the legal or factual errors they believe occurred in the lower court's decision that justify the appeal. These grounds for appeal are typically set out in a document known as the "Notice of Appeal."
The grounds for appeal can vary depending on the nature of the case and the specific legal issues involved. Common grounds for appeal may include:
1. Errors of law: Arguing that the lower court judge made a mistake in interpreting or applying the law.
2. Errors of fact: Claiming that the lower court made factual errors or failed to properly consider the evidence.
3. Procedural irregularities: Alleging that there were procedural errors in the lower court's handling of the case that may have affected the outcome.
4. New evidence: If applicable, presenting new evidence that was not available or known at the time of the original trial and could impact the case's outcome.
It's important for the appellant to clearly and precisely articulate the grounds for their appeal in the Notice of Appeal, as this document serves as the foundation for the appeal process. The appellant's legal representative (such as a solicitor or barrister) can assist in drafting and filing the Notice of Appeal.
Additionally, there are often strict time limits for filing appeals, so it's crucial to adhere to these deadlines and follow the proper procedures outlined by the relevant court rules. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the dismissal of the appeal."
Was Mrs Justice Bacon asking colleagues whether they had ever seen a case where the plaintiff’s evidence was so wafer thin and the plaintiff’s expert so ill-qualified to give evidence?
Victor,
Yes, it is. Aeriandi signed a licence agreement with Semafone on 31st October 2014, so the patent application came very soon afterwards.