We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Lucretuis
Interesting hearing Mr Willis talking about the 108 Patent (below) from page 37 (21) and the ending
Friday, May 26, 2023
Att: 2. 71 pgs Exhibit B - Deposition of Willis,
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
96. motion Miscellaneous Relief Fri 12/22 11:39 AM
MOTION Limit The Number of Asserted Patent Claims by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.. Responses due by 1/5/2024 (Dority, James)
97. respm Memorandum in Support of Motion Fri 12/22 11:41 AM
MEMORANDUM in Support re96 MOTION Limit The Number of Asserted Patent Claims by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc..(Dority, James)
Att: 1 Exhibit A - PCI Pal Response 12-13-23 Correspondence_Redacted,
Att: 2 Exhibit B - PCI Pal Response 12-20-23 Correspondence_Redacted
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
If you read the whole of this section (6. “Call Processor)
then buy Document 75
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Go to page 3, then read 353 and 357
Also bottom of page 7, UK Court Case
6. “Call Processor
Plaintiff’s construction fails for two reasons. First, while the claim does not consider
whether the call processor’s elements may be located within the network, Defendant’s proposed
limitation (requiring the processor’s elements to be separate from the network) is more consistent
with claim language. The claim describes a call processor. A “processor” is a “thing which
performs a process or processes something”
For the reasons stated above, the Court will find in favor of Defendant’s proposed
construction of the “call processor” term. According to the Court’s construction, the call
processor may be located within a public telephone network so long as it has its own integrated
call and data interfaces connected to and controlled by the processor.
Friday, June 23, 2023
75..MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File, [Motion and Supporting Brief for Reconsideration of the Court's June 22, 2023, Text Order, and in the Alternative, for Leave to File Supplemental Claim Construction Brief] by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.. Responses due by 7/7/2023 (Morrow, John)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Lucretuis
I have picked out a few bits
Found this free download. Looking forward to other views
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561.95.0.pdf
--------------------------------
As you say Lucretuis, this does look "very ominous for Sycurio"
7..The Court has concerns about the validity of the claims in question, particularly as pertains to
enablement.
-------------------
10 Claims 10 and 15 of the ‘108 Patent
Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. The Court will hold Plaintiff to the bargain it made
with the PTO to obtain the ‘108 Patent in the first place. (Doc. No. 67 at 22) (citing Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he interested public has
the right to rely on the inventor's statements made during prosecution.” Fenner Invs., Ltd. v.
Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015). True, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer
applies only where the file history includes “clear and unmistakable” renouncement or disavowal
of claim scope. Avid Tech, 812 F.3d 1040 at 1045–47. But, here, the Court finds that Plaintiff
did “unmistakably renounce” the scope of the ‘108 Patent by submitting the amended claims
ultimately approved by the PTO. See CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., 53 F.4th 1376,
138283 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Plaintiff cannot now disclaim its prior disclaimer—without which the
11.. The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument on this point unpersuasive. At the claim construction
hearing, counsel for Plaintiff admitted that “[a]s a practicality . . . it’s very hard to believe that
when we’re presenting evidence of infringement, there will not be software involved . . . . And
the exemplary embodiments talk about software that handle it.” (Doc. No. 89 at 101:3–7).
Moreover, Plaintiff’s current argument cannot be squared with its unequivocal representation to
the PTO it was amending all then-pending claims to require functionality of the agent’s
computer. (Doc. No. 67, Ex. E at 12–22); (Doc. No. 70 at 15 n.10).
US11049108
02.12.2020 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201916542953.A&documentId=KI7U3RPCDFLYX10
--------------------------
Looking back at this Document reminded me of how many times Dean Willis was quoted by the Pcip team.
Friday, May 26, 2023
67..Responsive Claim Construction Brief by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.(Morrow, John)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Victor
I would be interested in your views on the Markman ruling. In my view, while Sycurio prevailed on the preponderance of minor points, PCIP won on the big point of the definition of a call processor. Sycurio were clearly worried about this after the UK court case as the flurry of US filings after the UK court hearings in June shows. Footnote 7 in the ruling also looks very ominous for Sycurio as the US case progresses. What do you think?
20.12.2023
Processing information over VIOP
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/060326700/publication/US2022239705A1?q=pn%3DUS2022239705
PCI-PAL
Issue notification
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.202217717500.A&lng=en
EP4226604 - SECURE PROCESSING OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION DURING A CALL
19.12.2023 Application deemed to be withdrawn (non-reply to Written Opinion)
19.12.2023 Claim deemed abandoned
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21794916&lng=en&tab=doclist
Sycurio Limited
Pannell House
Park Street
Guildford, Surrey GU1 4HN / GB
------------------------------
EP Citations: EP4226604
Cited in
Publication No.: WO2019073216 [X] PROCESSING SENSITIVE INFORMATION OVER VOIP
(PCI PAL U K LTD [GB]) [X] 1,3,10,11,13,14,20 * page 6, line 5 - line 6; claims 1-11 *;
Publication No.: US2016165061 [X] CARDEASY LTD [GB]
(WESTLAKE COLIN PHILIP [GB], et al) [X] 1,2,4-8,11,12,15-18 * claims 14-26 * * figures 3-6 * * paragraph [0048] * * paragraph [0066] - paragraph [0070] *
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21794916&lng=en&tab=citations
Hi Adam
I would love to, but I have recently had two of my post removed that someone reported, (thankfully no midnight post so far) and would face a ban on the next reported post.
------------------------------
I see that Ash Patel, has left Sycurio
ITDS Managed Services’ Post
View organization page for ITDS Managed Services
ITDS Managed Services
1,069 followers
2d
We are excited to announce & welcome leading tech support specialist, Ash Patel to its expanding team.
Ash joins ITDS Managed Services as IT & Service Desk Manager and heads the sales and customer service team based in Crawley.
Read more here:
https://lnkd.in/eGswUCnf
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/itds-managed-services_we-are-excited-to-announce-welcome-leading-activity-7142466877930315777-MYwH
IT & Service Desk Manager
ITDS Managed Services
Dec 2023 - Present 1 month
Crawley, England, United Kingdom
--------------------
Sycurio
7 years 10 months
Head Of Global Support Operations (UK & US)
Mar 2021 - Nov 2023 2 years 9 months
United Kingdom
- Experienced and results-oriented professional with a proven track record in leading global support operations for multinational organizations. Adept at developing and implementing strategic initiatives to enhance customer satisfaction, optimize support processes, and drive operational excellence. Skilled in managing cross-functional teams, fostering collaboration, and delivering exceptional service quality across diverse regions and cultures
- Extensive experience leading support
Support Manager (UK & AUS)
Feb 2020 - Mar 2021 1 year 2 months
Guildford, United Kingdom
Support Team Leader
May 2016 - Jan 2020 3 years 9 months
Guildford, United Kingdom
Technical Support Engineer
Feb 2016 - May 2016.. 4 months
Guildford, United Kingdom
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ash-patel-90872b11
-----------------------------------------------
June 04 2023
Sycurio
Sycurio’s senior leadership team work to deliver the strategy set by our board and manage all operational aspects of the company, globally.
Ash Patel
Customer Care
Ash heads up Customer Care at Sycurio, a team of dedicated support professionals who deliver exceptional customer experiences and the best in customer service.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230604082329/https://sycurio.com/about/senior-leadership-team
Hi Adam
As the document is 37 pages long, written in legalese and costs a mere $5, why don’t you do yourself what you ask Victor to do? He does enough for this board without being asked to do unpaid work for other people.
Hi Victor - please could you let me know what that document says and what it means in simple English?!?
Thanks!
Interest… that’s the crucial word here. For the first time in this whole ridiculous saga, Sycurio are under time pressure.
Uesday, December 19, 2023
95... 37 pgs order Order Tue 12/19 3:02 PM
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Rodriguez for the entry of an appropriate Utility Patent Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 12/19/2023. (ams)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
The Department for Work and Pensions: Secure Card Payment Services Procurement
A Pipeline Notice
by DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
Published 19 Dec 2023
Delivery
01 Sep 2024 to 31 Aug 2027
Deadline
01 Jan 1 00:00
Duration
3 year
Value
£6M-£13M
This is a follow up to the previous PIN 2023/S 000-004912 dated 17th of February and the subsequent PIN 2023/S 000-032248; dated 1st of November 2023, with regards to the provision of Secure Card Payment Services (SCPS) for the DWP. Following the completion of the review of the Request for Information responses, following the February PIN, the DWP is proceeding to procure these services. In the PIN of 1st November 2023 DWP had identified the intended issue date for the procurement as 2 January 2024. The estimated launch date is now on or around 29 January 2024. DWP's requirements for SIP Licences has also changed from 9,000 to 11,000, as set out below.
The current DWP provision allows business groups to receive customer payments in a Payment Card Industry, Data Security, Standard (PCI DSS) compliant manner, including an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) capability to facilitate payments. The DWP service and SCPS contract currently supports approximately 9000 agents. The current SCPS contract also includes the routing of outbound calls via the PCI DSS compliant service provider.
DWP takes approximately 750,000 card payments per annum, totalling approximately £130m per annum. This is collected by two areas of DWP and Northern Ireland's Department for Communities:
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/812974190
Thanks Lucretuis. I get that their tactic is to make this whole thing go on as long as possible, but at what point do they stop appealing all this and wasting money on lawyers. Are they really going to apply to appeal again? On what grounds given the overwhelming defeat? Surely they now realise that PCIP isn't going to roll over and agree to a low ball offer. The whole thing is becoming more insane by the week.
Interestingly Mr Silverleaf did pipe up to say that the case had been brought by Sycurio/Livingbridge after consulting an expert—and no prizes for guessing who!!!—and the 19th Earl of Devon, who is also a barrister and a partner in Michelmores. The 19th Earl of Devon is otherwise known as Charles Peregrine Courtenay.
So: clearly yesterday doesn’t lay to rest the long-standing claim from PCIP’s board that the case was unfounded and brought for ulterior motive. I am sure that Livingbridge/Sycurio will be breathing a sigh of relief that a member of its team has not yet jumped ship and provided a witness statement that might have given firm evidential footing to PCIP’s board’s claim.
The usually unctuous Michael Silverleaf KC, Sycurio’s brief, was out of sorts at High Court yesterday during the Form of Order hearing in the Sycurio v. PCIP case. Bereft of his junior and constantly pestered by post-it notes from Nick Viney, Sycurio’s CEO, who deigned to turn up to court to witness his firm receive another judicial kicking, Mr Silverleaf never hit his straps.
From the moment, quite early in the day, when he addressed the redoubtable Mrs Justice Bacon as “your Lordship” he was batting on an exceptionally sticky wicket.
Mrs Justice Bacon was visibly unimpressed as Mr Silverleaf and Richard Davis KC, PCIP’s brief, spent the morning bickering over how costs should be calculated for the provisional cost award. It was not an edifying watch. Both men gave the impression of ageing heavyweights. When a task of devilishly difficult mathematical complexity came up—diving 102 by six—neither man had his abacus with him so the calculation was beyond reach.
On the substance of the day, Mrs Justice Bacon refused Mr Silverleaf’s application for appeal, meaning that Sycurio has until 8th January 2024 to file leave to appeal directly with the Appeals Court, should it chose to do so. It would seem that Mrs Justice Bacon is able to read easily Mr Silverleaf’s tell: the strength of his arguments is inversely correlated to their complexity.
On the cost side, because of Michelmores, Sycurio’s lawyers, not doing their job properly and choosing as their key trial witness a non-expert expert, Mrs Penn, whose evidence on technical matters Mrs Justice Bacon rejected at trial, PCIP was awarded part of its costs on an indemnity basis (ie, the standard cost recovery uplifted by about 25%. This is a punishment for poor litigation conduct).
As I didn’t have my abacus with me either, I can’t entirely vouch for the accuracy of what follows. It would appear that PCIP will be entitled to an interim provisional cost award of around £1m, which will paid into an escrow account at their solicitors. This money will be released from escrow to PCIP on the earlier of the Appeals Court’s determination of any application by Sycurio to appeal, or 5th February 2024. Although it would appear that Sycurio will be able to make an application to the Appeals Court to “stay” the release from escrow if its application for leave to appeal has not been determined by 5th February 2024.
PCIP’s KC, Mr Davis, said in court that the whole infringement case was speculative, thin and opportunistic that had been brought for ulterior motives, about which he had hints. But (and obviously) Mr Davis did not have a witness statement from Sycurio/Livingbridge about what these motives might have been. As a result, Mrs Justice Bacon was quick to say that he didn’t need to go there.
What does that say? Update abou the UK court decision filed with the US courts given its close proximity?
18 Dec
Filling by Pci-pal
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Great summary, as always. Hope the FT get ahold of this some day!
“We are responsible for running the vital national IT systems which support health and social care, and the collection, analysis, publication and dissemination of data generated by health and social care services to improve outcomes for patients”.(https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/what-we-do/)
Personally, I think it’s a tad problematic to sit as a deputy chair on such a body when one of your firm’s holdings, expert in data security, has just breached a confidentiality agreement by hearing details about a competitor’s technology, which were obtained by launching UK patent infringement proceedings, based on evidential thin air. But, evidently, it’s OK for NHS England.
And where’s Wotton?
One person who would be able to give a clear insight into Livingbridge’s culture is Ken Wotton. Mr Wotton is managing director, public equity, at Gresham House Asset Management, PCIP’s second largest shareholder with 9.2%, who, rightly, turned down Livingbridge’s hostile bid for PCIP. Mr Wotton knows Livingbridge exceedingly well. From January 2013 to May 2014, he was a partner in Livingbridge EP LLP, and from June 2014 to November 2018 he was a partner in Livingbridge VC LLP. The two designated members of Livingbridge VC LLP were/are Mr Kolade and Ms Egan. Don’t be too shy to give us your views on what has gone on here, Mr Wotton. Other PCIP shareholders would love to hear your unvarnished opinions. Do you not have an ethical duty to call out this type of behaviour. If not, why not?
Cover-up or clean-up?
The smell emanating from 100 Wood Street, Livingbridge’s London HQ, is not a very unpleasant one, and could grow worse as more details emerge. Mr Kolade needs to clean house--and quickly. A scapegoat won’t do.
Roll up, roll up: 10:30am tomorrow The Rolls Building, court 2
Livingbridge EP’s principal activity is to provide “investment management and advisory services” and is “the operator and manager of a range of private equity investment vehicles, structured as limited liability partnerships” (ie, Livingbridge’s funds). These include Livingbridge 7 Global LP, which is the ultimate owner of Sycurio.
The people with the real power in a LLP are the so-called “designated members” (ie, they are the head honchos). Livingbridge EP has two designated members: Wol Kolade and Sheenagh Egan. Mr Kolade is the managing partner and head at Livingbridge. He sits on the investment committee and chairs the supervisory board. “His role encompasses overall responsibility for the leadership and strategic development of Livingbridge, senior-level involvement in winning deals and active involvement in selective key investments”. (See https://www.livingbridge.com/people/wol-kolade).
Ms Egan sits on the management board which is responsible for the strategy of the firm and day-to-day management of the business (see https://www.livingbridge.com/people/sheenagh-egan) and also on the supervisory board. She is Livingbridge’s COO.
Livingbridge’s investment committee must also have approved the decision to have a tilt at PCIP, which at the highest bid price (90p), would have cost well in excess of £70m, once all the prospective bid’s costs were included.
As Mr Hollingsworth is still a partner in the LPP and a director of Yale Topco Ltd and Sycurio Ltd, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr Kolade and Ms Egan condone his actions.
Bear in mind the breach of confidentiality in April 2022 by a firm supposed to be experts in data security. There is no suggestion that Mr Kolade or Ms Egan sanctioned or approved of the breach of confidentiality. But they preside over a culture at Livingbridge under which this breach happened.
A month before the breach, Mr Kolade, a Tory party donor, was appointed as a Deputy Chair of NHS England. According to its website, one of NHS England’s responsibilities is: (see part 6)
5. Having had his bluff called by PCIP, Mr Hollingsworth and Sycurio/Livingbridge’s UK lawyers, Michelmores, faced a rather large problem. The case could not be brought to trial without expert written evidence. As Mrs Justice Bacon made clear in her judgment it was Michelmores’ responsibility “to ensure that the expert had the necessary expertise and is aware of the duties imposed on an expert witness”. Clearly Michelmores didn’t discharge its responsibilities properly in choosing Mrs Penn as Sycurio/Livingbridge’s expert. So: Michelmores either made a gross error of judgement, which just happened to enable Sycurio/ Livingbridge to bring it case to court; or it informed its client Sycurio/Livingbridge (ie, ultimately Mr Hollingsworth) that it had doubts about Mrs Penn’s suitability as an expert witness and was instructed to press on regardless. Either way it doesn’t reflect well on Sycurio/Livingbridge/Mr Hollingsworth: either they didn’t ask enough questions about Mrs Penn, or they rolled the dice, gambling on a pre-trial settlement or other solution (ie, takeover attempts 2-4 in March-May 2023), just before the trial. That is all-in!
6. Mr Hollingsworth managed to revive long-standing but suppressed resentment on the part of Eckoh Plc, the other big player in the PCI DSS space, over the patent infringement proceedings Sycurio had brought against it in 2013. (These were settled in 2015 by means of a confidential licensing agreement.) Since September 2021 Eckoh (and PCIP) have filed opposition to three of Sycurio’s European patents. The European Patent Office has already revoked one of Sycurio’s patents; its decision on two more is still to come.
Before going any farther, let’s take a step back lest Livingbridge is tempted to present all this as an aberrant freelance frolic on Mr Hollingsworth’s part. Mr Hollingsworth has clearly not acted on his own; Sycurio’s investment committee must have approved the initial investment in Sycurio in June 2021.
Mr Hollingswoth was made a partner of Livingbridge EP LLP only in April 2022, the month of the breach of the confidentiality agreement (most probably with Mr Hollingsworth present). (see part 5)
It would be highly invidious to list again all of Mr Hollingsworth’s (and Livingbridge’s) mistakes, misjudgements, and dubious actions, so let’s do it. (Of course, some of this is based on supposition):
1. He bought the wrong company at the wrong price and at the wrong time. For £110m, the toppy price Livingbridge paid for Sycurio at the top of the market in June 2021, Livingbridge could have offered 150p a share for PCIP, an offer that surely would have been accepted.
2. He miscalculated that patent infringement proceedings, brought in September 2021 to distract PCIP’s management, drain its cash resources and potentially gain access to PCIP’s technology secrets, would cause PCIP to roll over and accept a settlement by way of confidential licence agreement. This, Sycurio/Livingbridge could have spun as a victory.
3. When he realised that he had bought a duff company with a duff management team, he decided to switch to a back-up plan to buy PCIP, which would solve several rather large problems in one go: it would cover up the duff investment, it would bring on board a top-notch management team to run the enlarged group, it would eliminate a competitor, it would gain access to superior technology and it would mean the end of the patent case, an obvious bluff, based on evidential thin air.
4. In April 2022, once mediation had failed and an initial offer to buy PCIP had been rebuffed, Sycurio held its now infamous board meeting—attended by unnamed Livingbridge personnel (but most likely to have been Mr Hollingsworth and his Livingbridge sidekick, Curtis Kahn). During this meeting, confidential information about PCIP’s technology, details of which Sycurio had obtained thanks to the patent case, were discussed in front of certain people in breach of a confidentiality agreement. (It is worth remembering that the confidentiality breach was disclosed to PCIP only in May 2023 by Sycurio’s US lawyers, not by Sycurio/Livingbridge themselves. Assuming that Sycurio/Livingbridge’s US lawyers have high ethical standards, it must be assumed that the breach was disclosed as soon as the US lawyers became aware of it, and at the US lawyers’ insistence. That is a measure of how serious it was. Not to have done so could have caused considerable reputational damage to the US lawyers. The question about how the US lawyers became aware of the egregious breach of the confidentiality agreement remains an open one.) (see part 4)
Perhaps most anxious of all and almost certainly absent from the court, as he was during the trial, will be Simon Hollingsworth, a 40-yr old Livingbridge executive (see https://www.livingbridge.com/people/simon-hollingsworth). Mr Hollingsworth sits as a non-executive director on the board of Yale Topco Ltd, a Jersey company at the top of the chain through which Livingbridge 7 Global LP, one of Livingbridge’s funds, controls its investment in Sycurio Ltd, of which Mr Hollingsworth is also a non-executive director.
Mr Hollingsworth is the person at Livingbridge with responsibility for the investment in Sycurio. He was one of the people behind the takeover attempts of PCIP. For instance, on 17th April 2023, a month or so after Sycurio had made its third attempt to buy PCIP, Mr Hollingsworth (and Sycurio’s CEO) met with PCIP’s CEO and soon afterwards repeated Sycurio’s bagatelle offer of 90p per share. After that Sycurio, through unnamed M&A advisors, most probably at Mr Hollingsworth’s instigation, went hostile by directly contacting PCIP’s two largest shareholders, Canaccord and Gresham House, who between them then held 27.4% of PCIP.
It's my hunch that, as this story unfolds, Mr Hollingsworth might be getting a call or two from journalists on national newspapers. If so, it might well be far beyond the capabilities of even London’s finest PR lickspittles to put any positive spin on his role or, for that matter, Livingbridge’s.
Before examining the “highlights” of Mr Hollingsdworth’s involvement, let’s take a step back and look very briefly at some of the guff that Livingbridge trumpets about itself:
“Livingbridge is a collection of driven people from incredibly diverse operational, financial and entrepreneurial backgrounds. Each going all-in, from day-one. It’s the only way we know.”
At least Mr Hollingsworth lives up to his firm’s billing: as we will see, nobody could accuse him of “not going all-in, from day-one”. What he, high on hubris, no doubt imagined would be a career-enhancing move—Livingbridge’s acquisition of Sycurio--looks to have turned into a career-limiting move and, hopefully, will end as a career-finishing move when Livingbridge’s behaviour becomes more widely known and its reputation tarnished. (see part 3)