Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video 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.
PCIP shareholders, of whom I am one, will have been having a relaxing weekend, as will have PCIP’s management team. Tomorrow is, in effect, their/our big day in court: Mrs Justice Bacon will decide whether to grant Sycurio/Livingbridge leave to appeal her crushing judgment, and the amount and timing of the provisional cost award in PCIP’s favour.
Discussed in open court will be PCIP’s senior lawyer’s witness statement revealed on this blog last weekend, the main headline of which was that Livingbridge made four attempts, one hostile, in the period March 2022 to May 2023 to buy PCIP on the cheap after having battered its share price through launching patent infringement cases in both the US and UK in September 2021 that rest on nothing more than evidential thin air.
PCIP has also filed other, but confidential, witness statements with the court. What on earth do these statements say?
The briefs representing PCIP will be Richard Davis KC and his junior, Ed ‘two brains’ Cronan, a rising star IP legal circles, who was PCIP’s junior counsel during the trial. Mr Davis was brought in by PCIP after the trial to replace Guy Tritton, whose cross-examination skills are renowned but no longer needed as the case moves to a different stage. Mr Tritton’s relentless and (rightly) merciless cross-examination of Sycurio’s non-expert expert on technical matters, Mrs Penn, a 70-yr old dyslexic widow in ill health, on her written evidence was the piece de resistance of the trial, and will continue to give Mrs Penn nightmares for a very long time to come.
Mr Davis spearheaded PCIP’s reply to Sycurio/Livingbridge’s preposterous (and ultimately fruitless) attempt to amend the wording of the patent almost as soon as the trial had finished.
On the Sycurio/Livingbridge side, the weekend will have been less relaxed. The trial was not one of the finer moments in a distinguished career for Michael Silverleaf KC, Sycurio/Livingbridge’s brief, whose grandiloquence is inversely proportionate to his height.
In her judgment, with rather acid understatement, Mrs Justice Bacon, who gave no weight to Mrs Penn’s expert evidence on technical matters, wrote: “That is no doubt why, in his closing submission, Mr Silverleaf placed almost no reliance on Mrs Penn’s evidence. He contended that he did not need to do so, because he could make his submissions on the basis of the undisputed materials and PCI-Pal’s own evidence. That was an unfortunate position to end up in, given the scope of Mrs Penn’s written evidence. For the reasons set out below I consider that Mr Silverleaf’s submissions on technical points could not be maintained without evidential support, which ultimately he did not have”. (see part 2)
Https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1421597.4/754fee9c-d779-4d43-82e5-8e90c9fb1b4b/GB2526389-20190710-Opinion%20request%20attachment.pdf
GB2526389 - System and method for secure transmission of data signals
Documents
16 July 2019 Letter - Litigation section
16 July 2019 Letter - Litigation section
12 August 2019 Opinion observations
15 August 2019 Letter - Litigation section
15 August 2019 Letter - Litigation section
28 August 2019 Opinion observations in reply
28 August 2019 Letter - Litigation section
07 October 2019 Opinion
07 October 2019 Letter - Litigation section
07 October 2019 Letter - Litigation section
30 April 2020 Letter - Litigation section
01 June 2020 Amendments
01 June 2020 Letter - Agent/applicant
01 June 2020 Amendments
01 June 2020 Description
22 July 2020 Claims
22 October 2020 Decision - Litigation
22 October 2020 Letter - Litigation section
04 November 2020 Publication document
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2526389
Re-reading Mrs Bacon's Judgement lead me to looking for anything other than the Press Release with the words “Secure Exchange” and Liveops in it.
Came up with this.
SecureExchangeScoping and Basic SolutionCustomer has requested to use the LiveOps Secure Exchange service to capture credit card numbers during voice/phone conversations. Secure Exchange is only supported for the voice channel. Secure Exchange requires the use of the LiveOps scripting system as well as LiveOps IVRs.Secure Exchange is designed to capture only one credit card number per call.LiveOps will assign one Technical Service consultant to lead the Secure Exchange implementation. LiveOps will provide a script to drive the interaction with the LiveOps Secure Exchange IVR. This script will be configured on the Customer’s campaigns/call flows and will require the use of the LiveOps screen pop feature.High level description of Secure Exchange flow:a)Call arrives at agent desktop who is using the standard LiveOpsagent desktop.b)LiveOps script (developed under this SOW by LiveOps based on Customer’s participation) is popped on call arrival. This script includes a button for the agent to initiate credit card capture when ready.c)Customer’s agent selects the button to initiate the LiveOps standard Secure Exchange module to capture the credit card. It is assumed the standard LiveOps Secure Exchange module with built-in voice prompt confirmations, error handlers, credit card number format validation, and expiration datevalidation will be used with no customization.
12d)The credit card information is stored in encrypted form in the LiveOps highly secure, limited access PCI compliant“red zone” infrastructure for 90 days and is then deletedLiveOps updates PCI ROC annuallyand will provide an updated report upon customer’s request.e)During the time when the end customer is engaged with the LiveOps Secure Exchange module, there will be no audio recording until the end customer is returned back to the agent.f)The call returns to the Customer agent with the results of the credit card capture displayed (success or fail). A Reference ID is also returned that is used to refer to the credit card information in the LiveOps secure “red zone” infrastructure.The following services are included in the scope of Secure Exchange:LiveOps will provide a master IVR (where the customer enters their credit card number) and a slave IVR (where the agent is placed on hold and status updates are whispered to the agent).LiveOps will manage both the script and the IVRs. Customer will be able to self-configure the script for new campaigns. After call completion, the credit card information is stored in the LiveOps PCI compliant repository.
More here
https://docplayer.net/6253851-Appendix-e-to-dir-contract-no-dir-tso-2986.html
Friday, December 15, 2023
93 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Fri 12/15 12:59 PM
NOTICE of RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by Sycurio Limited, Sycurio, Inc. re90 Notice (Other) (Werber, Matthew)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Mrs Justice Bacon 10:30am The Rolls Building, court 2
Consequentials/Further Arguments HP-2021-000030
Sycurio Limited v PCI-PAL Plc and others
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-and-property-courts-rolls-building-cause-list/business-and-property-courts-of-england-and-wales-cause-list#chancery-appeals-chancery-division
Lucretuis
Not Justin John Hill, this time
Response was from James Prankerd Smith. Only been at Dentons for three months, so 29 pages is not a bad effort.
Experience
Dentons Graphic
Associate
Dentons
Oct 2023 - Present 3 months
Education
University of Cambridge Graphic
University of Cambridge
MSci Physics
2010 - 2014
==========================================
Guy Tritton
IP/IT/Media Barrister & Acting General Counsel for Origina
5mo Edited
Huge achievement for Edward Cronan of Hogarth. I have in fact been leading Ed for the last two weeks in a telecoms patent trial ...(or was he leading me, I forget 🤔?) and I can say truly that he was outstanding. But on the crunch question, yes, I am taller than him by half an inch
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/guytritton_huge-achievement-for-edward-cronan-of-hogarth-activity-7078347098672230400-4hvv
=================================
List of "And I Would Have Gotten Away With It Too, If It Weren't For ...
The line was tinkered with in The New Scooby-Doo Movies, but it wasn't until the fourth episode of The Scooby-Doo/Dynomutt Hour, Watt a Shocking Ghost, when Mayor Dudley put it all together and declared "We would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"
https://scoobydoo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_%22And_I_Would_Have_Gotten_Away_With_It_Too,_If_It_Weren%27t_For_You_Meddling_Kids%22_Quotes
Victor,
Remarkable self-restraint from Dentons: a mere 29-pages!! There must be a few good Xmas parties to go to. Let’s see what the EPO says in due course. I know where my money is. The score should be 3-0.
I think maybe Mr Viney finds the truth a difficult concept.
13.12.2023 (Electronic) Receipt
13.12.2023 Citation in opposition procedure
13.12.2023 Citation in opposition procedure
13.12.2023 Citation in opposition procedure
13.12.2023 Consolidated list of cited opposition documents
13.12.2023 Letter accompanying subsequently filed items
13.12.2023 Letter regarding the opposition procedure (no time limit)
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09742359&lng=en&tab=doclist
--------------------------------------------------
***Is this true?
Ver el perfil de Nick Viney
Nick Viney
CEO & Board member of Sycurio. Adviser| Mentor| Investor. Former CEO of CYBER1. Ex-Avast, McAfee, Google, Microsoft and Andersen.
1 mes
Fantastic news ! Another big partner collaboration goes live.
*** No other PCI and Payments CX provider can offer such a range of integrations in the enterprise space***
BIG NEWS 📣
We are excited to announce our partnership with Five9! This powerful integration will enable Five9 customers to provide secure and trusted #paymentexperiences as an embedded part of their solution portfolio while enhancing #CX. Read more about how you can seamlessly integrate Sycurio.Voice with your Five9 Intelligent Cloud contact Center: https://bit.ly/3MC7RlE
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nickviney_sycurio-announces-partnership-with-five9-activity-7128140150286532609-nHku
-------------------------------
leycrjb, nothing new to report.
Did anyone make it to the AGM and care to report back?
"The subject exhibit was produced as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY pursuant to the 44 Protective Order"
44
Nov 17, 2022
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 11/17/2022. (brl)
Main Document
Protective Order
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561.44.0.pdf
Monday, December 11, 2023
92 misc Sealed Document Mon 12/11 2:42 PM
Sealed Document ( Sealed - Attorney ): re:91 MOTION to Seal Document90 Notice (Other) (Exhibit A- Third and Final Claim Construction Order) by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.; (available to PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc., Sycurio Limited) (Dority, James)
91 motion Seal Document Mon 12/11 2:39 PM
MOTION to Seal Document90 Notice (Other) (Exhibit A- Third and Final Claim Construction Order) by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.. Responses due by 12/26/2023 (Dority, James)
90 notice Notice (Other) Mon 12/11 2:32 PM
NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.(Dority, James)
Att: 1 Exhibit A - [Slip Sheet Filed Under Seal]
order Order on Motion to Seal Document Mon 12/11 3:39 PM
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 91 MOTION to Seal Document re 90 Notice (Other) re 92 Exhibit A- Third and Final Claim Construction Order. The subject exhibit was produced as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY pursuant to the 44 Protective Order. Sealing is without prejudice to a motion to unseal pursuant to LCvR 6.1(h) and/or a motion under Section 3 of the Protective Order 44 challenging confidentiality designation. So Ordered. Entered by US Magistrate Judge Susan C. Rodriguez on 12/11/2023. (DLG)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
YALE MIDCO 3 LIMITED
11 Dec 2023 Appointment of Mr Paul John Greensmith as a director on 8 December 2023
11 Dec 2023 Termination of appointment of Curtis Kahn as a director on 11 December 2023
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13451660/filing-history
" The instruction of Ms Penn, and the presentation of her First Expert Report, caused considerable difficulty. It was plain and obvious that she was not the appropriate person to assist the court. She disclaimed any expertise “in the technology” yet went on to comment in detail on the technology. The language she used invited cross examination on her expertise. However, PCI Pal could not risk an “all or nothing approach”. This meant that even though it seemed obvious that Ms Penn was not qualified to assist the court, PCI Pal had to prepare for trial on the basis that she might be.
The team at Shepherd & Wedderburn, which included me, had to take time to work through, with both counsel and experts, the numerous points that Ms Penn presented and determine whether and how to reply. Rather than being able to neatly consider Mr Leung’s evidence with Mr Robinson and Ms Penn’s evidence with Mr Whittaker both PCI Pal’s experts had to give their views on what was in Ms Penn’s report, as she was the only witness from Sycurio giving evidence on patent validity and infringement.
These highly unusual circumstances to the client team also meant that we had to spend more time with the client team talking through the approach to the trial and the risks involved.”
That’s all…….for now.
"I infer from that email that either Sycurio did not have expert input before issuing proceedings, or had received expert input from Ms Penn and were looking to replace her, or considered that her expertise in VoIP and SIP technology was insufficient.
PCI Pal first had notice of the experts selected by Sycurio on 6 July 2022. My assumption when I saw that Sycurio had instructed Ms Penn and Professor Leung was that Professor Leung would speak to the technical aspects of the Patent concerning VoIP telephony and implementation in a call centre, and Ms Penn would speak to payment processing. They would in effect mirror Mr Robinson and Mr Whittaker. From looking at Mr Leung’s background, an obvious weakness was that he had no practical experience of actually implementing a telephony system in a call centre that was taking payments. This is reinforced by Ms Penn when she says:
“As is apparent from Professor Leung’s report, telephony and computer engineers are not engaged in the development of payment systems. Nor do they have knowledge of the needs of the payment card industry or its security requirements.”
However, when I received Sycurio’s first expert reports it was immediately apparent that this was not the approach that was taken. Professor Leung’s evidence was limited to a very technical, and essentially non-controversial explainer of the background technology. There was a critique of the PPD, but PCI Pal were able to respond to that critique with further explanations.
Ms Penn’s report made it clear that she was taking the same approach as she did in the case against Eckoh. She said: “I have reviewed the expert reports I gave in that case and have incorporated elements of them in this report as appropriate. My opinions regarding the patent and the invention have not changed since I gave evidence in the Eckoh Litigation.” “I became familiar with the Patent during my previous experience acting as an expert witness in the Eckoh Litigation. I note that some of the points being made by PCI-PAL in the present case rely on prior art documents, some of which were also cited in the Eckoh litigation. In the course of preparing this report, I have reviewed what I said about that prior art in my reports in that case. My views about the relationship of the invention of the Patent to that prior art have not changed.”
She also made clear the basis upon which she was (apparently) approaching the Patent: “I do not have expertise in the technology and operation of call processors and computers which might be required to implement the process of the Patent. Nor do I consider that such expertise is necessary to understand or evaluate the invention of the Patent and whether it is likely to be an effective solution to the requirements of PCI DSS. That expertise is needed only once the decision has been made that it is worth considering use of the invention to provide the underlying technical implementation.”
(continued in
Unbelievably, as darkness falls, a second package has plopped through the letterbox. Another ethics handbook! This time the magnum opus is from Michelmores, lawyers for Livingbridge/Sycurio in the patent case. It, too, comprises just two words: “MONEY FIRST”. The publisher is TOWINE Corporation (Vanuatu) Ltd, an extremely obscure publishing house that I had not heard of before. After some Googling, I eventually twigged that TOWINE is an acronym: “The Only Way Is No Ethics”.
On that note, here is another extract, which features Miichelmores heavily, from PCIP’s lawyer’s witness statement, this time on the subject of experts. (I have cut the length of a few paragraphs. And, for the sake of clarity, the rubric is mine).
An expert, an expert, my carried interest for an expert!
“I recognised the importance of instructing an appropriate expert, and sought expert input almost immediately. I was aware that Craig Robinson was an expert in the field, and that he had previous experience as an expert in the claim by Sycurio against Eckoh……...
On 31 January 2022, by way of email to Michelmores attaching draft Directions, I initially proposed a single expert for each side. From my perspective, it appeared that Craig Robinson could cover all issues in a proportionate way……
However, in the last few days before the CMC, Michelmores proposed changes to the draft Directions which provided for two experts. The amended Directions were sealed on 11 February 2022 and allowed parties: “one expert witness in the field of telecommunications including VOIP and SIP communications and one expert witness in the field of payment processing to address the technical issues to be decided at the trial”……..
On 12 April 2022, almost seven months after proceedings were served, and three months before the deadline to name the experts instructed, StableLogic Limited (the company of which Craig Robinson is the CEO) received an enquiry to their generic sales@ email address from Michelmores asking if the company could assist their search for an expert in communications applications employing SIP and VoIP applications. Michelmores explained that the proposed expert will be an expert in payment processing in telecommunications products, especially the use of VoIP and SIP technology.
(continued in part 8)
An earlier extract in the statement reads:
“A mediation was ultimately agreed and took place on 25 January 2022. The parties and named individuals signed a Mediation Agreement on the day, in which it was agreed everyone would keep confidential all information produced for or at the mediation. In preparation for that mediation PCI Pal prepared a position paper that contained an overview of their position on various issues as well as (confidential) schematics showing how Agent Assist operated. It also disclosed, as requested, (confidential) financial information relating to income and expenditure generated by Agent Assist”.
(More to follow later)
Late last night a package was posted through my letterbox. On the brown envelope, a typewritten message, mysteriously in French, read: “A l’attention du blogueur qui traite l’affaire Sycurio/Livingbridge”.
Inside was a hardback booklet on moral philosophy by Livingbridge. The title on the cover was “Ethics handbook (updated June 2021)” and the subtitle “A statement of the obvious”.
The booklet is not long. In fact, it is very short and, thankfully, written in plain English. For fear of being accused of making this up, I will quote verbatim the whole of the booklet. It reads: “ANYTHING GOES.”
On that note, here is a further extract from the witness statement of PCIP’s lawyer at Shepherd & Wedderburn, who led PCIP’s defence and counterattack in the recent patent case. When reading this bear in mind that on 7th June, just before the trial started, PCIP issued a RNS entitled “Breach of confidentiality agreement by Sycurio Ltd”. This mentioned that the breach occurred during a session in an April 2022 Sycurio board meeting that a number of personnel from Sycurio were involved in and also that “involved personnel from Sycurio’s private equity owners Livingbridge LLP”.
Livingbridge ne regrette rien
The subject matter of the extract is confidentiality:
“The question of the confidentiality of the information produced by PCI Pal in these proceedings is a matter of ongoing concern to PCI Pal.
In late May this year, shortly before trial in the UK, PCI Pal’s US counsel received a letter from Sycurio’s US counsel in which it was explained that at a Sycurio Board meeting in April 2022:
“Mr. Lovelock and Mr. Mosely [both of Sycurio] presented information regarding Sycurio’s technology and call flows, and various competitor technology and call flows, including PCI Pal, and information from the [Mediation] Position Paper may have been incorporated into the presentation and corresponding slides.”
On 5 June 2023, I wrote to Michelmores setting out PCI Pal’s concerns and sought further information and certain undertakings relating to further dissemination of the information. That letter sets out the sequence of events as far as PCI Pal could ascertain.
On 9 June 2023, Michelmores responded describing the use of information regarding the deployment topologies as “regrettable”. Certain undertakings were provided, although restricted to the material contained in the Mediation Position Paper. The Board meeting at which competitor technology was discussed came after the disclosure of the PPD, and signature of further confidentiality undertakings, so PCI Pal are concerned that in fact the much more detailed information in the PPD informed the content of Mr Lovelock and Mr Mosely’s presentation. Again, this behaviour has given rise to concerns on PCI Pal’s part that one objective of the litigation may have been to allow Sycurio to develop a better understanding of how Agent Assist Gen
Thanks , Lucretuis
Looking forward to hearing more
The unthinkable here, always seems to be closer than the thinkable.
--------------
Update on the 8th Dec
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/50982135/BLIER_v_SYCURIO,_INC_FKA_SEMAFONE,_INC_et_al
Glad to hear that you will be a member of the “vai a fanculo” club.
This is stunning although I have to say not surprising. I speculated all along that this was what they wanted, as no other motive made sense. Thank you for sharing, Lucretuis.
I wonder if it would serve PCI-Pal to make this public...
I personally own over 1% of the company and would certainly reject any offer under 150p.
As for the matter of leave to appeal, it seems unlikely that Mrs Justice Bacon, who has described the High Court as a “collegiate place”, will grant this, leaving Sycurio with the option of not appealing, or applying to the Appeals Court for leave to appeal. The fact that Mrs Justice Bacon delivered her judgment several weeks after her self-imposed deadline of the end of July implies to me that she took especial care, and consulted colleagues as necessary, to ensure her judgment contained no errors of fact or law.
(More to follow over the weekend from the witness statement about confidentiality.)
Mr Viney and Mr Barham then had three telephone calls. In those calls it became clear to Mr Barham that although Mr Viney talked about “settlement” of the litigation, the only option that he wanted to consider was a corporate acquisition. At around this time, PCI Pal sought a second opinion from leading counsel on prospects of success.
PCI Pal received a formal offer on 1 March 2023, which was rejected. On 7 March 2023, PCI Pal received an updated offer, raising the offer price to 90p per share. This offer was rejected on 8 March 2023.
After various communications Mr Barham met with Mr Viney and Mr Simon Hollingsworth (a NED at Sycurio) on 17 April 2023 after which the previous offer was reiterated and then again rejected.
On or about 3 May 2023, Sycurio’s M&A advisors, contacted the First Defendant’s two largest institutional shareholders, Canaccord and Gresham House, directly. On 19 May 2023, the offer from Sycurio was formally withdrawn.
On 26 May 2023, PCI Pal sent a settlement offer, covering both the US and UK litigation, to Mr Viney of Sycurio which was rejected. In that offer there was an offer by PCI Pal to take a licence on a worldwide basis.
It was the view of PCI Pal’s Board following these events that Sycurio were not interested in licensing PCI Pal, and that Sycurio were continuing to press the actions (in the UK and the US) with a view to continued disruption of PCI Pal’s business and ‘softening up’ PCI Pal for further acquisition attempts.”
Wow! Devious, or what!? That explains an awful lot about Sycurio/Livingbridge’s actions for those who have followed this case closely.
What price Sycurio offered in the initial approach is a matter for speculation, but my guess would be in the 75-80p range. The final offer of 90p would have been relatively easy to reject. PCIP’s brokers, FinnCap (now Cavendish) issued a price target of 125p at the time of the equity raise in May 2021, which has remained unchanged ever since. This target price, presumably, at least informed the PCIP’s Board’s thinking about the value it places on the business, and hence its decision to reject the offer.
Let’s hope that PCIP’s large institutional and private shareholders will resoundingly back the board of PCIP if Sycurio makes another approach, as foreseen in the witness statement, with a blunt: “vai a fanculo”. (continued in part 4)
First, at the beginning of September 2020, around the time Sycurio put itself on the market (my surmise; it is not stated in the witness statement), PCIP’s lawyers received a letter from Michelmores threatening PCIP with legal proceedings for patent infringement. Nothing further was heard from Michelmores, despite PCIP replying to refute patent infringement and dispute certain claims in Sycurio’s UK patent, until nearly a year later, after Livingbridge had taken over Sycurio. So: was patent litigation contemplated from the beginning of talks with potential purchasers?
Second, on September 15th 2021, the day Sycurio issued a press release saying it was suing PCOP for patent infringement in the UK and the US, Michelmores served its client’s Particulars of Claim, thereby, in effect, answering PCIP’s lawyers’ letter of a year earlier. Letters between the respective lawyers followed. Two of four options put forward by PCIP’s lawyers for resolving the dispute—a licence or “any other creative solution”—were apparently endorsed by Michelmores in a letter of 9th December 2021, which stated that: “Our clients agree that a licence is not the only option for resolution of the dispute, and indeed it is not our client’s preferred option”. The witness statement goes on to say: “…..Sycurio has consistently refused to discuss a possible licence, despite what was said in Michelmores’ letter of 9 December 2021.” Mediation, details of which both parties agreed to keep confidential, followed in January 2022. This failed.
Third, and this is the really big thing, it soon become very apparent what Sycurio’s “preferred option” really was. For fear of being accused of making up what follows, I quote nearly verbatim from the witness statement, edited only in a one place for brevity and to remove references to exhibits.
“After the mediation, there was a ‘Chairman to Chairman’ call in March 2022 at Sycurio’s suggestion. I was told that no price was mentioned at the time, but what was suggested was an acquisition by Sycurio of PCI Pal. This was the start of Sycurio’s attempts to purchase PCI Pal while the litigation was ongoing………The offer was rejected.
Sycurio hired a new CEO in the summer of 2022, Nick Viney. Mr Viney contacted James Barham, CEO of the First Defendant, via LinkedIn in November 2022 suggesting they connect as “it's always good to connect with other like-minded leaders” I recall this being seen as a somewhat odd approach as the two parties were involved in high stakes, and high cost, litigation. However, it was seen by PCI Pal as an opportunity to open a line of communication with a view to potentially resolving the dispute.
(continued in part 3)
At the forthcoming Form of Order hearing in the patent case, the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Bacon, will decide whether to give Sycurio leave to appeal and on the size and timing of the cost award to PCIP, including whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis (ie, a higher award than otherwise would be the case). An award on an indemnity basis is a punishment for a losing litigant for engaging in poor litigation conduct.
With regard to litigation conduct, bear in mind that Sycurio/Livingbridge could not have taken its patent infringement case to trial without the “technical expertise” of an “expert” witness, a 70-year dyslexic widow in ill health, called Mrs Penn, whose “expert” report Michelmores, Sycurio/Livingbridge’s law firm for the case, put together. Under cross-examination Mrs Penn, in a cloud of “brain frog”, turned out to be a non-expert expert, not qualified at all to give evidence on technical matters. This did not impress Mrs Justic Bacon, who disregarded all Mrs Penn’s evidence on technical matters. And, reading between the lines, Michelmores were severely wrapped on the knuckles: “It is [the instructing solicitors’] duty to ensure the expert has the necessary expertise and is aware of the duties imposed on an expert witness”, wrote Mrs Justice Bacon.
In anticipation of the hearing, I wrote to PCIP asking if it had made any court filings for the hearing that could be shared with a shareholder, which I am. I was sent a meticulously prepared, highly forensic, marginally redacted 31-page witness statement, written by PCIP’s lead solicitor from Shepherd & Wedderburn on the patent case. It is a dense document. But three new things emerge from the statement, one really big, which cast new light on Sycurio/Livingbridge’s actions and raise fresh and troubling questions.
(continued in part 2)
Good point leycrjb - could be the reason this client is coming back!
Cavendish 9th November - page six:
We note the group has only lost 2 mid-sized customers (with less than £100k of ACV) since 2018, with one implementing their own solution and now being in talks to re-implement PCI Pal, and NHS Test & Trace when the service closed in 2023.