Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
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)
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.)