Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. 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.
Answering my own question: ChatGPT tells me the deadline is typically midnight
Can anyone also recall whether the Caseboard system updates in real-time, or just end of day? Even though court systems are quite old-school, you'd like to think that in the 21st century its an electronic filing system so updates real-time once an appeal is lodged and accepted.
Sycurio cutting it very fine if its real-time as I assume the Court's system would close at 5pm/6pm or similar.
Deadline day right?
Anyone know what time they need to file an appeal by?
In this case, in my view, the perception of the value of patents to third parties (eg, investors) is as important as the reality, not that there is necessarily always a divergence, as seems to be suggested.
Livingbridge has made the protection of Sycurio’s IP the ostensible reason for the legal actions against PCIP. “As a pioneering technology company, it is essential that we defend our IP so that we can confidently invest in new technologies and grow with our partners for the benefit of customers across the world”, said Sycurio’s CEO after the High Court defeat.
The aggressive legal action taken against PCIP to “defend” Sycurio’s IP will almost certainly lead to that IP’s invalidation, which, absent the infringement proceedings, would not have happened. If Sycurio were to turn out to be not a pioneering technology company but a copycat (or worse), then perceptions and reality would, without doubt, coalesce. What would be the value of Sycurio then? Less than PCIP’s current market cap, in my view. And Livingbridge would be looking at a write-off north of £80m.
(As an aside, I am really struggling to see any evidence of Sycurio’s business development under Livingbridge’s ownership. Sales in 2022, Livingbridge’s first full year of ownership, were up about 5% over 2021, but staff turnover, especially at a senior level, has rocketed.)
Victor,
Thanks. A shame that he didn’t give more detail on how he was one of the ‘founders’ of Semafone.
Tim Critchley, an accidental entrepreneur
24 January 2023
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFc_dI7Tp3k
Adam,
4. Exactly, they mean nothing to clients. They are only tools to have a competitive advantage and a form to protect that advantage. Most clients won't know anything about the patent dispute, it is very niche. It could be used as a technique to cast doubt on your competitor but as we see it hasn't slowed down PCIP and it isn't slowing down Sycurio's business development.
It looks like they did this to slow down PCIP by it burning cash. £4m. Think how much more advanced PCIP would be with £4m. They've probably had to scrimp and save to keep developing. They don't want to do another equity raise when so close to profitability, it would be a sign of weakness. They've had to go into battle formation. They are under attack by an unethical opponent.
I have emailed the founder at Livingbridge to point out the unprofessional business practices at Sycurio. He didn't reply.
1. Agreed. I spoke with the company recently and they wont be blinking at all
3. I think its quite possible that Livingbridge started all this as bravado. Back in 2021/2 they were in the process of merging some of their funds teams as investments were underperforming and they needed to cut costs. I had 3 people from their teams apply for a role in my team! Therefore I can believe that in 2021 they were having to sell their LPs that the funds were performing badly, but needed some good news...and part of that would have been around the aggression from Sycurio to PCIP...far better to do that rather than them having to tell their LPs that Sycurio was *another* investment on the list of underperformers.
4. I've spent most of my career in IP centric industries. Here, I can believe that patents are somewhat meaningless - might sound impressive to people on the outside but realistic they provide limited to no protection.
A few things:
1. In my view, there is as much chance of PCIP blinking as there is of the four named inventors on the US patents being those patents’ only inventors.
2. Livingbridge as the owner of Sycurio is the one in the driving seat on the legal cases. It boasts on its website that: “We are clear on how we add value and are not afraid to make the calls that ensure we deliver winning outcomes”. Except, clearly, they aren’t clear. Was it a “call” to allow a relatively elderly and dyslexic widow to give expert evidence in the UK case on technical matters on which she was not expert? This meant Sycurio’s patent infringement case and patent validity defence had no chance of success; indeed, the infringement proceedings could not have been brought to trial without her “expert” evidence.
3. The careers of the Livingbridge executives responsible for the UK court disaster should be on the line. If so, in a bid to defeat the inevitable, they will throw a few more Hail Mary passes (ie, appeal the UK judgment and continue the US case). If their careers are not on the line, then Livingbridge must condone incompetence as well as dubious ethics (see PCIP's RNS of 7th June "Breach of Confidentiality Agreement", which involved personnel from Livingbridge).
4. Does Livingbridge have a disaster recovery plan for when Sycurio’s IP portfolio is decimated, as looks almost inevitable with its 4 disputed US patents likely to be invalidated before trial, and for when the value of Sycurio is reduced to less than Livingbridge's related bank debt, if it has not already been? Judged by its strategic and tactical ineptitude to date, if Livingbridge does have one, the plan will be one that will have arisen serendipitously rather than by design.
US vs UK card? Sycurio is a UK co...
So the appeal goes in at the last moment (because Sycurio can't be seen to cave) and, despite what their lawyers say about it carrying no weight in the US, it clearly does affect the mood music. They would be crowing about it if it had gone their way. This is the moment when Sycurio needs to look most strong and confident and play the US v UK card. And this the moment when PCIP mustn't blink. It's that 'end of the beginning' thing...
Lucretuis
Before I posted the update, I went back and had a look at the various descriptions (below) used to fit the message
Thursday, May 04, 2023..United Kingdom High Court of Justice Patents Court
Wednesday, June 21, 2023.. UK. Litigation, trial proceedings
Thursday, October 12, 2023.. a U.K. Court
Thursday, October 12, 2023.. foreign tribunal
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Victor,
Sycurio's US lawyers are clearly getting testy. They are upset that PCIP's lawyers have both filed a copy of Mrs Justice Bacon's judgment and claimed that is supportive of PCIP's on two claim construction issues in the US case
I doubt one of Mrs Justice |Bacon's judgment has been treated with such disdain before: ‘ and to the extent the Court even considers the UK Judgement, it should be afforded little, or no weight' harumph Sycurio's lawyers. PCIP's filing the UK judgment was also "procedurally improper" according to Sycurio's lawyers, as they had alleged with PCIP's filing (under seal)last month of the arbitrator's ruling on claim construction issues from the Sycurio/Eckoh arbitration case.
In addition, Sycurio lawyers say " Even assuming that the UK Judgement was entitled to any consideration here, Sycurio anticipates seeking permission to appeal the UK Judgement. Accordingly, additional proceedings regarding
the UK Patent are expected to follow and the issues addressed in the UK Judgement may not be fully resolved at this time."
So are we expecting Sycurio's appeal to be filed today?
Anyone know whether you can file an appeal at the weekend and/or what time the appeal deadline is on Monday (noon? 5pm? midnight?)?
Thanks
Thursday, October 12, 2023
86..RESPONSE re83 Notice (Other) RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF RULING IN RELATED U.K. PROCEEDING by Sycurio Limited, Sycurio, Inc.. (Werber, Matthew)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited?showRecaptcha=true
foreign tribunals= UK Court?
---------------------------------------
Lucretuis
Without cheating, or guessing, I wouldn't get the answer.
Whose website boasts as follows:
“We are clear on how we add value and are not afraid to make the calls that ensure we deliver winning outcomes.”
(Clue: The statement is readily falsified by the case of Sycurio).
Victor,
How could one forget that Gary left with his millions a year later? I suppose Gary’s “highly sucessful exit” must have been accompanied by a “highly successful entrance” from Livingbridge, if everyone at the party got a balloon. So why did Gary’s balloon pop after just one year? Did he burst it himself, or did Livingbridge insert a pin? And why?
Lucretuis
Yes. The problem with Gary's "highly successful exit in 2021" is this
09 Jun 2022 Termination of appointment of Gary Barnett as a director on 19 May 2022
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06963868/filing-history
------------------------------------------------
April 15, 2022
“Semafone is now Sycurio, and our bold new look and logo reflects who we are today and our future ambition – making data protection simpler and more accessible for all. As the shift to digital continues to accelerate, building and preserving digital trust is becoming a commercial and operational ‘must have’ and businesses that lead the way in security, privacy and compliance will become the titans of tomorrow,” said Gary E. Barnett, CEO, Sycurio"
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2022/04/15/semafone-sycurio/
-------------------------------------
NoCheddar
Interesting, thanks for that
Sycurio are certainly not holding back on hiring staff at the moment. Look to be making a strong push in the healthcare segment in America. Three vacancies at the moment and six new employees in the past four weeks.
Victor,
It’s worth remembering that Gary cleaned up to the extent of around £3.4m from the “successful
exit”.
As for the four supposed patent inventors, their haul was: David Jackson & Richard Cooper-Driver around £5m each; Tim Crichtley around £4m; and Andy Tew about a “meagre” £0.4m.
Lucretuis
And I only posted this yesterday.
"Before joining Rulai, Gary was the CEO at Sycurio and led it to record recurring revenue growth, resulting in a highly successful exit in 2021"
https://rul.ai/about-rulai/
Victor,
The real growth area is in the net debt of Sycurio and its holding companies: up from £116.8m at 31/12/2021 to £128.7m at 31/12/2022.
Also remarkable that the bank loans in the Sycurio group at 31/12/2022 of £29.77m just exceed the market capitalisation of PCIP!
Lucretuis
"litigation machine with a side hustle in provision of data security attached" Is this where the growth is coming from?
--------------------------------------
I found this withdrawn Semafone Patent, without the usual inventors
Authentication and authorisation
EP3724796A1
Inventor Ben RAFFERTY Dirk Niggemann
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3724796A1/en?inventor=Dirk+Niggemann
Victor,
“Business as usual” meaning Sycurio is a litigation machine with a side hustle in provision of data security attached?
Adam, no idea. I think it's more about the how they will appeal. Judge Bacon *** see below
180. It is also not, strictly speaking, necessary for me to consider the infringement arguments. These were, however, the subject of considerable evidence at the trial, which went not only to the issue of infringement of the current variants of Agent Assist but also the question of the declarations of non-infringement sought in relation to the proposed enhancements of Agent Assist. ***I will therefore address the issues below in case this matter goes further and these points become relevant***
INFRINGEMENT
181. Two issues arise in relation to infringement. The first is whether any of the Agent Assist variants infringe claim 9, either on a normal basis or under the doctrine of equivalents, and including consideration of whether a Gillette/Formstein defence is available on the basis of the Proctor prior art. The second is whether PCI-Pal should be granted a declaration of non-infringement in relation to nine proposed Agent Assist enhancements.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2023/2361.html
------------------------------
UK Court finds patent invalid for obviousness, supports availability of Gillette and Formstein defence
On 25 September 2023, Mrs Justice Bacon handed down her decision in Sycurio v PCI-Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat), finding the subject patent invalid for obviousness and not infringed. The Judge also noted that she would have accepted PCI-Pal’s reliance on a Gillette/Formstein defence. Decision here.
Sycurio sued PCI-Pal for infringement of GB 2473376 (the Patent) which related to methods of processing calls in a call centre. PCI-Pal counterclaimed that the patent was invalid and sought various declarations of non-infringement in relation to certain enhancements to the system covered by the Patent.
PCI-Pal relied on three pieces of prior art in challenging the validity of the Patent. The Judge found the Patent invalid for obviousness over two of the cited prior art documents.
At the time of writing, the sections of the judgment which address infringement on normal construction and under the doctrine of equivalents remain redacted, as do those considering in detail the applicability of a Gillette/Formstein defence. However, the Judge referred to the comments of Birss LJ in Facebook Ireland v Voxer regarding the Gillette and Formstein defences. The Gillette defence relies on asserting that the allegedly infringing product or method is itself an obvious variant of the prior art at the priority date.
More here
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=11828c2d-6a73-4aae-bd57-ea8c384f5896