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.
Nov 23, 2023
Bevan Duncan returns to Livingbridge after spending time as Managing Director of the Strategic Equity division at Gresham House, an AIM listed specialist alternative asset manager and most recently as COO of financial services startup, Mintus. Bevan was previously part of the Livingbridge team from 2005 to 2018, where he played an instrumental role in supporting our investments in Key Travel, Eque2, MLS, Crew Clothing and Pho.
We are delighted to have Bevan back with us working alongside our portfolio management teams to support them in developing, executing and driving strategies to maximise their growth.
Wol Kolade, Managing Partner at Livingbridge said: We are excited to be welcoming these new hires and for Bevan to be back with us. In what has been another unprecedented year, this only shows our commitment to ensuring that we have an experienced and dedicated team in place to continue doing what we do; investing well and delivering great results.
https://www.livingbridge.com/livingroom/livingbridge-announces-series-of-new-hires
-----------------
Livingbridge
17 Jan 24
🎉 We are thrilled to announce the appointment of Bevan Duncan to Partner, as well as a further 11 promotions across the Livingbridge team!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/livingbridge_we-are-thrilled-to-announce-the-appointment-activity-7153003703719849985-hU0W
-----------------
No date
By Bevan Duncan and Ken Wotton, Managers of the Baronsmead VCTs
Unique UK startups thriving despite pandemic pressures
In public markets, the share price volatility has also created attractive opportunities for investment. In the payment card industry, PCI Pal’s cloud-based software provides secure payment infrastructure to call centres. The company, which also fits into the digital transformation and business resilience theme, raised further capital at the start of the pandemic to provide working capital headroom and funding for future growth. The share price has performed strongly since our follow-on investment and we are encouraged by the long-term growth prospects of the company.
https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-unique-uk-startups-thriving-despite-pandemic-pressures
Lucretuis
Yes, I picked out footnote 5 and Dispositive motions. I should have put a line between them.
"Sycurio may deem confidential because they relate to Sycurio’s and its private equity owner’s belief that the litigation would devalue PCI Pal and make it an easier acquisition target."
--------------------------------
CONCLUSION
It is time to streamline this case and prepare it for dispositive motions (and trial if
necessary).
Dispositive motion
A dispositive motion is a request for a ruling that terminates the case in advance of the trial. There are two kinds of dispositive motions: a motion to dismiss, which tests the legal issues, and a summary judgment motion, which looks into the facts.
-----------------------
Next big date January 18, 2024, Amended Infringement Contentions Served
Let's see if
leave may be sought
in this Court to amend infringement contentions after the deadline based on “information
newly discovered or confirmed, through due diligence, regarding an accused product or
prior art”
Victor
I wasn’t quite clear so is this the footnote to which you were referring:
5 Although Sycurio suggests that PCI Pal redacted portions of that email chain to misrepresent the extent of the meet and confer process, the reality is that PCI Pal redacted portions that it believed Sycurio may deem confidential because they relate to Sycurio’s and its private equity owner’s belief that the litigation would devalue PCI Pal and make it an easier acquisition target. Regardless, the emails show that Sycurio never substantively responded.
It is a close-run thing between Mr Silverleaf and the US lawyers as to which is doing the better job for Livingbridge/Sycurio in postponing the inevitable!
I think Simon Hollingsworth’s bonus pot for 2024 and beyond will be rather empty. And still no sign of Wol.
Friday, January 12, 2024
100 .. respm Reply to Response to Motion Fri 01/12 11:37 AM
REPLY to Response to Motion re96 MOTION Limit The Number of Asserted Patent Claims by PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc.. (Dority, James)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
------------------------
Spiky reply, from John F. Morrow ( WOMBLEBOND DICKINSON )
Footnote 5
Dispositive motion
A dispositive motion is a request for a ruling that terminates the case in advance of the trial. There are two kinds of dispositive motions: a motion to dismiss, which tests the legal issues, and a summary judgment motion, which looks into the facts.
Thursday, January 11, 2024
99.. 1 pgs order Scheduling Order Thu 01/11 8:20 AM
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan: Fact Discovery Closes 6/17/2024. Close of Expert Discovery by 9/16/2024. Mediation deadline set for 9/30/2024. Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions due by 11/4/2024. Jury Trial set for 2/19/2025 09:30 AM in Courtroom #5A, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Susan C. Rodriguez on 1/10/2024. (brl)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
-------------------------------------
Pcip, reply should be here tomorrow
98..Replies due by 1/12/2024(Werber, Matthew)
=======================
Waiting for the Transmittal of decision, here
EP3603043 TELEPHONE SIGNAL PROCESSING
Applicant(s) For all designated states
Sycurio Limited
Pannell House
Park Street
Guildford, Surrey GU1 4HN / GB
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP18715240&lng=en&tab=doclist
---------------------------------------
Meanwhile
Patent family: EP3603043 member (below)
Global Dossier: US201816496298 TELEPHONE SIGNAL PROCESSING
Applicants
SEMAFONE LTD [GB]
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/058688340/publication/US2020076953A1?q=pn%3DUS2020076953
Global Dossier: US201816496298
09.01.2024 Abandonment
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201816496298.A&lng=en
---------------------------------------------------
Global Dossier: US202217717500 PROCESSING SENSITIVE INFORMATION OVER VOIP
Applicants
PCI PAL U K LTD [GB]
Inventors
FORSYTH GEOFF [GB]; BRANCO CESAR [GB]; THORPE JAMES [GB]
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/060326700/publication/US2022239705A1?q=pn%3DUS2022239705
Global Dossier: US202217717500
09.01.2024 eGrant day-of Notification
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.202217717500.A&lng=en
This will show up at pacer tomorrow
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
---------------------------
Sycurio Limited v. PCI Pal (U.S.) Inc
99
Jan 11, 2024
Main Document
Scheduling Order
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60385210/sycurio-limited-v-pci-pal-us-inc/
--------------------------
Now end of Jan , to answer, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint
BLIER v. SYCURIO, INC F/K/A SEMAFONE, INC. et al
8..Joint STIPULATION re1 Complaint allowing Defendants extension of time to respond to complaint filed by All Defendants. (Jewell, Jessica)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/50982135/BLIER_v_SYCURIO,_INC_FKA_SEMAFONE,_INC_et_al
Victor,
Thanks. A ringing endorsement of Mrs Justice Bacon from the Court of Appeal. I bet Lord Justice Arnold will hear the Sycurio appeal as well and I bet he will ask why Mr Silverleaf is wasting the Court of Appeal’s time.
Thanks, Lucretuis
As you say "Very predictable"
----
I posted this case in Nov 23
MRS JUSTICE BACON
Between :
EASYGROUP LIMITED
Claimant
- and -
(1) NUCLEI LIMITED
(2) PATHWAY IP SARL
(a company incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg)
(3) REGUS GROUP LIMITED
(4) IWG PLC
Witnesses
easyGroup’s witnesses
13. easyGroup’s principal witness was Sir Stelios, who is the founder, ultimate beneficial owner and director of easyGroup. He provided a witness statement for these proceedings, and also relied on a previous witness statement given in October 2009 for the purpose of his defamation claim against Mr Dixon and others. When cross-examined Sir Stelios was revealed to be a deeply unimpressive witness. He was argumentative, giving answers that were defensive to the point of implausibility, and repeatedly contradicted points set out in one or other of his witness statements. It was clear that he had a poor recollection of the events that formed the background to these proceedings. It also became evident that his most recent witness statement contained substantial material that (contrary to the requirements of Practice Direction 57AC) was not within Sir Stelios’ personal knowledge and recollection, but was instead drafted by his lawyers, giving evidence of points on which Sir Stelios had no clear recollection whatsoever. In those circumstances I unfortunately have to conclude that I can place very little weight on his evidence save where it is corroborated by other evidence in the case, including contemporaneous documents.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/901.html&query=(.2022.)+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(901)+AND+((Ch))
----------
Here is the appeal, for anyone who is interested
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Mrs Justice Bacon
Date: 27 October 2023
Before :
LORD JUSTICE ARNOLD
LORD JUSTICE NUGEE
and
SIR CHRISTOPHER FLOYD
Between :
EASYGROUP LIMITED
- and -
(1) NUCLEI LIMITED
(2) PATHWAY IP SARL
(3) REGUS GROUP LIMITED
(4) IWG PLC
Hearing dates : 10-11 October 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/1247
Https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/getDetail.do?case_id=CA-2024-000006
Very predictable
Victor,
Yes, I had noticed the “s” on expert, too. The only one I was aware of was Mr Willis, whose evidence was helpful to PCIP on claim construction.
I can’t believe Mrs Penn would have been drafted in for her “expertise”, so, like you, I wonder who he/she/they are?
Given the track record so far, how can we be confident that he/she/they wouldn’t breach a confidentiality agreement as a result of being overcome by, for instance, “inadvertency” or “brain frog”? I don’t think we can be; unfortunately.
Lucretuis
Wouldn't normally ask this question, but after the " Breach of confidentiality agreement by Sycurio Ltd"
On page 2, Document 98
" counsel for Sycurio had just begun to analyse the order with its client and
experts"
I thought that Mr Willis was the only Sycurio expert?
Who are the other(s)? and what are they discussing?
----------------------------
Found a free Download for Document 44
Page 2
"Sycurio is presently
coordinating with its expert to schedule and subsequently commence with source code inspection
subject to the source code review protocols set forth in the Court’s protective order. (Dkt. 44 § 9)"
Document 44
9. SOURCE CODE
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561/gov.uscourts.ncwd.105561.44.0.pdf
Victor
Thanks for posting that as I had forgotten that it was due. Seems like the start of the trial could be at least 9 nine months away as fact discovery in the case will run for 6 months after the Case Management Plan is filed (impliedly the plan should be filed soon) and expert discovery a further 3 months after the end of fact discovery. So, on that basis, if the full time allocation is taken, the trial would not start until late 2024 or early 2025.
The name Yale is associated primarily with high intelligence (Yale University) or good security (Yale locks). I assume one or both organisations must have finally complained about Livingbridge’s use of the name Yale in its “Midcos”; hence the recent name changes. Livingbridge and its main executive on its Sycurio investment, Simon Hollingsworth, are associated with a high level of stupidity (for bringing the patent cases) and low levels of security (the breach of the confidentiality agreement in April
2022 in which both Lvingbridge and Sycurio executives participated).
So from now on any company wishing to be associated with stupidity and occasional security incontinence should at least have the word “Livingbridge” or “Sycurio” in its name.
Friday, January 05, 2024
98. respm Response in Opposition to Motion Fri 01/05 10:58 PM
RESPONSE in Opposition re96 MOTION Limit The Number of Asserted Patent Claims by Sycurio Limited. Replies due by 1/12/2024(Werber, Matthew)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/41847299/Semafone_Limited
Yale Midco, 1,2,3 LTD
Now
----------------------------
SYCURIO MIDCO 1 LIMITED
05 Jan 2024..Company name changed yale midco 1 LIMITED\certificate issued on 05/01/24
Change of name by resolution
04 Jan 2024 Appointment of Mr Paul John Greensmith as a director on 27 December 2023
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13451666/filing-history
------------------------------------------------
SYCURIO MIDCO 2 LIMITED
05 Jan 2024..Company name changed yale midco 2 LIMITED\certificate issued on 05/01/24
Change of name by resolution
04 Jan 2024 Appointment of Mr Paul John Greensmith as a director on 27 December 2023
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13451657/filing-history
----------------------------------
SYCURIO MIDCO 3 LIMITED
04 Jan 2024 Appointment of Nick Viney as a director on 1 January 2024
12 Dec 2023..Company name changed yale midco 3 LIMITED\certificate issued on 12/12/23
Change of name by resolution
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13451660/filing-history
Let’s hope someone shanks them before then
Another year on Death Row?
04.01.2024 Summons to attend oral proceedings
From 18- 09- 2024 to 19-09-2024
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LQGOH24GWSRRLKP&number=EP09742359&lng=en&npl=false
-------------------------------------
04.01.2024 Annex to the communication - opposition
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LQGOIHRS1UCGAUY&number=EP09742359&lng=en&npl=false
"In conclusion, it seems at present that none of the above auxiliary request would address all the aspects presently regarded as problematic for the main request without introducing other deficiencies."
Thus, the OD is of the provisional view that none of the request seems allowable.
------------------------
EP All documents: EP2286576
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09742359&lng=en&tab=doclist
Nice work, both. I wish I could contribute an opinion, but it really is all French to me. Kudos to you two for the effort.
Interesting to see the volume here of late. Someone seems to be building a position. Four 100k+ share days in the last six over the Xmas period is certainly noteworthy (even though in absolute terms that is clearly still not a ton of money, but it's a lot for this stock).
Victor
That’s a great selection of documents for anyone wanting to know the key points, and well done for finding a free copy of the Markman ruling . Now even those who were reluctant to fork out $5 can read it.
As you say, it would be interesting to have other people’s views.
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