RE: Basis of move to dismiss14 Dec 2020 12:03
Stokey12, in relation to your 10.31 post my only comment would be that I agree with you.
1. EQT have already said that the equipment identified in the picture predated the Aries patent applications and that the EQT gasification equipment used now is very much more advanced than that shown in the image. Therefore the equipment challenged was not used.
2. Submission was woefully inadequate - pathetic even, opportunistic and conducted by chancers.
3. Prior art is applicable where the equipment challenged by Aries was offered by EQT and was included to support, as you have said, the EQT defence.
As stated numerous times, it is either prior art or there is no similarity and no infringement.
Thank you for taking the time to go through the documents, I am not criticising your efforts I just find it immensely frustrating when the topic goes to 'what will happen to the SP if ?' question comes up. We can see, logically that EQT have a very robust defence and its incredibly unfortunate that they are in this position. However, they have told us in the RNS what their defence would be and that is what they have done.
No, onwards to a great 2021 for EQT and the sector. DP is really leading this business to greatness.