focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
From our friends at Chat Gpt. Seems like suing for monetary damages is viable.
"Contempt of Court: Sharing confidential information in violation of court orders or protective orders can lead to a charge of contempt of court. This can result in penalties such as fines, sanctions, or even imprisonment.
Breach of Confidentiality: The party that shares the confidential information may be liable for breaching the confidentiality agreement established during the discovery process. This can lead to legal consequences, including monetary damages, injunctive relief, or other remedies available under contract law.
Exclusion of Evidence: The court may exclude the evidence or information improperly disclosed from consideration during the trial. If the information was crucial to the sharing party's case, this exclusion could significantly impact their ability to present their argument effectively.
Adverse Inferences: If the sharing party's actions are deemed prejudicial or intentional, the court may draw adverse inferences against them. This means the court may assume that the disclosed information would have been unfavorable to their case.
Loss of Legal Advantage: Sharing confidential information can lead to loss of a legal advantage. The other party may gain insights or leverage from the disclosed information, which can negatively impact the sharing party's position in the lawsuit.
Legal Liability: The sharing party may also face potential legal liability if their actions result in harm or damages to the opposing party. This could lead to a separate lawsuit seeking compensation for any losses suffered due to the disclosure."
Truly bizarre. I wonder if it pushes Sycurio closer to a settlement to avoid being sued further themselves.
Makes it appear as though the whole point of the suit was to figure out PCI-Pal's technology. Which is a bit pathetic.
Pretty cool to see PCI Pal added to the Board of Advisors. Esteemed company they're keeping on that board. No competitors on there, far as I can tell.
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/about_us/boa/
Another false dawn or the real thing coming...?
To "vacate PTR" means to cancel or postpone the Pre-Trial Review. This can happen for various reasons, such as if the parties reach a settlement or if there are procedural issues or scheduling conflicts that necessitate a change in the court's timetable. When a PTR is vacated, it means that the hearing will not take place as previously scheduled, and the court may reschedule it for a later date or proceed directly to trial without the need for a Pre-Trial Review.
My best guess is that they've come to an agreement on a portion of the contested patents (perhaps one of them being the one revoked) and are continuing to negotiate the rest. Think that would tie in with the time line?
This is the site to use Victor: https://chat.openai.com/
You need to create an account but it's free.
Last one from me...
"If a consent order has been filed in a patent dispute in the UK, it is a strong indication that the parties have reached a settlement and agreed on the terms of resolution for the dispute.
A consent order is a legally binding agreement between the parties, which sets out the terms of settlement that have been reached. The terms of the consent order may include provisions for the payment of damages, the granting of a license, or other forms of relief.
While the filing of a consent order does not guarantee that a settlement has been reached, it is a positive sign that the parties have made progress towards resolving the dispute. The fact that the parties have agreed to enter into a legally binding agreement suggests that they are committed to resolving the dispute and moving forward.
In general, the probability of a settlement being reached in a patent dispute depends on a variety of factors, including the complexity of the case, the strength of the parties' legal positions, and their willingness to negotiate and compromise. However, the filing of a consent order is a positive indication that the parties have been able to find common ground and reach an agreement, which bodes well for the likelihood of a successful settlement."
Why would the claimant file a particulars of infringement after a consent order?
"It is unusual for a claimant to file particulars of infringement after a consent order has been entered into, as the consent order is a legally binding agreement between the parties that sets out the terms of settlement and resolution of the dispute.
However, there may be circumstances in which a claimant might file particulars of infringement after a consent order has been entered into. For example:
The consent order may only cover certain aspects of the alleged infringement, and the claimant may wish to pursue additional claims of infringement that were not covered by the original agreement.
The claimant may have discovered new evidence or information that was not available at the time the consent order was entered into, which supports their claim of infringement.
The defendant may have breached the terms of the consent order, which could result in the claimant seeking additional relief or remedies.
The parties may have agreed to a consent order that is conditional on certain factors, such as the completion of further testing or analysis, and the claimant may be filing particulars of infringement to provide additional information or evidence to support their claim.
In any case, it is important for both parties to carefully review any new filings or developments in the case, and to seek legal advice if necessary, in order to fully understand the implications of any new information or claims of infringement."
Pretty weird. But thank you Chat GPT.
I got some interesting stuff from Chat GPT on this...
What does the consent order mean?
"A consent order is typically used to resolve a patent dispute without the need for a trial or hearing in court. It can be entered into at any stage of the proceedings, and will typically involve the parties agreeing to certain terms, such as the payment of damages or the granting of a license to use the patented technology.
Once a consent order has been agreed upon by the parties, it must be approved by the court. Once approved, the consent order becomes a binding legal agreement between the parties, and they are required to abide by its terms."
How long does it take to approve?
"In general, if the consent order is straightforward and uncontested, it may be approved relatively quickly, within a matter of days or weeks. However, if the order is more complex or there are objections or concerns raised by the court or the parties, the process could take longer, potentially several weeks or months."
What is Particulars of Infringement?
"In the context of a patent dispute in the UK, the term "particulars of infringement" refers to a document that is filed by the patent holder (the claimant) in order to provide details of how the defendant is allegedly infringing their patent."
What happens if particulars of infringement is filed after the consent order?
"If the particulars of infringement are filed after the parties have entered into a consent order in a patent dispute in the UK, it could have various implications depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
In general, a consent order is a legally binding agreement between the parties, which sets out the terms of a settlement that has been reached between them. Once approved by the court, the parties are required to abide by the terms of the consent order, which may include provisions for the payment of damages, the granting of a license, or other forms of relief.
If the particulars of infringement are filed after the consent order has been entered into, it could potentially lead to a breach of the agreement if the alleged infringement is not covered by the terms of the consent order. This could result in further legal action being taken by one or both parties to resolve the dispute.
However, if the particulars of infringement relate to an infringement that was already covered by the terms of the consent order, it may not have a significant impact on the outcome of the case, as the parties would have already agreed on how to resolve that particular infringement.
In any case, it is important for both parties to carefully review the terms of the consent order and the particulars of infringement, and to seek legal advice if necessary, in order to fully understand the implications of any new filings or developments in the case."
Decent results from Eckoh. Interesting that they don't even talk about their UK business anymore (where I believe PCIP is taking the majority of the market's incremental growth). But they seem to be making decent progress in the US.
Unclear to me at this point how much PCIP and Eckoh directly overlap in the States. Eckoh seems to be pivoting to more of a security/AI product and away from payments, while PCIP fully leans into payments.
NoCheddar/Simon,
Thanks for your post on ADVFN. Sounds like the trial itself takes a few days then the result is made public a few weeks after that. So, UK trial date is 7th June, guess we should have results by end of July. Am I getting that right?
Nice posts Victor and NoCheddar. I'm with you both. Given all the stats around patent lawsuits going the distance before settlement and around the improbability of proving someone has impinged on your patent, it seems very likely that PCIP wins or this settles.
I have a big holding here so have put my money where my mouth is. My only concern is that the US lawsuit in particular has the potential to become a big cash drag over time. However, that is true for both parties and if the UK lawsuit ends favourably I can't see why Sycurio would pursue it.
Not sure I noticed this before, but PCI-Pal now has a page on G2 with a decent number of mostly very good reviews. Sycurio and Eckoh don't seem to have a presence on the site. G2 is the main platform for users to share software reviews (especially in the US), so this is pretty encouraging I think.
https://www.g2.com/products/pcipal/reviews