Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Maxwell possibly trying to delay again? From Wikipedia:
In American procedural law, a continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial, or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either or both parties in the dispute, or by the judge sua sponte. In response to delays in bringing cases to trial, some states have adopted "fast-track" rules that sharply limit the ability of judges to grant continuances. However, a motion for continuance may be granted when necessitated by unforeseeable events, or for other reasonable cause articulated by the movant (the person seeking the continuance), especially when the court deems it necessary and prudent in the "interest of justice."
Or it could be this guy: https://www.fr.com/team/michael-vincent/
Seems to specialised in patent litigation, especially in Delaware.
Allenby Report for those interested: http://www.allenbycapital.com/research/research-cpx_48_1505694532.pdf
Given these are only the half year interim results, and its the first time I have seen the words 'Adjusted EBITDA profit', it seems to me that there is a chance the full year results might actually show a profit for the first time since I bought in September 2015.
Overall, I thought it was a positive set of interim results, with the negatives outweighed by the positives. The future looks promising to me.
If my reading and understanding of it is right, and it may not be, it will be interesting to see if the share options are taken up in December given the issue price of £0.05 and £0.115. If the directors do take these options up then it will be a big hint that they see things in the long term going very well, and a share price eventually being higher that that.
Of course I may be reading it completely wrong.
Obviously we do not know for certain that we are or are not going after XSP. In my eyes from the little bit of reading I have done trying to understand the patent infringement process, there are a couple of things that need to happen first before an infringement case can happen. I am no lawyer nor claim these are correct, simply my understanding from trying to read a number of articles around this. First CPX need to identify the products they think are infringing and evidence this. They need to communicate with XSP and inform them they are infringing the patent. CPX then need to allow time for XSP to stop selling the product or licence. If XSP continue to sell the product knowing they are infringing, then this needs to be evidenced. IMHO only then can CPX take them to court. If they do it before this process is concluded then they risk the claim being thrown out at a very early stage. As I said, this is purely my understanding and may be completely wrong, which I accept! I can't see the above process being very quick, and given the Ioxus case isn't yet concluded, I personally don't expect to see any infringement case against XSP to begin until it is. I would think it will give more firepower for CPX in a case against XSP if the fact that they won the case against Ioxus who sold them the infringing products is legally shown to have lost the case for the products sold. Given my thoughts on the above, IMHO it will be a while before we see any official litigation against XSP.
I don't think having their uSTART capacitors recalled in December will be helping their bottom line either. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2019/RCLRPT-19V916-4060.PDF
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/amp/news/908744
I can only assume GW is referring to this part of the RNS: "Murata has also undertaken that it shall not assert any rights against CAP-XX under any patents or intellectual property (excluding trademarks) owned by Murata and necessary for CAP-XX to operate the equipment or manufacture and sell certain electrochemical double layer capacitors."
If I'm wrong, GW will hopefully correct me.
Given that it says the following in today's RNS one could assume so as it specifically mentions Itron Smartmeters and Genico PoS terminals:
"The Company has been successful in winning new business from a range of these markets, such as ABB industrial actuators, E-Ink displays, Itron smartmeters, Ingenico POS terminals, Honeywell scanners, Thales systems, Roche wearable pumps for diabetics, Turck electronic locks, VW dashboards and Yamaha sound systems."
Link to pdf: https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02141921
Gold stinger- see the announcement on ASX https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02136778
I use iWeb and if I want to take up the OO I have to accept and have the money cleared in the account by 23:59 on Monday. Not decided if I want to as yet. Will likely leave it to the last minute, but current feeling is that without any news, I won't be giving them anymore money.
Not sure to be honest. With it being the US legal system it wouldn't surprise me. That said, I would have thought the compensation and licensing that would come with a win in this kind of situation would more than cover any legal costs anyway.
It looks like Ioxus and their lawyers have either tried to be clever by claiming that the Field of Mathematics (FOM) value , referenced in the Cap-xx patents, shouldn't be patentable. At least thats my no-legal knowledge understanding and simplificiation.
However the response from Cap-xx and their lawyers clearly states that the patent isn't claiming that and that:
"Ioxus’s assertion that the patents-in-suit are directed to the abstract idea of “a mathematical formula conceived by a
third party” ignores the actual claim language and the invention sought to be patented. D.I. 34 at p. 2. Ioxus produces an oversimplification of the patents-in-suit and reduces them to a formula that neither includes all the relevant claims nor subsumes the actual patents sought. Contrary to Ioxus’s arguments, neither patent is directed to a formula, method, or process. Rather, the asserted claims bring together numerous novel and patentable improvements previously unknown in the field of EDLCs. "
Feels like Ioxus and their defence have just admitted that their products are infringing on the patent and are trying to get out on a weak and tenuous technicality.
But I'm not a lawyer so what do I know. :D