The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Victor,
I share your view that Sycurio’s other two challenged European patents are doomed. Will Sycurio instruct Mathys & Squire to go through the motions of answering the unanswerable by the deadline in October, or will Sycurio “walk” like WG because the “heat” is too much? Either way it could be up to a year before the EPO’s ruling. But if Sycurio walks, at least we’ll know with an even higher degree of confidence what the outcome will be.
Victor
How do you think Sycurio will respond to PCIP’s & Eckoh’s objections to EP2286576 given that it did not reply to their objections to EP3402177 & has now abandoned its appeal against that patent’s revocation? EP2286576 & EP 3402177 are quite similar (one is for a telephone call processor for processing telephone calls comprising voice and data signals & the other for a telephone call processing system etc). Many of the objections from PCIP & Eckoh to EP2286576, especially in respect of added matter & prior art (Proctor) are identical, or very close to identical, to those raised to EP3402177. The EPO revoked EP3402177 because it was not novel in view of Proctor and because it upheld 7 out of 8 of PCIP’s observations about added matter on features of Claim 1 of the patent. The wording on two of these features is identical in claim 1 of EP2286576 & very similar on another two. And how will Sycurio defend EP2286576 against Proctor when it couldn’t (or didn’t) defend EP3402177 first time round?
Victor,
Lots of good stuff in it, as you say. I particularly like the distinction drawn between the two types of post-trial amendment.
I would want to hear (directly) Michael Silverleaf make the case for the amendment at the hearing, it it comes to that!
Victor
Read this judgment and see what you think:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/906.html
Victor,
The second anniversary may, if we are lucky, mark the half-way point, treating the US, UK and EU proceedings as a whole!!
There is some leeway in the extract from the EPO text that you quote ."....an amendment application filed less than one month before trial is likely to be too late." and the next paragraph in the extract which reads: "For these reasons, a patent proprietor may not apply to make a “rewriting” amendment after the first instance judgment." So: an amendment application is best made at least one month before a trial begins to avoid being ruled too late and is precluded after the judgment at first instance. Sycurio got its application in 12 days after the trial finished; is it exploring a corridor of uncertainty?
A key document is addressed to the court:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1020894.0/8cfe2fa1-f4f2-4f4a-ad90-6a2850a27a75/GB2473376-20230711-Court%20Application%20Notice.pdf
Victor has posted references to all the documents on here relating to the proposed patent amendment; the first document dates back to 5th July. Who cares about Caseboard when Victor is on the case?
The reason(s) for Mrs Justice Bacon not hitting her deadline is/are a matter for speculation. It may be as simple as her (self-imposed) deadline was too ambitious, especially given this is her first patent case. Sycurio’s machinations may also have played a part, I guess. But we simply don’t know.
Victor,
Lol. Yes, Dentons clearly liked boring the EPO into submission whereas Dummett Copp know when enough is enough. Judging by the length of PCIP’s and Eckoh’s EPO submissions, PCIP’s legal fees will be less than half Eckoh’s & for the same result.
Victor,
Let’s hope the umpires intervene if it is aluminium.
Very powerful letter from Dummett Copp as you say. The contents make considerable sense as what Livingbridge/Sycurio doing looks like a blatant attempt to game the system. Will Denton Hall also weigh in on behalf of Eckoh?
Victor,
Good spot! It looks like the current subs not paid unless administrative "brain frog" has infected the EPO & the fee has been paid.
Whatever the case at the EPO, there certainly seems to have been an outbreak of legal "brain frog" at Sycurio : their legal strategy seems to change almost week to week. Perhaps Sycurio's changing patent lawyers (again) & making a belated attempt to defend the challenged European patents is because not having done so previously has not been a good look, especially regarding EP2286576, the one similar to the UK patent.
At least Sycurio is nothing if not inconsistent: on July 5th, as you say, it didn't want the amendment to the UK patent advertised; by July 20th, it did want the amendment to be advertised! It is not clear from the published correspondence what caused the change of mind.
Let's see who pops up with an objection. No doubt. the big legal brains on the Sycurio side behind their coherent legal strategy will have all angles covered.......
Victor,
Having not responded to the opposition from Eckoh & PCIP to the validity of its patent, it is remarkable that Sycurio wants to appeal the patent's subsequent revocation and has been granted an extension of time to do so.
Sycurio's approach seems a bit like a batsman, back in the pavilion after being given out LBW and not referring the decision to the DRS, belatedly wanting to refer the decision. Not allowed in cricket, of course, but evidently OK with the EPO. Will be interesting to read the appeal.