Member Info for MIKECC

Various explanations on the web make it clear that a Summary Judgement is w hat it says it is. i.e. a judgement, made in place of a costly court hearing.

can anyone tell me % of what? Entire market cap ?

I came in at low p years ago. Sold around 26p years ago s I concluded AFC did not have anything the market wanted to buy.I now look in from time to time to see if anything has changed. Everything except sales. To have failed so spectactularly to sell anything over so many years surely indicates that there must be something fundamentally wrong with AFC's business model?

This motion from us or them do we know?

Has anyone seen a Chairman's AGM statement? This is surely usual?

We only have a fragmented view of what has been happening in this case .But putting these fragments together, my impression is that Maxwell's case has been hitting a brick wall. First their critical failure to discover prior art. Then submissions to the court dismissed by the judge .for reasons given. Now, as you say this late introduction of what appears to be a move towards damage limitation. My conclusion is that Maxwell are running out of steam. Just my thoughts. But just bought a few more.as it does look as if things are going our way.

Streamers are here to stay. They are here to stay because streaming is the most easily accessible and most cost effective way to deliver content to the audience. That is not going to change because Netflix has lost customers to the increasing competition. This is simply a sign that our available market is getting bigger. Streamers will always need content, and with it services from people like us for as long as they are around. Probably forever!

Not long ago This share went from around where it is now to over 14p.Since when , not only has CPX expanded its product and customer base, but our available market has matured and expanded significantly. e.g. IOT, EV etc .Add into the mix our new in house production facilities and the increased margins they bring, and it seems reasonable to think we are in a pretty good place. Judging by our increasing sales, our customers appear to agree.

s Evidence of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. ? 271(f) would appear to relate to importing patented items,. perhaps from Maxwell's China partners ?

The one and only thing we know at his stage is that Maxwell failed in their extended and costly efforts to invalidate our patent(s)They now argue instead that their activities did not infringe our patent. It will be up to the jury to decide if this is so, Presumably under guidance from the judge.

Wind power can never be more than one component of a mix. Nuclear is decades away. So we all need gas. And it can't all come from Russia. Ask the Germans. There is money in gas. So it won't be left in the ground.

I came in at a few pence, then saw my modest investment soar to a huge paper profit(SP over 1£ Like an idiot I failed to take the profit .I don't look for anyone else to blame. I now see no reason why this share should not once again reach the same dizzy heights. Same licenses, same territory, better management and, above all, an energy climate that makes what we have even more valuable than it was in the JP days.

From the internet: Section 284 applies to damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 (f), wherein Congress defined new acts of patent infringement: Whoever, with the requisite mental state, exports components of a patented invention from the United States for combination “ outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States,” “shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §271 (f) (emphasis added).

If Maxell were confident in their current defence that their actions did not infringe our patent, they would not have spent a fortune trying to discover prior art with which to invalidate our patent . Having now failed to discover anything of significance, even after an extended deadline granted by the
court. Maxwell are lumbered with a defence in which they clearly have little confidence themselves.

CWR successfully completed a 12 month trial of their steel cell as an attachment to domestic gas fired boilers benefitting users by providing a proportion of their electricity requirements. Has there been any introduction of this application in the real world of soaring fuel prices?

The weakness of Netflix is due to increased competition, but this indicates a growing streaming industry and with it a bigger market for ADF services.

it is perhaps not surprising that Maxwell have not yet settled out of court. Why would they, while they were still trying to discover prior art and thus invalidate our patent? the deadline for that possibility has apparently now passed and it is only now that they have to decide if they should go for an out of court arrangement.

We know from cpx that licence fees have not been paid by one licensee .It seems likely that before paying up, any licensee would first watch the Maxwell case to see if Maxwell could discover 'prior art' to invalidate our patent. The latest court updates appear to confirm that no such prior art has been discovered and that Maxwell are proceeding on the basis that the validity of our patent is not disputed.

The court case updates are statements of fact, straight from the court. And since these show that Maxwell are arguing that they have not infringed our patent this confirms that Maxwell recognise that we have a valid patent.

Of course, I am assuming that the discovery deadline of March 11ended the discovery option for Maxwell.