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.
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.
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?
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.
Furthermore, since Maxwell had the court grant an extension to the discovery period, it is clear that they spared no effort in trying to invalidate our patent .In this aspect of their case, they appear already to have failed.
Maxwell can defend their case either by proving our patent is not valid, e.g. by showing the design was not original. Or they can show their activity did not infringe our patent. IBy arguing the latter, t would appear that they have not been able to discover any reason to invalidate our patent
Royalty payments for invalid patents: Opinion of the Advocate General in Genentech v Hoechst
Published on 7th Apr 2016
Royalty payments for invalid patents: Opinion of the Advocate General in Genentech v Hoechst
Published on 7th Apr 2016
On the 17th March 2016, the Advocate General (AG) determined that a royalty payment clause in a licence agreement is enforceable even after the patent had been deemed invalid This was his opinion of 17 March 2016 in Genentech v Hoechst. I provided a link earlier but that post has disappeared.
BackgrI a royalty payment clause in a licence agreement enforceable even after the patent had been deemed invalid? Yes, says the Advocate General (AG) in his opinion of 17 March 2016 in Genentech v Hoechst. The European Court of Justice’s answer to this question is pending.
Backgr
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/royalty-payments-for-invalid-patents-opinion-of-the-advocate-general-in-genentech-v-hoechst
So it seems that a licensing agreement is enforceable retrospectively after a patent is deemed invalid.
There is a need for ADF to improve their day to day communication with shareholders. A calendar of financial events on their website would be a good start .I say this here in the hope they may see it. I can see no other suitable way way of contacting them except by postal address.