Member Info for MIKECC

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

i BELIEVE THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE WAS 11 March 2022 As Maxwell are currently arguing non infringement, does this not indicate that nothing could be found to undermine our patent ?

If Maxwell are arguing 'Non infringement' , does this not indicate they recognise our IP as a valid patent? i.e. they are not challenging the patent itself?

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.

And they just keep coming!

It is the customer who will decide the future of this company and this share. If the customer continues to buy all we can make, everything else is just background noise.

Do we have an offer the market wants to buy? The market is buying all we can produce !

Todays presentation appears to confirm that CPX are competing well with their product range in a market that is destined to grow exponentionally in step with IOT etc. . As to the court case,, we have already won before in this same court regarding the same IP. External forces can affect all shares . The one certainty is that nothing can hold back the march of supercaps. CPX seem well placed to take a significant share of this huge market

If CPX sue AVX for payment and AVX successfully resist on the grounds our patents are not valid, our iP is instantly trashed. If we don't chase them , what message does this send, especially to the Tesla court?

At times like this, there are always insiders who know what is coming. The SP has continued to slide .So sadly I am not optimistic re tomorrow. I hope i am wrong. This is my second biggest investment. GLA

a long time ago I decided that what ever it was that AFC had, it was not something that met the needs of the market, or they would have bought it yonks ago.so I sold at a profit around 26p. I think. I look in now and again to see if things have changed. Sadly not. I will keep looking. Perhaps one day...

How can I buy more Hex Purus, Hargreaves will; sell but not buy?

can anyone update with what happened in the mediation hearing?

Since reaching their year high, Nel have received a never ending string of orders, while the SP has more than halved in value. Nel clearly have an offer that meets the needs of the market, which is the key to success for any business.

Not difficult , surely? Who do I listen to The posters? Or Toyota?

Wikipedia says about a Markman hearing 'evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent.' The prosecution history would include our previous winning judgments ?

I have nervously sat tight as Nel has been hammered over many months. I assumed this was due to its involvement with Nkola and
and their downhill ride, both vehicle and share price. Did i get this wrong?