Member Info for Newuncle

Annie,

A simple case of customers placing shorter term orders of 3 months instead of previously 12 months at a time.

The current level of committed orders outstanding totals US$1.4 million, which is up 75% on the same time last year.

Historically, CAP-XX received blanket orders, which covered the customer's next 12 months scheduled demand. Over the past two years, customers ordering patterns have changed, mainly as a result of overstocking and overall supply chain issues.

Today, customers are typically only willing to provide firm orders which cover the following three months, and it is now uncommon to receive orders which cover a full 12 months.

As a result, the orders outstanding are predominately for customer delivery during the period ending December 2023. Sales representatives are reporting that the overstocking issue in the supercapacitor markets are easing, and there is increasing confidence that demand and market confidence is beginning to return.

Anyone selling at these prices is just dumb as. Good riddance.

Moved with buys. Silly sellers at these prices holding it back for now but their shares will be taken up soon enough.

The current order backlog is US$1.15 million and order intake is supportive of a further improvement in revenues.

And CPX has a huge backlog of orders to fulfill.

As the broker says the court case was a distraction. With hindsight IMO a bit pointless chasing historic licence fees on expired patents.

CAP-XX is pleased to announce that the repositioning of its distribution strategy, that has been communicated over the past six months, continues to progress, with the appointment of a further European distributor, in addition to one in India and two in South Africa.

New sales and application opportunities have already been identified by these distributors and purchase orders are anticipated to be received in the coming weeks.

The Company is also in the final stages of negotiation with additional distributors and sales representatives and these appointments will be announced once the terms are agreed.

This is undoubtedly a disappointing outcome, especially considering the previously successful outcome versus Ioxus upholding the same patents. It goes to show the risk involved in these David vs Goliath IP infringement cases and that the best lawyers can find holes where there were none previously seen. On the practical side, this distraction is now over, and the company can fully focus on the task of delivering revenue growth and profitability under existing cash resources. In this respect we iterate our view that CAX-XX is funded through FY24E even on a downside scenario. - We estimate a downside revenue scenario for FY24E based on the revenue run rate for the first four months of the year is around A$5m. Using our current modelling of costs, this would imply a potential EBITDA loss for the full year of cA$1.5m, which would be covered by a cash balance of A$0.5m four months into FY24E (as per the AGM statement) plus the net A$1m R&D rebate received on 5 December, but additional legals costs are likely to make this cash position tighter. - Looking ahead, the counter claim by Tesla against CAP-XX is still in its infancy with hearings years away, and so this should not affect the current investment case. We continue to view the company at an exciting tipping point with a strong and growing product range, and an invigorated and incentivised management team and distributors to drive sales growth to profitability ASAP. In the meantime, we continue to await the outcome of new CEO Lars’s sales pipeline analysis.

£5m MCAP, Debt Free, Fully Funded, Fast Growing.....

Well with the shares now at an ALL TIME LOW, there is only one way they can go from here once the dust settles on todays news.

Question is not so much If but rather When.

WTF did they need 5 days in court to decide such a simple matter?

None of it adds up

To me it makes CPX look like they got carried away after previous successful litigations and went for Maxwell historic monies just because they could. Hindsight says that was just a bridge too far and company really didn't need to go there, especially after today's market reaction. Hmmmm......

US7382600B2 United States

Inventor George Lange PaulRory Albert James PynenburgPeter John MahonAnthony Michael VassalloPhilip Andrew JonesSarkis KeshishianAnthony Gaetano Pandolfo

Current Assignee Cap Xx Ltd

Worldwide applications

1999 DE WO JP US AU EP CA 2003 US 2005 US US 2007 JP 2011 JP

Application US11/228,294 events

PTAB case IPR2019-01179 filed (Not Instituted - Merits) 2005-09-19

Priority to US11/228,294 2005-09-19

Application filed by Cap Xx Ltd 2007-08-23

Publication of US20070195486A1 2008-06-03

Publication of US7382600B2 2008-06-03

Application granted 2020-07-04

Adjusted expiration

Status Expired - Lifetime

US6920034B2 United States

InventorGeorge Lange PaulRory Albert James PynenburgPeter John MahonAnthony Michael VassalloPhilip Andrew JonesSarkis KeshishianAnthony Gaetano Pandolfo

Current Assignee Cap Xx Ltd

Worldwide applications

1999 DE WO JP US AU EP CA 2003 US 2005 US US 2007 JP 2011 JP

Application US10/635,775 events

First worldwide family litigation filed 2003-08-07

Priority to US10/635,775 2003-08-07

Application filed by Energy Storage Systems Ltd 2004-02-19

Publication of US20040032698A1 2005-07-19

Application granted 2005-07-19

Publication of US6920034B2 2019-12-06

Anticipated expiration Status Expired - Lifetime

CAP-XX filed its complaint against Maxwell on September 16, 2019, alleging willful direct and indirect infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,920,034 (“the ’034 Patent”) and 7,382,600 (“the ’600 Patent”) by numerous Maxwell capacitor products, including certain ultracapacitor cells for hybrid vehicle applications—just months after Tesla acquired Maxwell in May 2019 for $218 million.

Mm99

So what was the the point of the court case?

Makes you wonder why they carried on with the case for 4 years if patents in question expired . Was it just get historical fees? On that basis today's sell off is overdone?

5 Dec - Funded even on current run rates – The receipt of the R&D tax credit is good news and helps bolster the cash balance before the conclusion of the IP Infringement case with Maxwell/Tesla, which is set for hearing from 11-15 December. Whilst we still anticipate a positive outcome, based on the historically successful defence of the same IP infringement with AVX, we estimate that CAX-XX is funded through FY24E without an IP infringement settlement or award, even on a downside scenario. As previously reported, we estimate a downside revenue scenario for FY24E based on the revenue run rate for the first four months of the year is around A$5m. Using our current modelling of costs, this would imply a potential EBITDA loss for the full year of cA$1.5m, which would be covered by a cash balance of A$0.5m four months into FY24E (as per the AGM statement) plus the net A$1m R&D rebate announced today, although additional legals costs (potentially in the range of A$200-250k) will make this cash position tighter. However, we believe revenue expectations by the new management will likely be set between this downside scenario (A$5m) and our current expectations (A$7m), with this to be established after the completion of the CEO’s sales pipeline analysis which is due soon. Looking further ahead, we see the signing of the JV with Ionic a positive indicator that its materials are helping achieve a material uplift in product performance and that, following a period of supply chain qualification and product testing, new products under this JV could be with customers in CY25. We iterate our view that the turnaround at CAP-XX is showing its first green shoots, the company looks funded through FY24E

# Trades 295

Vol. Sold 22,466,921 Sold Value £172.54k

Vol. Bought 23,723,657 Bought Value £181.78k

Amazes me how looking at trades data today published Buys v Sells are almost the same. Ok I understand that MMs spreads can influence reported trade types but they can't be a million miles apart in reality.

MMs clearly decided that CPX was getting seriously marked down today and their position hasn't shifted despite the buying seen.

Funny old game at times.

Annie,

Those would have to be confirmed later by the court.

Annie,

Please read this:

When it comes to who pays for these fees, the usual rule is that each party is liable for their own. The “American Rule,” implemented in the United States, is founded on the premise that each party bears the cost of their own legal fees.