Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Good point leycrjb - could be the reason this client is coming back!
Cavendish 9th November - page six:
We note the group has only lost 2 mid-sized customers (with less than £100k of ACV) since 2018, with one implementing their own solution and now being in talks to re-implement PCI Pal, and NHS Test & Trace when the service closed in 2023.
Hi Victor,
Thought this was an interesting little snippet in yesterday's Prelims:
"Sycurio also accepted that the variants submitted by PCI Pal, which were changes it could make to its solution, would also not have infringed."
Bit odd that, because they are hiring for a Marketing Manager, though UK based.
You will be responsible for driving global demand generation activities, and working with internal team and external agencies to develop integrated digital campaigns including paid social, paid search, content and nurture activities. The successful candidate will work with our sales team to grow the pipeline through generating great content, new communication channels and smart nurture activity.
https://www.pcipal.com/why-us/careers/marketing-manager-uk-based/
Hello All,
I've heard back from PCIP and their lawyers have said that the ruling could be between two and three weeks from the hearing, though that's not set in stone.
On the DWP tender, PCIP can handle the outbound calls part of the tender.
Hi Victor,
Thanks for that update on the DWP contract. Looks like PCIP keep the contract until August then whoever wins the tender takes over.
I'm just wondering if the likes of PCIP and ECK can offer what the DWP require in the new tender.
"The new SCPS Contract is required to ensure continuing capability for DWP to receive customer payments in a PCI DSS compliant manner and provide all Outbound Telephone calls for the department."
In particular the provision of outbound calls.
What do you reckon?
Certainly a nice contract!!
Adam,
4. Exactly, they mean nothing to clients. They are only tools to have a competitive advantage and a form to protect that advantage. Most clients won't know anything about the patent dispute, it is very niche. It could be used as a technique to cast doubt on your competitor but as we see it hasn't slowed down PCIP and it isn't slowing down Sycurio's business development.
It looks like they did this to slow down PCIP by it burning cash. £4m. Think how much more advanced PCIP would be with £4m. They've probably had to scrimp and save to keep developing. They don't want to do another equity raise when so close to profitability, it would be a sign of weakness. They've had to go into battle formation. They are under attack by an unethical opponent.
I have emailed the founder at Livingbridge to point out the unprofessional business practices at Sycurio. He didn't reply.
Sycurio are certainly not holding back on hiring staff at the moment. Look to be making a strong push in the healthcare segment in America. Three vacancies at the moment and six new employees in the past four weeks.
Victor,
These are two excellent sites:
Find a Tender
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Search
Contracts Finder
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search
Looking through Contracts Finder there is a contract from 2017 for the DVLA's PCI DSS which was won by The Logic Group, who were subsequently acquired by Barclays. 1st time I've come across them. Contract value £3m.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/69e3eb45-c456-418a-950d-35fc3acdaf25?origin=SearchResults&p=2
https://home.barclays/content/dam/home-barclays/documents/who-we-are/our-governance/s.172%20-%20The%20Logic%20Group%20Enterprises%20Limited-2.pdf
If ECK win, they'll RNS it straightaway. Wouldn't hurt PCIPs 2024 forecasts much but would reduce the 2025 turnover by c.£1m.
Let's hope the Open Banking solution, AI Speech Recognition and keen pricing keep it with PCIP.
It looks a very juicy contract. Wonder if Sycurio tendered and Key IVR.
Key IVR state on their job openings that demand for their offerings is skyrocketing.
Afternoon Victor,
According to this notice the decision is due today - see full notice text:
https://www.sell2wales.gov.wales/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=FEB428330
Good point! They can lodge an appeal, see how they do in America and if that goes south they can withdraw the appeal.
Carter/Ledyard - 2018:
In the U.S. approximately 4,057 patent infringement suits were filed in 2017. Roughly 90% of patent suits filed each year are abandoned or settled. Of the 300 or so remaining, two thirds never go to trial and are adjudicated on summary judgment, meaning that a Judge decides the outcome of the case before there is a trial.
The decision by the Court on the meaning of a claim term can end the litigation long before any jury trial. For example, the Court could decide on a broad definition that encompasses prior art references never considered by the Patent Examiner. Counsel for the alleged infringer then moves for summary judgment, and the Court proceeds to find the patent invalid based on its own claim construction. Alternatively, the Court could decide on a narrow claim construction which results in a claim so narrow that it no longer covers the infringing product.
Https://www.clm.com/a-litigation-review-before-the-patent-issues-can-improve-the-chance-of-success-during-patent-litigation/
Hi Lucretius,
This is what ChatGPT states:
In a patent case, the plaintiff may want an ongoing arbitration with another party to remain secret from the defendant (or alleged infringer) for several strategic reasons:
1. Protecting Trade Secrets and Confidential Information: The plaintiff may be concerned that sharing sensitive technical details and trade secrets related to the patent during arbitration could inadvertently provide the defendant with valuable information. By keeping the arbitration confidential from the defendant, they can minimize the risk of disclosing proprietary information.
2. Avoiding Legal Strategy Disclosure: The plaintiff may want to shield their legal strategies and arguments from the defendant. By keeping the arbitration secret, they can prevent the defendant from gaining insights into their legal tactics, which could be advantageous in subsequent litigation or negotiations.
3. Maintaining Negotiation Leverage: If the plaintiff believes that the arbitration process may lead to a settlement or licensing agreement, they may want to maintain negotiation leverage. Keeping the details of the arbitration secret can give the plaintiff more control over when and how they reveal information, which can be useful in achieving a favorable outcome.
4. Avoiding Prejudice or Bias: The plaintiff might be concerned that if the defendant becomes aware of the ongoing arbitration, it could lead to biases or prejudices that affect future negotiations or litigation. Keeping the arbitration confidential can help ensure a fair and unbiased process.
5. Minimizing Legal Costs: Similar to the previous response, the plaintiff may prefer arbitration over litigation as a means to reduce legal costs. By keeping the arbitration confidential, they can save on legal fees and avoid protracted court battles, regardless of the outcome.
6. Strategic Timing: The plaintiff may want to strategically time the disclosure of arbitration details to maximize its impact or to negotiate from a position of strength. Keeping the arbitration confidential allows them to control when and how they reveal information to the defendant.
7. Avoiding Negative Publicity: Patent disputes can attract public attention and media coverage, which may not always be favorable to the parties involved. By keeping the arbitration confidential, the plaintiff can avoid negative publicity and maintain a more discreet approach to dispute resolution.
It's worth noting that the decision to keep an arbitration confidential from the defendant is typically subject to the terms of the arbitration agreement and the rules of the chosen arbitration forum. In many cases, both parties may agree to confidentiality provisions as part of the arbitration process. However, the specific reasons for seeking confidentiality may vary depending on the circumstances and the plaintiff's strategic objectives in the case.