D4t4 Solutions Share Discussion Threads

[valhamos] 23/6/2019 16:44

As has been pointed out above this patent is due to expire in a couple of years anyway.

As far as I can make out this is not the most important patent that Celebrus has. It has other patents that protect its method of capturing customer data without the use of tags. Its competitors use tags and their solution is less efficient.

[deanowls] 23/6/2019 16:42

If it were to be material I would have expected an announcement already.

[nitbhav06] 23/6/2019 16:15

It is a huge risk for us if this issue crystalises. The instant data capture is our MOAT, nobody else on the planet has this. It allows us to command premium prices probably for Celebrus. This is my largest holding and I am worried. This will definitely be documented in the next rns, it has to be. Gl all.

[rgmgo] 23/6/2019 12:00

Some good detective work on this thread and I think ownski, nimbo1 & trident5 have gone a long way to categorizing the risk. In short it is highly unlikely that this is of any materiality to D4t4. 1. As already indicated if management thought otherwise they would have been required to make a regulatory disclosure. 2. Patents in the UK typically last 20 years, it is very probable therefore that there is minimal residual value in this case. 3. Were there any demonstrable economic harm from patent infringement it appears that D4t4 would be the recipient not the payee 4. In the light of 1 & 2 I think it is unlikely management will comment on this with the results, to do so gives unnecessary profile to a de minimis issue. I'd also add that Brexit may have implications for UK patent law which might explain a flurry of recent activity in this and other cases.

[owenski] 22/6/2019 13:17

As a bit of an aside wrt web page interaction.

I notice that when I navigate for example an ADVFN webpage, if the pointer through redundancy or intention is left over an aspect of the page, and any slight pressure that is used to move the pointer, a new weblink is immediately established - this was not desired and I find it annoying - but when I want to 'click' on the desired web page content, it seems to take relatively more effort.

In simple terms, I click on a thread and it takes deliberate effort, but if the pointer just hovers over an advert, the bloody thing opens up as a new page, it seems however the ADVFN system operates, it's geared towards adverts being accessed even if not desired by the user.

Any advert that's been accessed then appears as a banner within subsequent web page choices.

All I'm saying is user experience and audit is widespread.

Audit trail of web browsing experience is the backbone of pretty much all commercial enterprises.

How the information is utilised to infer customer profiling is the clever bit on top.

FB use these type of techniques too.

Back on subject -



That's a hefty piece of work to interpret.

[nimbo1] 22/6/2019 11:54

agree with you and clarification will be welcomed

[owenski] 22/6/2019 11:37

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this a request for an opinion on a patent. The essence being that the original patent in question is not new or novel but uses approaches that would be known and in common usage at the time, even though internet retail was in it's infancy, user analysis was already undertaken. It seems to be straining a point to suggest mouse based point and click analysis is the owned brain child of one party when it was already being utilised.

Strikes me as a weak attempt.

Anyone else reading this the same way.

[nimbo1] 22/6/2019 11:28

Patent disputes are relatively common among tech firms. I’ve been thinking about why the claimant (and competitor) would file now as opposed to more than 16 years ago and it seems highly likely they want to use part of the process d4t4 describe in their patent. Otherwise this wouldn’t have been left alone for more than 15 years! Hence saying the d4t4 patent doesn’t cover anything new (basically meaning the competition should be able to use this process too as it isn’t d4t4’s process to patent...or indeed they are concerned by d4t4’s progress and are trying to disrupt it). Assume we haven’t heard anything from management yet as they don’t deem it anything but a distraction but I would imagine it will get a mention somewhere in the results.

[nitbhav06] 22/6/2019 10:53

I was thinking of sending an email on Monday.

[jeanesy] 22/6/2019 10:01

Needs to be clarified by the company. Has anyone tried emailing them. Has to be a worry if you are invested here , however good the prospects.

[gdjs100] 22/6/2019 06:55

No, we would still be the market leader with first mover advantage in a super high growth segment. Let's not be too sensationalist and see if it's addressed this week.

[nitbhav06] 22/6/2019 06:06

Sh*t, this is really worrying. Super bullish on D4T4 as well. Let's see what happens. The IP gives d4t4 a real MOAT. If that gets taken away we are a nobody.

[gdjs100] 21/6/2019 22:37

Been doing some digging on User Replay on companies house. They look like they are between 15%-25% of the size of D4t4 based off the balance sheet, employees, etc.

[gdjs100] 21/6/2019 22:07

I would imagine at the cutting edge of technology patent challenges come often. It is particularly odd though that this is one from 18 years ago! Often these are settled out of court just because it's not worth the legal costs to defend. Zytronic had one recently they settled out of court for £74k (with £270k legal costs!)As already mentioned had this been material I would have expected an RNS. Hopefully a storm in a teacup.

[trident5] 21/6/2019 21:35

A contingency should be disclosed unless the risk of economic outflow is considered remote. I cannot see any disclosure in the accounts.

Having said that I have little faith these days that companies and auditors give proper consideration to keeping their shareholders informed on such matters.

[mfhmfh] 21/6/2019 21:34

5th April RNS: 'D4T4 launch major new upgrade to Celebrus Platform'

18th April RNS: Year end trading update - no mention of this so hopefully not significant.

[nimbo1] 21/6/2019 21:15

certainly something to monitor but hopefully (a word I don’t like!!) nothing too messy. directors only sold enough of their option exercise to cover tax but as you say maybe results will shed some light. Patent dispute can be relatively common but one from so long ago seems slightly bizarre...

[norbert colon] 21/6/2019 20:49

These are the important letters for investors to be aware of:

13th May 2019 - from D4T4's patent lawyer:



29th May 2019 from User Replay's patent lawyer.



hxxps://www.userreplay.com/

Looks messy and will probably need to go to arbitration or require an independent 3rd party expert opinion for the IPO to make a decision. It's hard to draw any firm opinion but it's an unwanted and costly distraction.

Will need to monitor the IPO site for further updates. Possibly the results next week will make reference to it.

As far as I am aware D4T4 have 3 patents for the same process / technology - one for the UK, one for the US and one for Worldwide. The patent is fundamental to their unique offering and the success of Celebrus to-date so its clearly concerning and we can all only hope that they are able to defend the patent in its entirety.

[gdjs100] 21/6/2019 17:28

Or they just get paid off.

[shieldbug] 21/6/2019 17:01

On the plus side its not Salesforce or Microsoft that are the other party. I know that D4T4 regularly describe their business as patented but not really sure what the real value of this is. If the other company is challenging D4T4's patent it may end in a licensing deal - as the cheapest solution for both parties.

[norbert colon] 21/6/2019 16:26

Hepworth Brown acting for Replay Ltd claim the D4t4 patent to be “invalid”;

[norbert colon] 21/6/2019 16:22

Cleveland Scott York are acting for D4T4 and have defended the claim.

[norbert colon] 21/6/2019 16:16

Check the opinion request dated 15th April. It claims that the D4T4 patent overlooked "prior art" dating from 1998 ie the D4T4 patent might be in question. That's my reading of it. Worrying but I need to read all the documents.

[silverfern] 21/6/2019 16:10

I'll give it a go. It looks like D4T4 have a patent which they registered back in 2000. More recentl User Replay Ltd filed a patent for something for which D4T4 has requested an opinion, presumably because they believe it breaches elements of their patent. That;s my reading anyway

[battlebus2] 21/6/2019 14:22

Interesting 🤔