We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pci-pal Plc | PCIP | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 61.00 | 08:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61.00 | 61.00 | 61.00 | 61.00 | 61.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| SUPPORT SERVICES |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/3/2024 08:32 by adamb1978 I agree ppmm. This also makes the ultra-bull case more credible.That ultra-bull case is that PCIP gets to the same scale relative to the size of the economy in the US that it is in the UK (arguably there is hte potential to get larger given the even more consumer focussed nature of the US). In that situation, if you say that the UK side of PCIP will be around £20m within 3-4 years, and the US economy is 6x the size of the UK, then turnover has the potential to get well over £100m....admittedly over say 7-10 years, but still there is a logic to it. |
Posted at 12/3/2024 18:48 by adamb1978 HI AndreAgreed, and raising capital to capitalise on strong growth is a great thing to see. One side benefit is that its possible that this could make the patent nonsense go away. We know that Sycurio appear to have done this in order to drive down PCIP share price and then make an offer when the share price was rock bottom...and in doing so acquire a cloud-first solution to replace their old-school legacy rubbish. Well, we all now know that PCIP is profitable, growing fast and now has plenty of cash. So now that PCIP arent going to be ruined by the legal costs, the question for Sycurio is whether they throw more good money after bad. It wouldnt surprise me if they tried to save face with some sort of negotiated settlement in the US and save themselves another pile of legal costs over the next year. US lawyers are far from cheap! Adam |
Posted at 29/2/2024 20:59 by adamb1978 Also need to remember that Sycurio need to win 2 battles in order for it to hit PCIP:1) prove that the patents shouldnt be invalidated 2) prove that PCIP infringe them Both being decisions which a previous judge went against. So say they have a 20% chance of winning each individually; that means they have a 4% chance of winning both. |
Posted at 06/2/2024 21:47 by adamb1978 Not sure about that at all Nickelmer. PCIP's price never got to crazy levels for a SaaS business and today is still at c.2x ARR.Given PCIP's churn is so low (3%) then all the ARR wins are incremental to the top-line and with mainly re-selling via partners they dont need to scale sales & marketing costs like crazy. They just need to get the court stuff out of the way - there's enough investors which won't look at PCIP because of that, and therefore the price risks drifting. Look what happened after the UK win - the share price shot up...only to come off again once the appeal was announced |
Posted at 06/2/2024 08:35 by adamb1978 Court cases always are.As above, I dont think its a disaster. With small caps valuations where they are, PCIP would be a sitting duck without this. PCIP should be nicely profitable this time next year, and the court shenanigans doesnt seem to be stopping them winning new customers! |
Posted at 27/1/2024 14:49 by adamb1978 Yes, a few rationales for their action:- upside vs downside: maybe they think that incremental costs are say £500k given lots of the work will already have been done, but if they win they'll get off paying PCIP's £1m costs, get their costs refunded (£2m?), damages awarded (few million?)...so even if was a 5%-10% chance of winning, you can probably justify it on a probability weight basis - impact on PCIP business as usual: maybe trying to trash PCIP and stop them competing as effectively? Drain PCIP's cash resources and further delay their move into Cont EUrope? - share price: we know that they launched the initial stuff which hammered PCIP's share price...and then Sycurio approached PCIP with an offer. You dont have to be massively cynical to believe that the legal action could have been with the intention of then trying to acquire PCIP. Perhaps they're trying to same trick again? Hard for it to work this time given people will be less believing that PCIP will lose... I'm not massively concerned about this appeal given that for it to hit PCIP they have to: 1) convince the court that their patents should not be invalidated 2) prove that PCIP infringed. So its a double hurdle to overcome...and each hurdle a previous judge founded against them. Is each a 10%-20% chance? Perhaps...so to get over both, its a 1%-4% chance. And even if the 1%-4% chance occurs, PCIP have a workaround. Really is noise IMO |
Posted at 08/10/2023 10:39 by simon gordon "There are also a number of POCs in progress with partners for our new user interface and digital payment capabilities that we have already announced would be launched fully later this year."-PCIP, 3/10/23. "Secure Payment Solutions" I'm presuming that an agent when a payment goes through pulls up PCIP's "secure payment solutions" user interface and has a choice of credit card, open banking, digital wallet and buy now pay later. With a Sycurio or Eckoh user interface, all you have is a credit card. How hard will it be for them to catch up with their solution? PCIP has been at it two and a half years and is now close to going into a full launch. I presume it's much easier for an agent to have one "secure payment solutions" page to go to for all payments, rather than move from one solution to another. A one-stop shop. It looks like PCIP are streets ahead of Sycurio and Eckoh and this solution should more deeply embed them with channel partners as the go-to solution for contact centre payments, the de facto omnichannel payments solution. They are now selling four solutions for the price of one. All your payment needs are met on digital channels. This looks like an outstanding sales pitch and after this comes data analytics. ===== Eugene Segal - 5/10/23: Less than 3% of SaaS startups hit the $100M ARR mark. You must go upmarket (yummy $100K+ contracts) to get there. Ask Miro, Canva, Notion, Amplitude, Monday, etc. However, just as in the academic world, where you don’t start your journey by writing a Ph.D. but with a bachelor's degree, in a B2B SaaS startup world, you don’t begin by chasing unicorns 🦄. 🏁 You start by targeting SMBs through the PLG motion and build on top. PLG is the base for your growth. PLG is how you get the initial footstep into those high ACV prospects. PLG is your competitive advantage when capturing enterprise demand high touch ( = sales). ☝️When Slack went public, 97% of the $100K+ ACV customers started through the PLG motion. Getting upmarket can take 3 to 5 (or more) years. Don’t go upmarket too early and move gradually through the complexity stages. 🟡 STAGE 1: PLG (Product Led Growth) 1. Set up your Growth infrastructure (data pipeline, experimentation, growth model, etc.) and kickstart your Growth journey with PLG. 2. The product both generates and captures demand. 3. Target SMBs (1 to 100 employees) and a narrow ICP. 4. Provide value to individual users. 🟡 STAGE 2: PLM (Product Led Marketing) 1. Accelerate Growth by layering on Marketing (new acquisition channels, lifecycle, education, etc.). 2. The Product and Marketing generate demand, and the Product captures demand. 3. Expand your ICP and use cases and start eyeing mid-market prospects in addition to SMBs. 4. Provide value to both individual users and teams. 🟡 STAGE 3: PLS (Product Led Sales) 1. Layer on product-led sales motion to expand those mid-market and lower-end enterprise ICP accounts in which you have significant usage. And thank you, PLG + PLM, for the foot in the door. 2. The Product and Marketing generate demand, and the Product and Sales capture demand. 3. Remember, you layer on the human touch to overcome the demand capture ( = monetization) friction that comes with ACVs above $10k - $20k. 4. Introduce the Enterprise’s related product, processes, and cultural complexity. It’s a big one! 5. Provide value to both individual users, teams, and cross-company. 🟡 STAGE 4: Sales Led 1. Add Sales-led motion to capture high-end enterprises you can’t penetrate with usage. 2. Introduce further complexity to support the Fortune 500-grade enterprises. 3. Keep providing value to individual users, teams, and cross-company, including dedicated internal Enterprise personas (admins, support, etc.) |
Posted at 07/10/2023 12:29 by simon gordon Nick,Just to expand on my earlier reply to your question. Legal costs as stated in PCIPs FY2022 annual report: 2022 - £0.8m 2023 - £1.96m 2024 - £1m Total - £3.76m PCIP looks to be continuing to invest with two new senior developer hires and the appointment of Ritch Caudill. Also, the roll out of new products continues. What could cause legal bills in 2025: -Sycurio appeal Justice Bacon's ruling, case could take place in Q3 or Q4 2024. -American case goes to trial in late 2024 or into 2025. So, at the moment it doesn't look like they need to raise capital. If the ruling from Justice Bacon had been negative they would have to do so. All being well, Judge Cogburn will make a Markman ruling which helps halt the case in America with a victory for PCIP, I think the odds look good. If it did go to trial in America, by that time they could have had the money from the costs awarded from the UK appeal if there is one. So, all in all, the patent dispute shouldn't create a cash call, especially after the Total Victory at the High Court. The main thing is the business remaining profitable and keeping the show on the road. Maybe the market was spooked by the forecast fall in cash and is doubting that they can get through it without a cash call, or Canaccord are selling in a very weak market. Eckoh could be looking at the patent dispute and laughing their socks off. Sycurio are self immolating and PCIP are being cash constrained. It gives them a chance to push hard on Card Easy (Syntec) which they bought for £31m in 2021 to catch up with PCIP in the cloud. Syntec were doing about £6m or £7m a year in turnover when Eckoh bought them. This patent dispute has been a hindrance for PCIP but they still power on. They were fortunate to have done a capital raise before Sycurio started legal proceedings. They were fortunate with SVB. Skill made them win the High Court case and no doubt the American case. If they are lucky they will get back half of their legal fees. With that four million, it's likely they could have powered on harder and faster. Yet, they are skilled operators and seem to have navigated the problems faced. 2025 and 2026 were always the years when profitability was expected to increase markedly. It still looks like that is on. |
Posted at 12/8/2023 18:18 by simon gordon Just chewing the fat on a part of a Lucretius post from the LSE in early July:...What was Livingbridge’s strategy? The best answer is probably PCIP’s long-held theory as set out in its RNS of 23rd May 2023: “It has long been the opinion of the Board that Sycurio brought its opportunistic patent infringement claim to try to disrupt PCI Pal’s growth and momentum.” (Legally Sycurio had to be the named claimant in the case as it is the patent holder; for “Sycurio” Roughly translated, PCIP was saying that Livingbridge was aiming for a diversion of PCIP senior management resources from running the business to fighting the litigation, a diversion of cash earmarked for expansion to lawyers’ pockets, a hit to PCIP’s reputation with customers in the contact-centre market, and a hit to its reputation in the financial markets. If these were Livingbridge’s aims, they were largely unsuccessful. PCIP’s share did fall by 30% in the two weeks following the announcement of the infringement proceedings as investor took fright, but otherwise Livingbridge may have been taken aback by the robustness of PCIP’s immediate response, and later in 2021. Within a day, PCIP said the claims were “unfoundedR If Livingbridge thought these were just empty words, rather than a setback to its strategy, subsequent events have shown just how wrong they were. PCIP’s sales for 2021, 2022 and 2023 have or will significantly exceed management’s guidance given to its brokers at the time of the April 2021 fund raise. And PCIP will hit cashflow breakeven in accordance with the revised timetable it gave in April 2021. It will also have the cash to fund both infringement cases through to completion, if need be. It looks like Livingbridge underestimated the professionalism and resilience of PCIP’s executive board, the extent of PCIP’s close-knit relationships with its long-standing advisers, the support of the non-executive directors for the executive directors, and the overall bench strength of the management team. In short, it completely misread the overall strength of the business. If the infringement proceedings have caused disruptions to the business, they have barely been visible to outsiders. Livingbridge’s miscalculation of PCIP’s strength perhaps led it to believe that PCIP would roll over, but not too soon, and agree to a settlement on Livingbridge’s terms, perhaps because it wouldn’t really have the stomach or funds to take the case to trial. But to believe this was to believe that pragmaticism would triumph over principle and that PCIP would yield to legal threats. We know from the US court papers that settlement talks took place in January 2022, which led nowhere, presumably because any settlement terms offered by Livingbridge were not acceptable to PCIP, or PCIP’s demands were too much of a climbdown for Livingbridge. And after March 2022, PCIP repeatedly said it would seek “to find the outcome that we believe will best benefit the business and shareholders” and that it is “well-funded, which will allow us to see out the process to its fullest extent.” In view of a recent development, a cynic might argue there was an added angle to the litigation for Livingbridge, and that it did not want a settlement before detailed disclosure of PCIP’s defence. It is worth repeating the key parts of PCIP’s RNS of 7th June (Breach of Confidentiality Agreement). As part of its defence, PCIP “was obliged to prepare an explanation of how its patented technology had been implemented across its customer base and provide explanations as to how the systems are configured”. “As is required, the information was shared with Sycurio under strict Confidentiality Agreements”. PCIP also revealed that “Sycurio’ It is clear from PCIP’s RNS releases that settlement discussions with Livingbridge continued in 2023 as the UK trial date drew nearer but Livingbridge refused to offer settlement terms acceptable to PCIP. For instance, on 23rd May PCIP said: “The Company confirms that there have been discussions with Sycurio regarding the case. To date these discussions have not produced any sensible settlement options…… With its bluff called and the trial date looming, Livingbridge chose to double down again, continue to trial, and risk a court adjudicating on the validity of its patent, with one patent from the same family already having been revoked in May by the European Patent Office. As became apparent during the trial, Sycurio pivoted the foundation of its infringement case late in the day to a very narrow construction and reading of its patent. Unethical scumbags? Of course, in the interests of fairness, alternative interpretations of events to the one outlined above are possible. For instance, Sycurio has a “strong case” according to its statement to various media outlets on 8th June in response to PCIP’s RNS of 7th June 2023 (Breach of Confidentiality). Perhaps so. Sycurio’s statement also claimed that PCIP’s RNS of 7th June, which would have been approved by its board (the composition of which we can be certain about!) and vetted by its NOMAD and its lawyers, contained “material inaccuracies”. So: following the logic of Sycurio’s claims of unspecified “material inaccuracies”, PCIP and its advisers connived to mislead the market by providing untrue information, presumably knowingly, about a supposed breach of confidentiality agreements by Sycurio and Livingbridge personnel. In other words, the meaning of Sycurio’s media statement, taken as a whole and presumably issued with Livingbridge’s blessing, is that PCIP, which has had the same Chairman for nearly 4 years, the same CEO for nearly 5 years , the same CFO for over 6 years, the same CISO for nearly 24 years, the same NOMAD for 5 years, the same lawyers for 10 years, and a staff retention rate of 95% in the year to 30th June 2022, are a bunch of unethical scumbags, who have ruthlessly hijacked a competitor’s patented technology and are economical with the actualité, to boot. Make up your mind Spot the “inverted pyramid of piffle”, to borrow a phrase from Britain’s Mendax Maximus of his generation and a great one for doubling down when in a tight spot. |
Posted at 26/6/2023 07:45 by simon gordon Here are the four posts of Lucretius in one post - it's easier to re-read:Lucretius on the LSE - 25/6/23: More unplayable deliveries? While the case in the High Court in front of the formidable Mrs Justice Bacon was in motion, PCIP and Eckoh aimed more in-swinging yorkers at the middle stump of the European patent portfolio of Sycurio, the seemingly incontinent data security providers who apparently can’t resist a leak when it suits them (or will the belatedly self-confessed breach of confidentiality by Sycurio be attributed to an “isolation&rdq PCIP and Eckoh have filed yet another opposition, the third so far, to yet another of Sycurio’s European patents ( Just to recap on what the indefatigable VictorValue has previously posted: the first yorkers, to which Sycurio shouldered arms, hit middle stump: Sycurio’s European patent number EP 3402177 was revoked on 10th May ( The second yorkers were delivered on 29th March 2023 (see Sycurio has to reveal by 29th July how, if at all, it will attempt to play them. As with the first two, the third yorkers were teasingly close to being no-balls; the challenges were delivered on the last day possible, 14th June. Nice timing, yet again. Sycurio has to reveal by 14th October how, if at all, it will attempt to play them. Another echo? On the same day, Eckoh published its full-year results and Annual Report & Accounts, which reveal other interesting information, if the dots are joined, about its patent war with Sycurio. Taking a step back, the judge in the Sycurio v. PCIP case in the US signed an Order on Motion to Compel on 9th May compelling Sycurio to produce documents relating to an “ongoing&rdquo The US judge said that the arbitration case involved “one or more of the asserted patents” in the US Sycurio v. PCIP case. According to records at Companies House there is only one licensee of the one of the four asserted patents in the US case (ie, the four US patents which Sycurio has alleged that PCIP has infringed). The licensee of Sycurio’s US patent number 8.750.471 is Eckoh (see page 34 of Charge Code 06963868009, obtained by searching for Sycurio on Eckoh was granted a licence for this patent on 18th March 2015 (as well as on Sycurio’s UK patent, the subject of the current case) as part of the settlement reached with Sycurio after the 2015 UK patent infringement case brought by Sycurio was settled at the end of the first day of the trial. As well as the licence agreements entered into between Sycurio and Eckoh in March 2015, a confidential settlement agreement was signed, which the US judge has ordered Sycurio to disclose to PCIP’s lawyers on a HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY basis. It is not unreasonable to assume that under the settlement agreement the parties agreed to refer any further disputes about the 2015 licence agreements or infringement to arbitration. Joining the dots, the “non-party entity” in the arbitration proceedings therefore is very likely to be Eckoh. In Eckoh’s Annual Report and Accounts for the year to 31st March 2023, there are two interesting notes (9 & 28) to the accounts: 9. Exceptional legal fees and settlement agreements In the financial year ended 31 March 2023 legal fees and settlement agreements of £0.2 million (settlement income of £950k received has been netted off against legal fee expenses), have been incurred regarding commercially sensitive matters which are required to be kept confidential by agreements with third parties or ongoing legal negotiations.” 28. Events after the statement of financial position date Prior to the 31 March 2023, the Group were in settlement discussions with a third party. An agreement was reached post year end with the third party and a settlement agreement entered into in favour of the Group. The income and costs are included in exceptional items in Note 9. Taken together the two notes look like a clear reference to the arbitration proceedings, which were “ongoing&rdquo Without any doubt, the settlement was in favour of Eckoh and the related settlement income, received after 31st March, was included in its accounts for the year to 31st March 2023. Whether the amount received by Eckoh from the arbitration was as much as £950,000 is open to question as Note 9, perhaps artfully, pluralises “settlement&rd What seems likely from the nature of the documents that the judge compelled Sycurio to produce is that the arbitration related to a dispute about the US patent number 8,750,471 licensed to Eckoh, or to alleged infringement by Eckoh of one (or more) of the three other US patents that Sycurio alleges that PCIP has infringed. And in the arbitration Sycurio appears to have caved in, or lost. That Eckoh was the “non-party entity” in the arbitration proceedings also might help explain the animus for Eckoh’s joining PCIP in challenging the validity of Sycurio’s European patents. What is that smell? Quite what led to the recent revelation on Sycurio’s part that it “may” have breached confidentiality agreements, which in turn triggered PCIP’s RNS on 7th June (Breach of Confidentiality Agreement by Sycurio Ltd), is a matter for speculation. Sycurio’s response on 8th June, as reported in several media outlets, asserted that there were “material inaccuracies” in PCIP’s statement but the response amounted to a non-denial denial as it was silent on the specifics of the “material inaccuracies”. Surprisingly, in view of the seriousness of the import of the information in PCIP’s RNS, there is no rebuttal press release on the “Media Centre” section of Sycurio’s website. But let’s not hesitate to speculate as to the events that led to the release of PCIP’s RNS on 7th June. It is clear from the US Motion to Compel Order dated 9 May 2023 that the US case has been at the discovery phase for some time. It therefore looks likely that someone from Sycurio had made some reference to the Sycurio board meeting referred by PCIP in its RNS on 7th June during which the breach of confidentiality “may” have occurred and that this reference was found by Sycurio’s US lawyers in the process of preparing discovery. In such circumstances, Sycurio’s US lawyers would then have been ethically obliged to disclose the breach to PCIP. PCIP’s board has been quite forthright in stating that: “The action was brought against PCI Pal shortly after Sycurio was acquired by the investment firm Livingbridge. It is our belief that the claims have been made in an attempt to disrupt our momentum and gain a commercial advantage given PCI Pal is the fastest growing provider in the space, with the most extensive partner eco-system, and the most mature public cloud offering.” The recent revelation about the breach of confidentiality raises a question about a further possible motive that a cynic might impute to Sycurio’s bringing infringement proceedings against PCIP. As part of its defence against the alleged infringement of Sycurio’s UK & US patents, PCIP has had to produce and disclose to Sycurio a “Process and Product Description” (PPD) in the UK case (and an equivalent in the US case) that details at a granular level how its patented technology and its “Agent Assist” product work. It looks like what was meant to be kept within a very restricted circle, for obvious reasons, on Sycurio’s side may have been made more widely available. The smell is not a pleasant one. In light of PCIP’s RNS on 7th June, it was very noticeable during the proceedings in the High Court that the Sycurio side was keen to avoid any possible breach of confidentiality. All witness evidence concerning PCIP’s alleged infringement of Sycurio’s patent and discussion of the PCIP’s PPD were held in camera. Attendees at the court included observers from, or on behalf of, Eckoh, who were therefore not made privy to this commercially sensitive information. To her credit, Mrs Justice Bacon did her utmost to keep in-camera sessions to the minimum amount possible. Obvious or not, and will “added matter” matter? While aspects of the court case over the last two weeks were complicated, or more to the point were made to appear to be very complicated, one of PCIP’s invalidity arguments (subsidiary to its main argument of invalidity on the grounds of obviousness) was made very clear during PCIP’s summing up on the last day. Presenting Sycurio’s case, the silver-tongued Michael Silverleaf KC, a person skilled in the art of semantics (and semiotics), had claimed that the inventive concept in Sycurio’s patent was that sensitive payment data (ie, credit/debit card numbers, expiry dates, CVVs) were isolated from contact centres and instead sent to verification/authori One of PCIP’s arguments on invalidity was that the inventive concept was in fact the product of a patent attorney’s pen, inserted during the prosecution phase of the UK patent after the UK Patent Office had said that it could not distinguish the Sycurio patent application as originally filed from the prior art. This “added matter”, PCIP argued, rendered the granted patent invalid as the original documents filed with WIPO did not presage the inventive concept, as they should have done for the patent to be valid, according to PCIP. Of course, all that now matters is Mrs Justice Bacon’s judgment, which she said on the first day of the trial that she wanted to deliver by the “end of this term”, which means by 31st July. Anyone who witnessed her in court over the last two weeks would not doubt her word on that. Fiat jus |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
