We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| 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% | 69.50 | 07:32:55 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69.50 | 69.50 | 69.50 | 69.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| SUPPORT SERVICES |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/1/2025 12:42 by adamb1978 I assume that ACV figure is based on the auditors new interpretation too, whereas the ohers ones were based on the previous interpretation, so its actually even more impressive.They need to get CAV to apply some more common sense to their forecasts though, esp for FY26. The company are growing (10 open roles on their website) but if thore FY26 forecasts are right then PCIP would need to add a huge number of people |
Posted at 10/1/2025 13:37 by daveme Has this been tipped somewhere? There seems a number of small buys today.With regards tips, SCSW gives its New Year Naps this weekend. Fingers crossed they list PCIP as one of the companies recommended. |
Posted at 06/1/2025 15:05 by powlert Good to see a bit of momentum here.VOX Markets uploaded an interview with a fund manager at Octopus today where they discussed PCI-Pal around 17 minutes in. Nothing new, but a useful restatement of the obvious value. Octopus owns about 8% of PCIP according to Bloomberg. |
Posted at 24/8/2024 16:12 by sahara5 Couple things re Eckoh...1) They have not released any trading updates since the offer was made on July 12th. We were expecting PCIP's trading update around this time - entirely possible (I think likely) that the PE firms are talking to both, so PCIP may well have received offers at this time. 2) I may be wrong on this but I believe trading updates are somewhat optional. However full and half year results are not. So, it is plausible for a bidder to request that PCIP does not release a TU, but would not have been plausible for a bidder to ask Eckoh to not release its results in June. |
Posted at 30/6/2024 15:34 by adamb1978 Yes, clearly lipstick on pig I agree.I'd imagine that the settlement will contain provisions from Sycurio stating that PCIP don't infringe their patents as at the date of the agreement, and PCIP probably agreeing not to seek invalidation of Sycurio's patents. Probably no payments either way - just each having to have pay their own bills. Logical for PCIP to accept that rather than spend more money and take whatever residual risk remains. PCIP are doing brilliantly it seems in the US so no point having any negativity over there. |
Posted at 28/6/2024 08:22 by adamb1978 AndreYes, PCIP have often said that Sycurio launched this action to derail them, and the fact that they've been laughed out of court and had their patents invalidated suggests similar. They launched the action knowing the price would get hammered and then came in with a low ball offer to try to acquire PCIP and thereby be able to replace Sycurio's old technology with PCIP's more modern tech. In some regard, their plan partly worked as PCIP delayed launching in continental europe due to legal costs eating up their cash. The business is still performing very well and James still sounds very confident about the outlook. Trading update will be in mid/late July and interesting to read. Adam |
Posted at 28/6/2024 06:30 by simon gordon Andre,Maybe up to the UK trial, you could say that but in May 23, before the trial, PCIP offered to licence the patent and Sycurio said no. -2022 Q1: tentative enquiry from Sycurio to purchase PCIP. -2023 Q2: institutional shareholders turn down a 90p offer from Sycurio. -2023 Q2: Sycurio turned down a licence offer from PCIP. -2023 Q2: UK trial. -2024 Q1: Sycurio very confident that they will win the appeal court trial. The main point of damage to PCIP was the two years before the trial. After that, the bigger risk was with Sycurio. They could lose their patent, have costs awarded against them and damage their reputation in the PCI DSS market. I think they truly believed that their patent was rock solid. As Kenny Rogers sang: You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away And know when to run You never count your money When you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealin's done Every gambler knows That the secret to survivin' Is knowin' what to throw away And knowin' what to keep 'Cause every hand's a winner And every hand's a loser And the best that you can hope for Is to die in your sleep" It looks like the whole exercise has cost PCIP c.£2.5m. Though in the 2024 accounts, it could be clearer if they have received any more costs back in the confidential agreement. |
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 12/8/2023 17:18 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 06:45 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
