Pci-pal Share Discussion Threads

[adamb1978] 03/10/2023 08:23

Where are you getting those figures from Simon?

[simon gordon] 03/10/2023 08:22

2024 has cut forecast t/o from £20m to £19m and EBITDA cut to £1.7m from £2.3m. Any momentum money left in it is coming out.

[adamb1978] 03/10/2023 07:59

Very nice TU. 28%-30% growth is where I expect it to be for the year, and 57 deals signed already is good given that they signed 116 in H1 last year and Q1 is quieter than Q2. Given the macro environment, it would be understandable if the number decreased.

Think we'll then have EPS of perhaps 4p in FY25 and say 9p-10p in FY26.

Still expecting the price to be >200p in 2-3 years!

[this_is_me] 03/10/2023 07:19

Meanwhile today's statement includes: "In FY23 we achieved revenue growth of 25%. Based on the trading year to date we now expect to see revenue growth in FY24 of between 28-30%. This is expected to allow the business to report the Company's first full year of adjusted pre-tax profit.

Transformation of the company into a profit making growth company almost complete!

[simon gordon] 02/10/2023 15:48

Yeah, been a tough two years in the market.

Thought this summary shows how Sycurio are totally stuffed, it would be throwing money down the drain if they appealed:

Sycurio v PCI Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat) – Edward acted for the successful Defendant, PCI Pal, in this eight-day high court patent trial relating to telecommunications technology for call centres. PCI Pal were successful in invalidating the patent for obviousness over two prior art citations, as well as succeeding on non-infringement and also establishing a successful Gillette/Formstein defence. PCI Pal’s announcement on the London Stock Exchange described the outcome as “Total Victory”.



Love how Sycurio call the patent:

Secured by Sycurio®

They blew up their core marketing message/brand.

[adamb1978] 02/10/2023 15:33

Its a rubbish market unfortunately. Will take time to shake out.

Putting out figures for the current 6 month period showing cashflow breakeven and profit soon should help considerably

[simon gordon] 02/10/2023 13:14

Jeez, that's poor price action since Thursday. Quite a bit of selling and not much buying.

[simon gordon] 01/10/2023 15:33

Sycurio's website:

Patents

In June 2012, Sycurio was awarded UK patent #GB2473376. Sycurio also holds United States patent (#8,750,471), which was granted in June of 2014. Sycurio was awarded additional United States patents in January 2018, September 2019 and June 2021.

Sycurio also holds patents in Germany, India and France. Sycurio’s patents cover a number of aspects related to the use of Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency signalling (DTMF) to capture payment card data from a contact center customer during a live phone call and transmit it securely to a payment system.


Intellectual Property

Having invested significant resources into developing our unique contact center PCI DSS solutions that protect confidential cardholder data, and building out an intellectual property portfolio around these solutions, we diligently and rigorously defend and protect our patent rights.

As part of our intellectual property strategy, Sycurio will actively pursue companies and organizations that infringe our patent rights. It's also the reason why we developed our Secured by Sycurio® Trustmark to give merchants, and their customers, the confidence of knowing they are using a telephone payments solution that’s powered by an industry-leading secure payment method they can trust.


Licensing

To protect our intellectual property and support the adoption of DTMF masking solutions across the industry, the Secured by Sycurio® Trustmark is available for use by our clients, our channel partners and licensees of our patents.

The Secured by Sycurio® Trustmark provides merchants and consumers with the instant recognition and reassurance that they are utilizing an authentic and appropriately licensed industry-leading Sycurio technology.

Currently, other than our contracted channel partners and customers, only the following companies have been granted a license to use a Sycurio patented technology:

-Aeriandi Limited n/k/a Dubber

-Eckoh plc

-Ultra Communications Limited n/k/a Babble

[simon gordon] 01/10/2023 13:07

ChatGPT:

Losing a core patent in a court case can have significant implications for a software business. The specific consequences can vary depending on the nature of the patent, the importance of the technology it covers, and the overall business strategy. Here are some potential effects:

1. Loss of Competitive Advantage: If the patent was a key component of the software business's competitive advantage, losing it can lead to increased competition. Other companies may start offering similar products or services without the fear of patent infringement.

2. Revenue Impact: Losing a core patent can affect revenue streams associated with that technology. This might result in decreased sales or licensing income if the patented technology was monetized through licensing agreements.

3. Market Share Erosion: As competitors enter the market with similar technologies, the software business may lose market share. Customers may choose alternatives that are now legally available.

4. Innovation and R&D: The software business may need to invest more in research and development (R&D) to stay competitive, especially if the patent loss means they have to re-engineer their products or develop new technologies to replace the patented ones.

5. Legal Costs: Defending or pursuing a patent lawsuit can be expensive. Losing the lawsuit may result in significant legal costs, including damages awarded to the other party.

6. Reputation Impact: Losing a patent lawsuit can have a negative impact on a company's reputation. It may be perceived as a setback or a sign that the company's innovation is not as strong as previously thought.

7. Licensing Negotiations: If the company loses a core patent, they may need to renegotiate licensing agreements with other companies that were previously paying for the use of the patented technology.

8. Partnership and Investment Impact: The loss of a core patent can impact the willingness of potential partners or investors to collaborate with or fund the business. It may affect the valuation of the company in the eyes of investors.

[adamb1978] 01/10/2023 09:26

Hi Simon

Your post at 931am yesterday is hugely amusing:

"An expert must give evidence within the scope of their expertise. To assert expertise because they have read up on the issues for the purpose of the action is wholly insufficient"

Adam

[simon gordon] 30/9/2023 14:37

Hogarth Chambers - 29/9/23

”Total Victory” in All-Hogarth Team Case

Sycurio v PCI Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat)

Hogarth client PCI Pal announced to the London Stock Exchange on Monday evening that it had achieved “total victory” in its patent infringement dispute with rival call centre telecommunications provider Sycurio (link). PCI Pal were represented by an all-Hogarth Chambers team of Guy Tritton, Edward Cronan and Laura Adde instructed by John Mackenzie of Shepherd Wedderburn.

Sycurio accused PCI Pal of infringing its patent on signal detection and blocking for voice processing equipment through operation of PCI Pal’s Agent Assist platform for secure call centre payments. PCI Pal denied infringement and counterclaimed for the revocation of the Patent.

The trial lasted eight days and dealt with issues of obviousness, infringement by equivalents, added matter and excluded subject matter. Mrs Justice Bacon handed down a public judgment on 25 September 2023 (there is a confidential judgment on infringement). PCI Pal was successful on its obviousness case, establishing that the patent was invalid for obviousness over two prior art citations: ‘Shaffer’ and ‘van Volkenburgh’.

In addition, the Patent was not infringed, and even had it been infringed PCI Pal would have benefitted from a Gillette or Formstein Defence, based on a piece of prior art known as Proctor. In those circumstances the Judge decided there was no need to consider PCI Pal’s additional requests for declarations of non-infringement in respective of prospective products, or to consider issues of added matter or excluded subject matter.

The case raises interesting issues regarding the expertise required of an expert witness instructed in a patent infringement case, the case already being subject to expert commentary by Civil Litigation Brief. In particular, the Judge emphasised the importance of experts providing evidence only within their area of expertise, and not in relation to subjects upon which they have only educated themselves in the course of the litigation. These issues arose after Sycurio’s witness struggled with technical issues arising on cross-examination by Guy Tritton. Guy is held in particular esteem by colleagues for his skills in cross-examination, on which topic he has previously acted as a trainer for Inner Temple.

Chambers is particularly grateful to the Judge for inviting both sides’ more junior counsel to make oral submissions. This is in line with chambers’ own policy of ensuring all its juniors maximise the time spent on their feet from an early stage. This benefits not just their own oral advocacy, but their ability to support their leaders. Edward Cronan took responsibility for closing submissions on the construction-sufficiency squeezes, added matter, and excluded subject matter. Following PCI Pal v Sycurio Edward has now won six High Court patent trials in a row, carrying on the impressive streak of results that saw him named Junior IP Barrister of the Year by Managing IP earlier in 2023.

The successful trial is an additional chapter in Laura Adde’s flying start to life at Hogarth Chambers. Having acted on a number of high-profile matters while still a pupil (perhaps unsurprising given her previous experience as a qualified solicitor at a top London firm) her practice as a tenant is already well-established, and she is eagerly looking forward to continuing her patent litigation practice.

[simon gordon] 30/9/2023 09:41

Q3 showing a positive candle following a positive Q2. Volume, nothing special.

Quarterly chart:


free stock charts from uk.advfn.com

[simon gordon] 30/9/2023 09:31

Sycurio built their case on Connie Penn. Millions of pounds, reputations and the destiny of two businesses were at stake on her expertise.


-Connie Penn

Her evidence was so inconsequential that another barrister has passed comment on the case:

Civil Litigation Brief - 27/9/23

An Expert Should Have Expertise In The Issue They Are Giving Evidence On: They Can't Simply Teach Themselves For The Purpose Of The Case

There are some important observations on expert evidence in the judgment of Mrs Justice Bacon in Sycurio Ltd v PCI-Pal PLC & Anor [2023] EWHC 2161 (Pat). An expert must give evidence within the scope of their expertise. To assert expertise because they have read up on the issues for the purpose of the action is wholly insufficient.

Continued....




Sycurio should be suing Michael Silverleaf for rubbish legal representation.


Reputations damaged by this litigation:

-Connie Penn

-Michael Silverleaf

-Simon Hollingsworth

-Curt Khan

-Kevin Clancy

-Sycurio


Reputations burnished by this litigation:

-Guy Tritton

-James Barham

-Geoff Forsyth

-Adrienne Brophy

-PCI Pal

[simon gordon] 29/9/2023 21:17

Hi Adam,

It looks like a number of the top management team left Semafone after they made a pile when Livingbridge took them over. A couple of them made millions. Who knows, they could have sold the company as a dead cert to defeat PCIP if taken to court - Eckoh being a reference. If so, Livingbridge is turning out to be a patsy.

To me, it just looks like people who are out of their depth with inflated egos. Hubris is meeting Nemesis.

The biggest problem for Sycurio is how they find an expert for the American court case and the UK appeal court who will say on oath that Agent Assist infringes Sycurio's patent and back it up with deep technical knowledge.

Mrs Penn was their star witness. She was used in the Eckoh case. If they could have found someone better they would have.

I think they are completely stuffed. Total defeat!

[adamb1978] 29/9/2023 18:52

Livingbridge as a fund is a mess. They had poor 2021/2 and ended up restructuring a their funds teams late last year to cut costs. I had a couple of their team apply to a position which I was hiring for.

Its conceivable therefore that in 2021/2, in order to show hope to their LPs, their painted the picture of SYcurio being an injured party etc and the court case was ongoing. Changing management teams at portfolio companies, as they did with Sycurio, is another means of telling your investors to give us more time, its just the management team which were screwing up.

To Andre's question: PCIP don't need to raise cash at all. They're cashflow positive, have net cash and are therefore fine.

It would surprise me if hte US case happens. At the moment, Sycurio generate some income from licensing their patents so logical for them to agree with PCIP a deal whereby Sycurio drop their patent infringement claims and PCIP drop their invalidity pursuit. If the case goes ahead and they lose their US patents, they risk losing the income from them.

Adam

[simon gordon] 29/9/2023 17:14

Andre,

At some point Sycurio / Livingbridge will have to cut their losses. Each day that this goes on they weaken their business and make PCIP stronger. Either a judge will stop them or the bosses at Livingbridge will look at what's going on and take control of the situation.

Simon Hollingsworth and Curt Kahn, the two Livingbridge partners could be damaging their positions at Livingbridge with this farcical patent case. You'd think that the top management at Livingbridge would now be taking a close look at what's been going down and might be shocked to see the utter incompetence of the management decisions and utterly rubbish levels of legal expertise in the company.

Heads should roll.

Maybe PCIP are holding back from updating the market on their Prelims to see if Sycurio are coming to their senses, paying costs and walking away with a signed peace agreement.

This is one of the co-founders at Livingbridge:

Wol Kolade

[andre] 29/9/2023 15:46

But might that not be the aim? As long as the share price remains low, they cannot raise funds at the best valuations. Hence the business is affected by the lawsuit just remaining active.

[simon gordon] 28/9/2023 09:43

Reading the judgement it looks like the key problem for Sycurio, on appeal, would be finding an expert witness who would agree that their patent infringes Agent Assist.

Sycurio would probably need a new legal team and barrister as well, as the current lot are rubbish

It doesn't look like the share is going to significantly re-rate until the whole patent dispute is cleared.

[simon gordon] 27/9/2023 16:48

Posted by Victor on LSE:

Before :

MRS JUSTICE BACON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

SYCURIO LIMITED

(formerly Semafone Limited)

Claimant

- and -

(1) PCI-PAL PLC

(2) PCI-PAL (UK) LIMITED

Defendants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Michael Silverleaf KC and Kyra Nezami (instructed by Michelmores LLP) for the Claimant

Guy Tritton, Edward Cronan and Laura Adde (instructed by Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 12–16, 21–23 June 2023

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

PROVISIONAL NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION

[simon gordon] 27/9/2023 12:13

This,

Will be interesting to observe if some of the top management team start peeling off, realising that their owners are idiots and that the company is going backwards.

Will PCIP counter sue them for breaching confidentiality?

ChatGPT question:

Can a defendant sue the plaintiff for breaching confidentiality in a patent case

ChatGPT answer:

In general, a defendant in a patent case can potentially sue the plaintiff for breaching confidentiality, but whether or not such a lawsuit would be successful depends on the specific circumstances and the laws applicable in the jurisdiction where the case is being heard.

Confidentiality in a patent case is typically governed by various legal rules and agreements. Parties involved in patent litigation often enter into protective orders or confidentiality agreements to protect sensitive information during the course of the lawsuit. These agreements outline the obligations of both parties regarding the handling and protection of confidential information.

If the plaintiff breaches a confidentiality agreement or violates a court-issued protective order by disclosing confidential information related to the case, the defendant may have legal recourse. They can potentially bring a motion in court to address the breach and seek remedies such as sanctions, contempt of court charges, or a request for a protective order modification.

Additionally, the defendant may explore the possibility of bringing a separate legal action for damages arising from the breach of confidentiality, such as a breach of contract claim or a claim for unfair competition, depending on the circumstances.

It's important to note that the specifics of such cases can be highly complex and may vary depending on jurisdiction and the particular facts of the case. Therefore, it is advisable for any party concerned about a breach of confidentiality in a patent case to consult with an attorney who specializes in intellectual property and patent litigation to assess their options and potential legal remedies.

=====

Suing them would kick them right in the nuts and make them look like total idiots in the security scene for contact centres.

It's like looking at how Leeds Utd were mismanaged from a Champions League semi final to Division 2. Peter Risdale = Livingbridge.

[simon gordon] 27/9/2023 08:36

Morning Adam,

Yeah, they've got 21 days to lodge an appeal. It was such a comprehensive ruling against them.

In America it looks like PCIP have three modes of defence/attack:

1. Prior art

2. Agent Assist doesn't infringe

3. Patent was invented by other people not named as patentees

Lucretius - 22/9/23

"I had been looking into the part of Annex A dated 15th June. This sets out in some detail why PCIP thinks that Sycurio’s US patents are invalid. One claimed ground of invalidity is that the core technology in the patents was invented by people other than the named inventors (Andrew Tew, David Jackson, Richard Cooper-Davis and Timothy Critchley, all former employees of Sycurio).

PCIP claims on “information and belief” that the core technology in the US patents was developed by individuals--associated with Ultra Communications and Careline, both British companies--who are not named on the patent. And, apparently, a US patent may be declared invalid if more or less than the true inventors are named.

According to documents at Companies House, Sycurio signed a licence agreement with Ultra Communications, which was a provider of network telephony services, for Sycurio’s UK patent in 2013."

[adamb1978] 27/9/2023 08:28

Hi SimonProbably what you would expect them to say I guess ('reviewing our options') and given the preliminary analysis part of the quote, it doesn't commit them to actually appealing.Even if they do appeal, will be interesting to see whether they appeal the parent invalidity or infringement or both. Their US wording is again what you would expect them to say for the same reasons / face saving.Without wanting to be complacent, the double hurdle which they need to get over for it to impact PCIP (getting the patent re issued and the proving infringement seems hugeAdam

[adamb1978] 26/9/2023 17:26

600k today though....