ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

PCIP Pci-pal Plc

43.50
0.00 (0.0%)
01 Dec 2023 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Pci-pal Plc LSE:PCIP London Ordinary Share GB0009737155 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 43.50 10,539 08:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
43.00 44.00 43.50 43.50 43.50
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Business Services, Nec 14.95M -4.89M -0.0747 -5.82 28.48M
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
15:41:30 O 500 44.00 GBX

Pci-pal (PCIP) Latest News

Pci-pal (PCIP) Discussions and Chat

Pci-pal (PCIP) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Pci-pal (PCIP) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 02/12/2023 08:20 by Pci-pal Daily Update
Pci-pal Plc is listed in the Business Services, Nec sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PCIP. The last closing price for Pci-pal was 43.50p.
Pci-pal currently has 65,472,589 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Pci-pal is £28,480,576.
Pci-pal has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -5.82.
This morning PCIP shares opened at 43.50p
Posted at 04/11/2023 11:54 by adamb1978
Yes, and with the 90% gross margin new contracts fall through rapidly. Plus with 3% churn, there's limited customer loss to be replaced by wins.

Arguably PEs are the right way to value this sort of business. I was looking at a report from Software Equity Group this morning and you could make a case that PCIP should be on something like 8x ARR in a couple years - that gives you a share price of perhaps 350p.

I think they'll be taken out by then though
Posted at 04/11/2023 11:10 by simon gordon
Morning Adam

We'll know soon enough the 2025 forecast. I'm 2p, you're 3p to 4p.

An interesting aspect of the On Prem to Cloud transition is that there are some big contracts up for grabs. One biggie can transform the bottom line and share price. I can see why Sycurio are investing hard and trying to take down PCIP.

Three teams: PCIP, ECK and Sycurio are battling it out to be the number one Cloud payments provider in the CCaaS space. The network effect is vital through the channel partner sales pipeline. Sycurio have now set up a dedicated channel partner programme:

"Created to empower Sycurio’s extended partnership community - which includes Value Added Resellers, Platform Provider Resellers, Managed Services Partners, Technology Partners and Referral/Fulfilment Partners - and power growth, the Sycurio Partner Program gives partners access to a wide range of specialist resources and support that will enable them to amplify and extend their customer relationships, tap into new sales opportunities, and speed up time to revenue."



-----

Victor Value spotted recently that the ex-VP of Marketing at Sycurio is suing them.:
Posted at 04/11/2023 10:34 by adamb1978
Hi Simon

PCIP's financial are quite predictable. Let's look at FY25:

- based on the Aug TS, they would have have around £14.3m ARR or just under £17m TACV as at Jun-23
- to move that forward to Jun-24 you can add another £4m - £5m given that we know that H1 has started well enough (particularly given market conditions) and they signed £4.2m in the Jun-23 year
- Their revenues have typically been around 112% of the previous year's closing TACV or just over 130% closing ARR from the yr before. Therefore you can predict with reasonable confidence the turnover for the year to June 25. I have it around £24m

From there gross margins are just under 90% and you can take the opex add in some inflation and headcount growth.

On this basis, I get to EPS of:

- FY24: 0.5p-1p
- FY25: 3p-4p
- FY26: 8p-10p

This is why I think its reasonable to look for a share price of 200p within 2 years.

A strongly and consistently growing SW company operating in a market which is under penetrated, net cash, high margin, probably paying a dividend, and very comfortable a 'rule of 40' company...a PE of 20x-25x is easily attainable, arguably looking close to 40x would be more appropriate.

Apply those multiples to the FY26 EPS above given in 2 years time that will be the current year EPS, and you get 200p comfortably, possibly something more like 300p-400p.

Adam
Posted at 03/11/2023 20:51 by simon gordon
2024 100x is from the latest Cavendish note.

2025 20x is from my own guesstimate. Should know the actual number when the broker note is updated with the Prelims.

If they could start landing some large Federal contracts in America then that would put a rocket under the share price.

PCIP's new Government partner in America has devoted a section of their site to them and it lists some of their Government contracts:



If the HMRC contract is worth £2m, how much would the IRS one be worth?
Posted at 02/11/2023 17:47 by simon gordon
October was a dreadful month on the chart, probably the 2nd worse down candle in the history of the company.

The share looks like it will be becalmed in the 40p zone for quite a while. Even if the court cases clear in 2024 I don't think this will markedly re-rate it.

It needs to start beating expectations. Meeting expectations will not move the dial. If it misses expectations again it could go to 30p. With that in mind, I hope the CFO doesn't overcook the 2025 forecast in the coming weeks.

2024 is probably a dead zone for the share price. It could be the start of 2025 before the share price starts firing again, 14 months away.

For now, the only thing that is going to truly move the dial is a takeover offer. It's cheap as a multi-year SaaS growth play but the London market is dying on its feet and quality small caps are getting taken out left, right and centre. PCIP could join that list as UK shareholders are too diffuse and not deeply interested in creating wealth and building companies. Nearly all of the time, if the price is right they'll take the money. With the market valuing it at 40p, someone could come in and offer 75p+, most would take it. That's the market.

So, a depressing time for PCIP shareholders, until animal spirits return.


free stock charts from uk.advfn.com
Posted at 08/10/2023 09:39 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 11:29 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 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”; read “Livingbridge” (ie, SH and CK)).

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 “unfoundedR21;, “strongly refuted” and the board was “wholly confident no patent infringement had occurred”. By early November PCIP said: “In early 2021 we strengthened our management structure…. which has allowed the existing teams to take on more day-to-day management of our business. This in turn has allowed the executive Board more time to focus on …… the initial intensive stages of defending and countering the patent infringement claim with minimal disruption to…..the business” and the business “was well-funded with no debt”.

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’;s US lawyers informed the Company that in April 2022 Sycurio “breached the terms of confidentiality agreements” by sharing “confidential information with Sycurio personnel not covered by the Confidentiality Agreements”. And that PCI Pal's confidential information "may" have been used in “a board meeting during which Sycurio considered competitor technology and call flows”. This session involved “senior product staff and board members, both internal and external”. Pointedly it was noted that this session involved personnel from Livingbridge. (No prizes for guessing who these might have been!). Nothing more need to be said; res ipsa loquitur, as our learned friends might pompously opine.

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……; the Board continues to seek the best outcome for the business”.

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 actualit√©, 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”, the product of momentary corporate “brain frog”?). More on this later.

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” arbritration between Sycurio and a “non-party entity” (ie, not a party to the US case between Sycurio and PCIP). In her order the judge said (see VictorValue’s posts of 7th June for the text of the order) that the “mere existence” of the ongoing arbitration and the identity of the non-party entity “are not properly designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” and ordered Sycurio to reveal both the existence of the arbitration and the name of the other party to PCIP. She also ordered Sycurio to disclose further documents relating to the case, some on a HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY basis to PCIP’s US lawyers.

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” when the US judge signed her Motion to Compel Order on 9th May but which appear to have been settled by the time Eckoh signed its accounts on 14th June.

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” both in the rubric and the note itself, thereby depriving a reader of conclusive evidence that the whole of the £950,000 relates to the settlement of the arbitration.

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/authorisation companies, external to contact centres, which, he claimed, distinguished Sycurio’s UK patent from the prior art.

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
Posted at 14/5/2023 19:19 by adamb1978
Hi Simon

Thanks for the two ChatGPT outputs. Its seems abundantly clear that the two parties have reached some form of agreement - the question is the content.

To start to guess the answer to that, worth thikning about pros/cons for each for agreeing a settlement:

PCIP
- why settle now: (1) removes up to say £1m cost for the remaining case, (2) removes the [probably low %] risk of losing and the need to design around the patent and -ve impact on reputation and share price
- what would they need in the agreement: freedom to operate, likely via a license to the patents

Sycurio:
- why settle now: (1) removes cost for the remaining case, (2) face saving (consent order content is confidential)
- what would they need in the agreement: agreement from PCIP to drop patent revocation action

I struggle to see a bad outcome for PCIP from this. Only question is whether PCIP will be paying Sycurio an annual fee for a license to the patent. If PCIP are removing say £1m remaining legal costs, they could probably justify to themselves that it might be worth spending say £100k - £200k pa. for a license to the patent. I don't see any fee being substantially more than that and they'd otherwise just go to court.

For Sycurio, taking that sort of free rather than spending say £1m themselves for the court case (assume the same remaining costs as PCIP) is probably a good deal too as its definite upside for the new management team, rather than risk blowing a pile more cash on something which they previous team started.

Does my logic make sense?

Adam
Pci-pal share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com