My understanding from have previously researched the US patent database is that OBJ legally assigned ownership of the patent rights for the wand device to P&G shortly before it was soft-launched in October 2014. So P&G is now the owner of this patent (yet to be formally granted though). However, note the following:
1. The specific wand patent application would appear to be a derivative of a more general patent (superior) ownership of which is retained by OBJ (this patent had already been formally granted, albeit only recently).
2. I assume (unable to be verified) that OBJ has been compensated by P&G pursuant to a contract for the assignment of the specific wand device patent.
3. I assume (unable to be verified) that the assignment contract or any other licensing agreement had made provision for OBJ to be compensated in the event P&G "sub-licenses" the technology to a third party (e.g. L'Oréal)
Points 2 and 3 are assumed because I have previously queried Glyn about the material nature of the legal assignment by OBJ to P&G referred to above without receiving much info. I took issue with the fact that OBJ's intellectual property constitutes its core value and that if OBJ starts selling it off (not merely licensing it) the market should be informed of the essential terms of any such sale which would effect the legal assignment referred to above. I did not get the information requested.
The suspicion that L'Oréal has somehow got its "finger in the magnetic pie" makes this now more a potential issue. Assuming L'Oréal has in fact created a product which utilizes OBJ tech, the critical questions are as follows:
1. Have they done so legally, pursuant to a license agreement?
2. If the answer to 1. is "yes", who is the license agreement with? P&G or OBJ?
3. If the answer to 2. is P&G is the nature of the agreement a license of P&G-owned specific patent, or is it a sub-licence of the OBJ-owned general patent?
4. Whatever the answer to 3., how is OBJ being compensated for L'Oreal's use of the technology and why hasn't a material announcement been made? NOTE: my view is that however you view it, it is a "material" announcement whether L'Oréal is paying OBJ (a positive material event) or not (a negative material event).
We need more information. I'm not sure about this supposed L'Oréal device right now and whether it's another magnetic wand. But whatever the case, the concern above raises general issues concerning what compensation entitlements OBJ has secured from P&G in relation to P&G's prospective commercial decisions to license the tech to third parties.
I would encourage concerned holders to inquire of Glyn directly about this.
J
OBJ Price at posting:
7.7¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)