RNU objects to EGR's purification Patent application, page-356

Certainty is what the Australian graphite market needs.

The Australian Government owns IP Australia (IPA). So far, EGR has shown little regard in having an Australian project here by shelving the Kwinana project. So, you have to question why are they bothering to continue to protect a patent in this country that they are showing minimal interest in servicing anyhow? To save face - I suspect.

As it stands, EGRs patent application is overly broad. Reading through Christoph Frey’s, the inventor of their flowsheet, declaration shows that he is a highly qualified expert in his field. He discusses his background and personal experience then, offers his experience and opinion about what steps are required to do what. Effectively, he is starting to outline the processes and in doing so helping to provide the sort of clarity that is necessary so that when any two flowsheets are placed next to each other, they can be distinguished. That seems to me to be what is missing!

Interestingly, just a few days ago, another Australian graphite company ITM who also owns an Australian resource made an announcement to continue to work with their partner Dorfner ANZAPLAN to ‘further’ develop and refine a flow sheet. See Announcement (16 Dec): ITM call ANZAPLAN their partner. How exactly are they a ‘partner’ is another question in itself? Nevertheless, ITM clearly recognise ANZAPLAN as the go-to guys. Despite knowing that they started, along with RNU, the process of opposing EGRs patent application late last year, they are still happy to continue to engage with them. So the question is, why would ITM take the risk of an unsuccessful outcome, it may put them back several months of development unnecessarily, if they didn’t already know or feel comfortable with the outcome? After all, they’re ‘partners’, right!

It’s worth recapping that IPAustralia (IPA) initially rejected this patent for its lack of novelty before back-flipping to approve it 6 months or so later. But not before they had explored asked the IPEA (a body that examines the demand to ascertain whether a patent meets all the requirements, i.e., it deals with rejected claims) to assist them with a more ‘acceptable’ recommendation. Consequently, it is now up to the market to determine what actually needs protecting not the IPA. And maybe in all fairness to IPA, letting commercial enterprise decide that is better for commerce.

The bottomline is that EGR may need to amend its patent so that any ambiguity doesn’t exist or face losing it altogether. That way, they get to keep their patent and we and everyone else get to make sure that their customised flow sheets are not breaching any rights.

Already, IP Australia seems to be making favourable moves. See document by IPA dated 2022-10-10 - IPA effectively told EGR to get on with it.

Big year coming up for the RNU kangaroo!

All IMO, DYOR, GLTA(patient)H