Well ....it does appear this just got a bit interesting.
@Harvey687.....it's good your glass is half full, because as you say, we actually don't know anything other than from the court portal, where it appears Ferroglobe have lodged a claim against ADO regarding a patent.
So, no news (from the company) is good news. We have news from the Federal Court of Australia indicating a claim against a company, is that good news or bad news? Given the claim against us was made on Thusday, and with no news from the people running our company, presumably it's good news?
So, glass half full it is!!
Now, before I go on, during my working life I have had reason to dabble in trademark, copyright and patent law....but I am no lawyer. Anyone with enough time to read this should do so just to stave of severe boredom, or because your just interested in hearing some old guy opine away!
We have a legal claim regarding a patent. What do we know about the legal proceeding?
- Ferroglobe has laid a claim against ADO regarding a patent.
- A judge gave an order for Ferro to have a look at the IP in question, then put up or shut up. ADO agreed to comply.
- Post some examination / discovery by Ferro of the IP, the company (Ferro) has now lodged a claim against ADO. (on 10/8).
What do I know about IP law? Not much!!
From my limited experience in dealing with this topic (and I do have some) IP law, like a lot of common law has a bit more 'subjectivity' in the judgements, if not more, then other parts of common law.
I know from having some involvement in this (patenting) topic, that when you 'Patent' an IP (as against a trademark etc) you are protecting a design or configuraton of something you (usually) intend to commercialise / sell.
Wee of course know that people / companies protect their designs and configurations mainly because in a commercial world it gives exclusive right to that design, which provides greater certainty when you go to produce / commercialise it that it won't just be copied and sold by someone else.
The other take home for me from my background, is that if the claim by Ferro is about our design or composition, in most cases Ferro would have already registered an idea / design / composition for a patent, not just have shared an idea with us that we have then sought to inform part of our patent. (eg: anteoX or anode design).
If Ferro haven't, I understand this can radically effect their claim (imo).
One thing I heard talked about often was the fact that you could do something similar to another design / product, as long as the 'design' had adequate points of difference. Then, even if it was 'similar' it could be protected as a new invention / design.
What patents do we have that Ferroglobe would be interested in? Well, from CB's slide today (thanks again CB) it's probably covered that off. We have two granted patents for IP, being for AnteoX from 2020. We then have a range in provisional or pending patents, the most notable of thise being the silicon anode and new & improved AnteoX.
What do we know about our the battery patents we do have? (underline is my emphasis)
In
February 2020, ADO granted key US Battery patent (the IP) for our cross-linker additives and binder solutions, in part stating "
This US patent covers relatively broad claims and confirms a proprietary position for use of AnteoTech’s coating and binding technologies when applied to battery materials such as silicon particles. It is important to note that this patent covers the use of metal complexes (not just
chromium) for any active materials (and not just Silicon) used in electrodes (and not just anodes and not just Li-ion batteries). The patent therefore covers the use of AnteoTech’s surface modification technologies to improve the performance and shelf life of high-performance
materials used in next generation electrodes. It is also relevant for any situation where AnteoTech modified silicon particles are assembled into electrodes, for example, assembling silicon nanoparticles into some larger composite particles. At some later point we have trademarked the name AnteoX (as our naming IP)".
What about the silicon anode design?
- In September 2021 we were advised that we had developed a reference design for a 'anode' (using silicon + AnteoX). That the anode design was being worked on between two different collaborators (No. 2 - a binder manufacturer & No. 8 - a battery materials manufacturer). That we were being asked by both to develop an anode for use by an EV company and a battery company.
- In December 2021 we are informed of a technology roadmap that includes ADO developing a 'silicon anode'. But it will take 4 years (until 2025/6) to commercialise.
- In March 2022 we were informed that we have validation of the improvement AnteoX makes by Collaborator 8 (battery materials manufacturer) and that we have 'a strong IP position covering both Anteox applications and our micro-silicon anode design'. (It is just I can find no ASX announcement about us receiving a patent for a 'silicon anode design'....but then again that would have been good news, so.....why should this be announced!!)
- In July 2022 we are informed "Enax who is a customer of Collaborator 8, has evaluated AnteoX intheirhigh energy silicon anode
reference design that is currently under development for a high-performance application" and that "our work on designing a high performing micro silicon anode has continued via testing of a range of designs. We have achieved increased electrochemical performance in some of these anodes and are working towards achieving our initial goal of 500 cycles at 80% capacity retention."
- In November 2022 as part of the chairman's address we were informed that "Our Clean Energy Technology division is pursuing two commercial pathways in parallel: AnteoX, the binder additive technology that boosts the performance of batteries, improving the life cycle performance of high‑energy cells, and the Silicon Anode development program designed to improve the performance of silicon batteries"
- In November 2022 the CEO address informed us of the 'Technology Development Roadmap' that 'has 3 products identified as part of our roadmap being: Product (1) - AnteoX; Product (2) - Anteolink; Product (3) - Slicon Anode System...and that part of our future projects will be to create new IP postions for the company".
- In February 2023 the CEO informed us that "The CET division has made strong progress over the past 12 months, and is on the cusp of commercialising its AnteoX and Silicon Anode technologies" and that there had been "good technical progress with AnteoX and silicon anode".
So, we have been putting our 'reference design' with a provisional patent out and about in the market place with collaborators / partners, and in doing so we have infringed, because Ferro believe our reference design is so much like an anode design that Ferro have registered?...or that somehow a component of it infringes on a design / configuration they have registered?....or is it not so much a patent issue, but that we used some confidential information and breached some other agreement in so doing?...maybe not actually a patent infringement?....or is this something else?....Is it in fact something to do with our new AnteoX formulation?
So what is going on?
I have no idea!!....others probably know a lot more and can correct much of what I have to say.
But, all I sought of know is:
- Ferro have lodged a claim related to a patent.
- As per the last presentation (CB slide) it would seem there are a couple of patents provisionally granted and couple pending - which of these are being contested?
- It may be the anode or the 'new' AnteoX composition....or something else, or a number of them?
From reading the threads here, it seems the two most likely possibilities being the silicon anode design?......or new AnteoX?
Maybe, as others suggest, this claim right now is about sending us to the wall financially?.....it appears we are running out of money to pay our own people, never mind lawyers, so a massive legal bill over many months is not good timing.
But finally, for the CEO.
It's presumptuous of me to think you may read HC never mind read my post. Never mind read it to the end.
But on the very off chance......
I actually believe this company has potential. From what I can see and know, the way you and the Board are now steering this company gives me confidence.
But, about the communication.
No news may be good news, and if you control all the news, maybe you can make good on that mantra. But ADO don't, none of us do.
Our chairman, in November last year at the AGM, said -
The Board is committed to communicating with our investor base in good faith, providing all the relevant information in accordance with ASX rules and the interests of shareholders. In my view, this is a particularly important point in the digital age, where information flows are often accelerated. It brings to mind a recent article by the New York Times, also published in the Australian Financial Review, discussing the results of the Integrity Institute’s analysis of the power of social media. It starts out by saying, “It is well known that social media amplifies misinformation and other harmful content.” As we engage with each other online, I would like us to reflect on these findings and consider the impact and consequences some communications can have. Often these impacts are far more reaching than they intend to be.
Here's the thing.......Hotcopper is social media. On social media it says our company is being taken to the Federal Court of Australia.
We invest here at our own risk, based on information and research to inform that investment. We hold a financial interest and stake in this company. People will have put savings into this company that impacts their lives. We all do this knowing the risks, understanding it may fail.
However, there are over 10 question marks just in this email alone. It makes it hard for many of us to do further due diligence. What we appear to be relying upon is the very thing the chairman warned us against doing - but what other option is ADO providing us right now?...is ADO really saying if you see your company being taken to the Federal court, and you don't hear anything from us, just assume its all good?!!
Could you please have the good grace to tell the people who own a part of this company what is going on. As the Chairman said ...{quote}
"
and not leaving it to social media to amplify the misinformation, considering the impact and consequences that may have".
As good a job as I believe you have been doing, with the utmost respect, on the topic of communication, please do better.
I think most the people invested here deserve at least that.
EB
The above is certainly not financial, legal or any other kind of advice.
