"the Australian patent is not too relevant", really? Come...

"the Australian patent is not too relevant", really? Come on.

Shareholders were led, by the board, to believe this patent was important. If not why the hell apply for it, and more so why defend it so vigorously over a 4 year period?

1. We are now left with the costs - Costs awarded to objector. Huge slap in the face. How weak must have been the case that the judge sought fit to not share costs but to make the applicant pay for the objector's costs to object? That is almost like saying why are you wasting our time. These costs will undoubtedly be well into 6 figures, more likely 7 given there were 2 objectors plus ourselves. What accountability does the board have for this - not like it comes out of profit.
2. We are now left with a decision as to whether or not to continue to pursue it - more management time and distraction
3. Now we are left without patent protection allowing others (read Renascor) to replicate it, when obviously our esteemed board felt it a competitive advantage - gone!

Maybe it was misjudgement by the board, maybe it was misjudgement by the patent lawyers advising the board, or maybe it was misjudgement by C Frey, shareholder will never know but it all points to board failure.

But what shareholders shouldn't do is position themselves such that they either:

1. Cheer and applaud a positive outcome (patent granted)
2. Just dismiss a negative outcome and make excuses (patent rejected)

If 1 is good, 2 is bad and should not be considered otherwise.

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.