Ecograf''s patent opposition, page-58

Hi Kergman,

I think its more likely to do with Mallyrocks assertation,


He has alluded in a few of his posts, RNU has copied EGR's original patent applications, then provided this information to Dorfner to alter the design, I don't believe RNU thought EGR could obtain a patent for its process and are now caught out where they need to object,

There is no other reason why a fellow ASX listed company would object to another companies process if there is no similar process, by Mallyrocks admission, it would appear these processes have been obtained from viewing the earlier patents.

As Topo pointed out earlier in the thread, the examiner did say the process wasn't inventive, EGR then provided additional information and detailed the chemicals used in each step rather than stating caustic roasting.

Either way, EGR can continue its developments, but this patent objection buts RNU's process in doubt and explain the $28mil drop in their MC today.
It will be interesting to see how much damage the patent object has to RNU's MC and its ability to progress offtakes and its regulatory approvals.

RNU's stance on existing IP from January 2022 to now is also a stark change as picked up by Gus.