Maybe they’ve learnt their lesson and have made the necessary...

Maybe they’ve learnt their lesson and have made the necessary changes in the US patent application.

What we know is that RNU and ANZAPLAN’s challenge is on the ‘broad nature’ of the Australian application not the patent itself. This is where I think there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. Especially, if you take the point that EGR haven’t disclosed which acid or process they are using to constitute them to make the claim that it is HF free. Yet, they make the claim in the Australian patent application that they are excluding HF.

In other words, the patent in the Australian version, gives EGR exclusive control over every other possible acid and process but HF. This is clearly ‘overly broad’ by any countries definition and simply anti-commerce because it stifles investment in improvements and developments which may lead to better outcomes for a healthy competitive industry to evolve for the betterment of everyone and their environments.

Whatever the outcome, it is a side show. RNU is a leader and it now appears that they have invented a better process which has greater water saving methods that achieves 99.99%, as opposed to their lesser results. If that's the case, you'd wonder why they bother to continue other then to make it look like management are doing something. It's estimated that 95% of all granted patents end up being worthless, and cost more to maintain than what they one may get out of it.

Besides, patents are designed to protect ones intellectual property not disenfranchise an entire global industry from the use of all other possible methods. The US won't fall for that shyte. Therefore, we can assume it has been altered throughout as you suggest.

Also, I imagine it must be costing them a fortune having to respond to 2 separate parties all the time.

Meanwhile, all the momentum is with RNU and the BAM study should reveal all. Only a matter of weeks now!

AIMO, DYOR GLTA(patient)H