Firstly, I am not a patent attorney nor a chemical engineer, so...

Firstly, I am not a patent attorney nor a chemical engineer, so my analysis of the documents described below is not backed by any technical competence in the area.

But, has the November 2016 patent application been rejected? Would they tell us if it had been?! It hasn’t been rejected but I am sceptical about whether the application will simply never be heard of again (like all the contracts just about to be signed).

I suggest that you visit the website of IP Australia (www.ipaustralia.gov.au), which is the government’s patent authority. From the homepage click on ‘search patents’ on the right hand side of the page, then type “Austpac” into the search and you will see a list of their numerous patent applications.

You will see that on 2 Feb 2014 an application for EARS was filed following MT’s pronouncement at the AGM in 2013 that they will file a patent application, you will also see that the application was withdrawn on 12 Feb 2015. No announcement from APG.

I don’t know why, but for some applications you can view various documents, but not for others. If you click on 2006257708, which is another application for EARS on 5 June 2006, and click on the document ‘Examination Report No. 1’, you will see a letter from the examiner which asks for more information. The examiner says the process is not innovative nor novel, and sites a number of patented processes that do the same thing that EARS does. You will see that APG did not provide any further information, and the application lapsed. APG never announced that, did they!

The 2016 application seems to include the zinc step, but that part of the process is, we are told, technology which is already in use in zinc refineries, and well proven (Sept 2016 quarterly), so its not an Austpac invention although they say the way its incorporated is novel. If you look at the claims for the 2006 and the 2016 applications, I can’t see any real difference (apart from the zinc bit) so if the 2016 one simply includes adding an already available step, then perhaps it will also be found to not be innovative.

In my view APG only tells the market what it absolutely has to and is nowhere near as transparent as it should be.