I agree.The discussion is not an issue for either company....

First 399 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Mallyrock

1,177 Posts.

2628

19/03/24

13:31

Post #: 72959957
Share

Originally posted by bondaus: ↑

This is how I see it,
From RNU's perspective,
objections are held so RNU gets the cost. RNU is happy. I think, they have already said, they are no more interested in the process and looking at alternatives. RNU seems to have no more interest in this patent anyway. I may be wrong, it is only my view.
From EGR's perspective,
it is patentable subject matter so egr may go back, change the wording and disclosure, and may get it patented in future. It doesn't impact them in any way as of now. so EGR should be happy now, considering their patent is not rejected on grounds of novelty. and they may get it in future. so now it is between EGR and the patent office. Yes, they will lose the cost but it doesn't break the business.

so from now, I don't see any reason to discuss the EGR patent issue on RNU's board. All in my opinion.

Again, BKT's success is a precursor to EGR's business.

All in my opinion.

Expand

I agree.

The discussion is not an issue for either company. Although, I'd say that each party bears their own expenses.

I believe that all we want to see is for our respective boards to advance and get one or two offtakes over the line. Perhaps this IPA decision alters the way an anode player thinks. Perhaps RNU not commenting on the decision thus far is a sign that they have already moved to seal a deal.

The longer RNU doesn't respond, the more likely they have 'moved on' to greater things. So, I'd suggest that EGR will do the same.

All the best.

All IMO, DYOR, GLTA(patient)H

RNU Price at posting: 8.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
7 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply