I believe he mentioned that he would not put the company or the shareholders at risk going forward without the patent protection
That sounds like a material development given the latest statement in filings about patents. It's a shame we have to rely on 3rd-hand accounts instead of the video of the AGM.
We currently have no patent protection for our P2O process and processor.
We are currently working on submitting several aspects of both our P2O processor and the P2O process itself for patent protection however no such protection currently exists. We also rely upon trade secrets to provide protection for our proprietary catalyst. A lack of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on our ability to gain a competitive advantage for our P2O processors, since it is possible that our competitors may be able to duplicate our P2O process for their own purposes. This may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, including on our ability to enter into industrial partnership arrangements or other agreements relating to our P2O processors.
We rely, in part, on trade secrets to protect some of our intellectual property, and our failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position.
We rely upon trade secrets to protect some of our intellectual property, such as our proprietary catalyst. However, trade secrets are difficult to maintain and protect. We have taken measures to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, but there is no guarantee that these measures will be effective. We require new employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of an employment or consulting arrangement with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Nevertheless, our proprietary information may be disclosed, or these agreements may be unenforceable or difficult to enforce. If any of the above risks materializes, our failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position.
Collaborations with third parties have required us to share some confidential information, including with employees of these third parties. Our strategy for the development of our P2O business may require us to share additional confidential information with our industrial partners and other third parties. While we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, third parties, or our industrial partners’ employees, consultants, contractors and/or other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose proprietary information to competitors. Enforcement of claims that a third party has illegally obtained and is using trade secrets is expensive, time consuming and uncertain. In addition, foreign courts are sometimes less willing than domestic courts to protect trade secrets. If our competitors develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, we may not be able to assert our trade secrets against them. Without trade secret or patent protection, it is possible that our competitors may be able to duplicate our P2O process for their own purposes. This may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, including on our ability to enter into industrial partnership arrangements or other agreements relating to our P2O processors.
Our ability to compete may decline if we do not adequately protect our intellectual property or if we lose some of our intellectual property rights through costly litigation or administrative proceedings.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property or take effective steps to enforce our rights. Although we do not believe that our services infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, there is no assurance that we may not be the target of infringement or other claims. Such claims, even if not true, could result in significant legal and other associated costs and may be a drain on management time. We plan to rely on a combination of copyright, trade secret, trademark laws and non-disclosure and other contractual provisions to protect our proprietary rights. Because the enforcement of intellectual property and intangible rights may be difficult and the ideas and other aspects underlying our processes may not in all cases be protectable under intellectual property laws, there can be no assurance that we can prevent competitors from marketing the same or similar products and services.
If our P2O catalyst or process is stolen, misappropriated, or reverse engineered, other parties may be able to reproduce the catalyst for their own commercial gain. If this were to occur, it could be difficult and/or expensive for us to discover and challenge this type of use, especially in countries with limited intellectual property protection. Enforcement of claims that a third party is using our proprietary rights without permission is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome of such actions are uncertain. Litigation would result in substantial costs, even if the eventual outcome is favourable to us, and would divert management’s attention from executing on our business strategy. In addition, an adverse outcome in litigation could result in a substantial loss of our proprietary rights and may result in us losing our ability to exclude others from using our technologies or processes.
We hold two U.S. patents relating to the Pak-It delivery method. We are currently working on submitting several aspects of both our P2O processor and the P2O process itself for patent protection. However, all patents expire, and any patent will only provide us commercial advantage for a limited period of time, if at all. We intend to continue to apply for patents relating to our technologies, methods and products, as we deem appropriate.
We may fail to apply for patents on important technologies, methods or products in a timely fashion, or at all. Our existing and future patents may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products or technologies. In addition, the patent positions of companies like ours are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of patent claims has emerged to date in the United States and the validity and enforceability of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Moreover, we cannot be certain whether:
? we are or were the first to make the inventions covered by each of our issued patents or patent applications;
? we are or were the first to file patent applications for these inventions;
? others will independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies, materials or processes;
? any patents issued to us will provide us with any competitive advantages, or will be challenged by third parties;
? we will develop additional proprietary products or technologies that are patentable; or
? the patents of others will have an adverse effect on our business.
We do not know whether any of our patent applications, once made, will result in the issuance of any patents. Even if patents are issued, they may not be sufficient to protect our technology or processes.
The patents we own and those that may be issued in the future may be challenged, invalidated, rendered unenforceable, or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with proprietary protection or competitive advantages. Moreover, third parties could practice our inventions in territories where we do not have patent protection or in territories where they could obtain a compulsory license to our technology where patented. Such third parties may then try to import products made using our inventions into the U.S. or other territories. Accordingly, we cannot ensure that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued patents, or even if issued, predict the breadth, validity and enforceability of the claims upheld in our patents.
Unauthorized parties may attempt to copy or otherwise obtain and use our products or technology. Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult, and we cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use of our technology and processes. If competitors are able to use our technology or processes, our ability to compete effectively could be harmed. Moreover, others may independently develop and obtain patents for technologies that are similar to, or superior to, our technologies or processes. If that happens, we may need to license these technologies, and we may not be able to obtain licenses on reasonable terms, if at all, which could cause harm to our business.
Our commercial success also depends in part on not infringing patents and proprietary rights of third parties, and not breaching any licenses or other agreements that we have entered into with regard to our technologies, products and business. We cannot be certain that patents have not or will not issue to third parties that could block our ability to obtain patents or to operate our business as we would like or at all. There may be patents in some countries that, if valid, may block our ability to commercialize products in those countries if we are unsuccessful in circumventing or acquiring rights to such patents. There also may be claims in patent applications filed in some countries that, if granted and valid, may also block our ability to commercialize products or processes in these countries if we are unable to circumvent or license them.
If any other party has filed patent applications or obtained patents that claim inventions also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention and, thus, the right to the patents for these inventions in the US. These proceedings could result in substantial cost to us even if the outcome is favourable. Even if successful, an interference may result in loss of certain claims. Even successful interference outcomes could result in significant legal fees and other expenses, diversion of management time and efforts and disruption in our business. Uncertainties resulting from initiation and continuation of any patent or related litigation could harm our ability to compete.
sec.gov
siliconinvestor.com
mikevel Member Profile mikevel Share Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:03:40 PM
Re: Rawnoc post# 117646 Post # of 117702
Patents at the AGM
John made a very short but significant reference to the patents, he basically said they are very important going forward in protecting the intellectual property of JBI and the shareholders value. I believe he mentioned that he would not put the company or the shareholders at risk going forward without the patent protection. Having said that, as Raw has stated, it will not preclude JB from signing agreements, but it would have an effect on JBI placing completed processors out in the world arena minus patent protection.
Two things need to be noted, first the patent process has been going on for some time with a large Toronto firm, and John was not concerned that it would slow the companies plan down in any way.
Second, lets face it it's going to take some time to build out the processor's, so it shouldn't be an issue anyway. Hopefully it will all be taken care of in the coming weeks/month
|
