Interpretation of Intended Grant I finally got around to reading the EPO communication. Don't get me wrong, this is a great step forward but there are still 3 issues/ammendments outlined by the EPO. Hopefully a news release will come soon to clear up the uncertainty.
1. Our description contains information from a related patent. This isn't really an issue at all, it should be a quick fix I hope?? But given our minor issues with Valentino in the past, I won't definitively say that I'm sure this isn't an issue.
2. Our description contains claim-like clauses. This means we have an entry that uses claim-like language: the issue with these clauses is they lead to unclarity surrounding the scope of protection. This one may actually be an issue if management believes deleting the entry of interest will limit the scope of our patent.
3. Claims 8 through 20 need to be grouped. When they say this, I believe they will group the dependent claims with their corresponding independent claims. However, it is important to note that in the last offer from the EPO they proposed that certain claims be grouped together: and we declined. Therefore, it is this issue that concerns me the most since we have made a denial for an apparently similar reason. Hopefully the EPO just wants to group our claims in a way that doesn't hurt the patent.
Overall, the most important thing is whether the deletion of the affected entries or grouping of claims limits our protection. Mgmt has been very clear in trying to get the most protection possible and they will not sacrifice pieces they deem important.
Hopefully the news release proves me wrong and the patent is in good standing, in which case I would undoubtedly pick up as many shares as possible while this thing is still below a dollar.
I think it is worth saying that I have worked to be as unbiased as possible. I received praise for my optimism throughout this painful process, yet I received grief when I expressed any sort of concerns. While disagreement is obviously welcomed, I cannot stand for criticism of my character or intentions. With my significant holdings, I have nothing to gain or lose from sharing my insights; the only thing I will benefit from is the company's performance in the long-run. Saying this or that does not complement my investment thesis, as contrary to my moniker I have never invested in something that I did not plan to hold for less than 5 years (I should be QuantumInvestor, not QuantumTrader). Dr. QT simply wants to help this committed group understand what the patent offices mean when they say ridiculously worded things. An informed and aware investor base is far more efficient and beneficial than a blind one.