My reading of the papers I can find (very few!) relating to the Nettec plc case in England is that their legal opinions and patent opinions were that the patent is not valid, or at least the British parent patent is not valid. Hence the rason I suggested that ton contact them. What that means for the US Patent is unclear to me, I am not sure if the British patent falling would affect the US Patent.

Ablaise Limited seems to be pretty much unknown, aside from an application for a trademark their is very little on the Web about them at all. When the case against Nettec plc was launched in 2003 the court required Ablaise to deposit GBP 60,000 as security. Later it was ordered to despoit a much larger sum, the following is taken from Nettec's interim results for the first half of 2005.

(a) Patent litigation
On 1 April 2003 proceedings were served on Nettec plc by Ablaise Limited ("Ablaise") alleging patent infringement. Your Board received advice that there are strong arguments that the Patent in question owned by Ablaise Limited is invalid. Your Board vigorously defended the action, seeking to protect its position on costs by obtaining orders in May and October 2003 that Ablaise pay a total of £376,000 into court as security for Nettec plc's costs. Although the sum in respect of the first costs order was paid into court by Ablaise, it failed to make the second payment and accordingly Ablaise's claim was struck out on 11 December 2003.
Your Board has received advice that there are strong arguments that the Patent owned by Ablaise Limited is invalid, and that the claim brought against Nettec plc is concluded. However, the Patent remains in existence and could be asserted in the future. Your Board has received legal advice that any further action by Ablaise impacting on Nettec plc is unlikely, and that any further proceedings brought by Ablaise would be unlikely to be successful. Consequently, no provision has been made for any further claim.
Wherein it seems that Ablaise either did not have the resources or possibly the will to proceed with the prosecution of their claim. I see they are listed as plaintiff in another case, I wonder if this is the one that ton is involved in given the recent dates.
ABLAISE LTD. vs. E TRADE SECURITIES, LLC.
Court: candce
3:2005cv03581
Filed: 9/6/2005
Good luck ton!

jdtoronto

In reply to Re^2: Looking for old Perl CGI code by jdtoronto
in thread Looking for old Perl CGI code by ton

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.