News Details




Chris Burke invented, controls, manages, enhances and commercialises its entire patent portfolio.  Chris Burke’s private Superannuation (Pension) Fund owns the patent portfolio.

Chris Burke has been in charge of the patent portfolio management since inception and there is no dispute that the above ownership has been thoroughly and unequivocally presented to any party that has requested confirmation or proof thereof.

Chris Burke and Microlatch Limited have License Arrangements in place with various entities to commercialise the patent portfolio, plus manufacture and develop technology that incorporates ‘Mobile Biometrics’ functions, including Biometrics Cards.  Chris Burke invented ‘Mobile Biometrics’.

CJ BURKE NOMINEES patent assignment was ammended with a reference to Chris Burke’s Superannuation Fund within the three month window of the global recordings, therefore any subsequent changes to the recordings would be tantamount to fraud.  CJ BURKE NOMINEES is the Assignee and Trustee to the Securicom (NSW) P/L Superannuation Fund and the global recordings were made legally and were effected in each jurisdiction appropriately.

Any change to a recording without proper checks and balances would be an illegal action, plus using an assignment pulled from court actions to effect a recording change would show intent to defraud.

Additionally, CPC Patent Technologies P/L and CPC had notice of the assignment, which contradicts their position below, ‘without notice’, again placing the recording change as illegal and quite possibly fraudulent.  Further, the recording of the CJ BURKE NOMINEES P/L patent ownership was issued before CPC Patent Technologies P/L purportedly attempted to purchase the patents.

In summary, the issued statement below is false and misleading in three main areas, three month window was complied via a recently amended assignment, the recordings of CJ BURKE NOMINEES were issued prior to the purported/attempted CPC purchase date.  The patents were recorded to CJ BURKE NOMINEES P/L, plus the assignment document both give ‘notice’ to any subsequent purchaser.  There is a strong indication of attempted theft through potentially fraudulent actions.

CPC web posting copied below:

We are aware of a previous attempt to record an assignment of those patents to CJ Burke Nominees Pty Ltd.  We take the position that said assignment is void.  Specifically, US Patent Law at 35 USC 261 sets out that “An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage”.

The assignment in question is dated November 2017, and was not recorded with the USPTO prior to assignment of the patents from Securicom (NSW) Pty Ltd to CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd, hence our position regarding its void status.