|CPC AMIGOS BREACH PATENT LICENCE|
CPC Patent Technologies Breach Microlatch Licence
CPC Patent Technologies P/L are in breach of the Microlatch (Hong Kong) Exclusive License Agreements and have been advised via legal counsel that legal remedy now becomes an option.
CPC Patent Technologies are operated by Three Amigos, (David Murray AO, Kevin Dart, Steve Cole) acting in collaboration to attempt back-door actions to gain access to Chris Burke’s patent portfolio.
The Three Amigos have spent years and millions of dollars without any forward gain, they have colluded against CPC Shareholders and alongside Chifley Advisory to purport to purchase patents that are solely managed and exclusively commercially exploitable by Microlatch (Hong Kong) License Agreements.
David Murray AO, acted against his fiduciary duties to Microlatch P/L, a company he maintains a minority shareholding position. David Murray AO, acted against Microlatch P/L when he illegally appointed Chifley Advisory, a hostile action against the majority shareholder and sole director, Chris Burke. The methods used by the Three Amigos have been shamefully unlawful and unethical, acting for their self interests against honest business owners and shareholders.
CPC Patent Technologies will not disclose their commercial arrangements with CPC nor with Chifley Advisory, who has intervened in the matter with inaccurate and very suspicious legal support of CPC Patent Technologies false assertions.
Microlatch legal counsel response to the inappropriate and incorrect legal view of Chifley is below. Chifley are well aware of the Microlatch Limited (Hong Kong) License Agreements that were part of the SPA with CPC. The concerning collaboration between Chifley Advisory and CPC Patent Technologies purported to conduct a patent sale agreement, violating the Microlatch (Hong Kong) Exclusive License Agreements.
Extracts of Letter to Chifley Advisory from Grant McCartney of Simmons and McCartney Legal Firm, follows below:
I do not concur with your view that the Microlatch licence agreement was terminated by Burke. The email from Burke to Dart of 31 March 2017 is evidence of an intention to terminate but not an actual termination. That in itself is contrary to Mr Dart’s advice to the ASX on 17 March 2017 that the Microlatch licence agreement would be terminated on completion of the share purchase agreement. Notwithstanding that very clear advice to the ASX Mr Dart appears to have attempted to manipulate Burke into some form of agreement to terminate but with no formal documentation.
There is also the question of the effect of Midgeon and Lyndcote (David Murray AO, privately held company) entering into separate agreements with CPC that would result in the transfer of the minority holdings on completion of the SPA.
It is our view that the Securicom licence, executed at the same time as the Microlatch licence, remains on foot and can be asserted by Microlatch Hong Kong. It is an exclusive licence and the existence of it in my opinion prevents any other entity including the patent holders asserting or commercialising patents without the consent of Microlatch Hong Kong. That consent has not been sought.
I note that your letter addressed to me has been posted by Charter Pacific on their website over the weekend. I find it most unhelpful for you to be providing copies of what should be confidential legal communications to 3rd parties who have a conflicted interest. This is not a matter to be tried in public but one that raises specific legal issues that if necessary requires interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction. It must call into question your bona fides in this matter. I find it ethically offensive for you to be allowing firstly the publication and then posting of confidential correspondence to me, on the Charter Pacific website.
Further, what you have conveniently overlooked is that both licence agreements are specifically referred to in the share purchase agreement executed by the parties on 27 September 2016. Schedule 8 of that agreement refers to material contracts which in turn specifically refer to Microlatch Pty Ltd and Securicom (NSW) Pty Ltd exclusive license agreements. Each of those licence agreements contains a Schedule A which in turn refers to an updated list from Spruson and Ferguson on 23/08/2013. In respect of the Securicom document it is titled by number 7766374_1 and identified in Schedule A. That identification is incontrovertible. The identified spreadsheet is attached. You will note from the document properties that it was created on 23 August 2013 by Paul Massey of Spruson and Ferguson. In our view the licence exclusively covers each of the items identified in that document. It is hard to understand how you might continue to argue the validity of the Securicom licence apart from the fact you failed to appreciate the relevance of document number 7766374_1.
It is also common ground that these license agreements were provided to your client prior to his qualified assignment of the Securicom patents to CPC patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
Therefore an answer to your various allegations, both licence agreements were validly executed and properly refer to the intellectual property over which they were granted. As previously noted in my view subject to the Microlatch shareholders agreement, both exclusive licenses are valid and capable of assertion and enforcement including litigation.
Simmons & McCartney
Lawyers & Attorneys