Tag: ADD
DABUS Again Denied in the US and the UK, Part III – Implications for Australia
In both the US and the UK, patent offices have refused to allow applications filed by Dr Stephen Thaler to proceed, on the basis that the named inventor – an ‘AI’ machine dubbed DABUS – is not a human being. In the first article in this series I looked at the US approach to the role of the inventor in patent law and practice, and at the recent decision of Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) upholding the USPTO’s decision. In the second, I discussed the split decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which upheld (by a 2-1 majority) the decisions of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the High Court.
In Australia, the Patent Office also refused to allow a corresponding application by Dr Thaler to proceed. In contrast to the US and the UK, however, that decision was overturned by Justice Beach in the Federal Court. The Commissioner of Patents has now appealed that ruling to a Full Bench of the Court (case no. VID496/2021). In this article, I will be looking at the potential implications of the recent US and UK decision for the conduct and outcome of the appeal in Australia.
It should be said at the outset that the US law is very different to that of Australia, and it is therefore unlikely that anything in Judge Brinkema’s legal reasoning will be influential upon the Full Court. It has also become apparent through the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions that while the UK law shares some similarities with the corresponding provisions of the Australian Patents Act 1990, there are also some significant differences. Even so, there are aspects of the reasoning of Lord Justice Arnold in the Court of Appeal that the Australian appeals court may consider persuasive, and that could therefore influence the outcome here.
There are two key questions likely to be addressed in the appeal, both of which also arose in the UK, although only the first received substantive attention in the US. These are:
- Can DABUS, as an ‘AI’ machine and not a human being, validly be named as an inventor on a patent application?
- Can Dr Thaler, not being (at his own insistence) the inventor, establish a proper legal basis for entitlement to the grant of patents on inventions said to be generated by DABUS?
I shall look at each of these questions in turn.
Read more »CEKD Berhad
Follow us on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LCH-Trading-Signal-103388431222067/
Close to apply: 17/09/2021
Balloting: 21/09/2021
Listing date: 29/09/2021
Market Cap: RM93.395 mil
Total Shares: 194.573 mil shares
Industry CAGR
CAGR 2020-2025: 3.2% (forecast)
Competitors compare (Net profit margin%)
CEKD: 30.2%
Kentway: 0.3%
Marbach: 18.1%
Shanyu: 20.2%
Yip Lian: 11.2%
Business
Manufacturer of die-cutting moulds & trading of related consumables, tools and accessories.
Malaysia: 85.6% (2020 revenue)
Other countries: 14.4% (2020 revenue)
Fundamental
1.Market: Ace Market
2.Price: RM0.48
3.P/E: 15.5 (EPS: 0.031)
4.ROE(Pro Forma III): 18.03% (forecast using 7mth FPE)
5.ROE: 16.10%(2020), 27.72%(2019), 28.86%(2018)
6.Cash & fixed deposit after IPO: 0.069
7.NA after IPO: RM0.31
8.Total debt to current asset after IPO: 0.44 (Debt: 11.245mil, Non-Current Asset: 46.1mil, Current asset: 25.3mil)
9.Dividend policy: doest not have formal dividend policy.
Past Financial Performance (Revenue, Earning Per shares, PAT%)
2021 (7mths): RM17.705 mil (Eps: 0.0207),PAT%: 22.7%
2020: RM26.355 mil (Eps: 0.0310),PAT%: 22.9%
2019: RM28.363 mil (Eps: 0.0278),PAT%: 19.1%
2018: RM28.732 mil (Eps: 0.0350),PAT%: 25.4%
After IPO Sharesholding
Yap Tian Tion: 74% (indirect)
Yap Kai Ning: 74% (indirect)
Directors & Key Management Remuneration for FYE2021 (from gross profit 2020)
Total director remuneration: RM0.822 mil
key management remuneration: RM0.30 mil- 0.7mil
total (max): RM1.522 mil or 11.45%
Use of fund
Acquisition of factory for Hotstar: 36.2%
Purchase of new machineries: 12.4%
Upgrade and development of computer softwares and server: 5.4%
Marketing activities: 6.2%
General working capital: 11%
Repayment of bank borrowing: 16.5%
Listing expenses: 12.3%
Highlight
1. Continue growth of Electrical & electronic manufacturing in ASEAN.
2. Growth of paper and paper product industry.
3. Both factorys is to consolidate 3 old rented factory into new factory (1 by IPO fund, & 1 by financed through bank borrowings and/or internally generated funds.
Good thing is:
1. ROE is above 15%.
2. Consolidate factory will increase efficientcy.
3. Paper moulds and E&E industry both still is sunrise industry.
The bad things:
1. High competitor environment (M'sia have around 40 die-cutting moulds manufacturing.
2. Director & key management remuneration over 10% company gross profit.
3. Use 16.5% IPO fund to repay bank borrowing.
4. Factory consolidate did not represent add addional factory line to expand business.
5. 2018-2020 revenue did not growth.
Average IPO. PE15.5 is just around fair PE. The attractive part in their business is the involved in produce steel related product for E&E industry which is the industry in growing.
Latest Intelligence
