Thanks @thetjs

TBH I missed the call the other day due to other work commitments however got in for the end of the Q&A with Alexander. From my recollection he said that this was a matter for the courts and wouldn't be discussing further.

@BkrDzn has an extensive knowledge of Acusensus and might be able to contribute something more informative from previous research.

I believe that they have lodged proceedings with the Federal court, however no formal sitting date has been confirmed as of yet. It would be likely that the court and Acusensus are waiting for One Task to response to the claim, or commence some form of mediation.

From my understanding, patent lawyers are different to the in-house counsel that Acusensus have on the cards, and their costs would be incurred to the business for advice and lodgement activities. These will depend on where you are in the process and how far this thing draws out, the extent of proof they need to back up their claim (i.e expert witnesses) and whether a settlement is reached.

Looking at their LinkedIn, One Task is working with the Dutch Government to trial the enforcement program with their technology which will commence enforcement shortly. They don't seem to have many other big wins announced as of yet, which shows the current size and maturity of their business. Irrespective of their size, Acusensus will want to get this sorted before any more contract wins are announced, and according to Chat GPT they could pursue one of a few options:

• Get them to either Cease and Desist
• Agree on some form of financial settlement
• Cross licencing or some other form of agreement (i.e. royalties).

I would be confident that Acusensus would be first seeking the Cease and Desist approach as this provides the best long term protection to their patent and future revenue stream.

This space is an expanding opportunity and there will always be future innovations and other competition that will change the way these detections are enforced and the market as a whole. Acusensus still needs to be at the forefront of innovation if they wish to be a market leader, and to date they are doing a pretty good job of that in Oceania. As a layperson I'm not too concerned about the patent risk at this stage, and am more concerned about the speed at which autonomous vehicles are rolled out worldwide as this has a far greater impact on their business model and profitability (which is still quite a while away).

Disc Held IRL and SM.

I no insight into the IP claims and the co offers nothing when asked. One can keep tabs on progress on this case via the link below. If it doesn't work, go to the federal court's website, law search section and use 'acusensus IP pty ltd' to find the link to the case.

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/public/esearch/federal/query?last_name=acusensus+IP+pty+ltd&given_name=&filed_after=&filed_before=&court=any&file_status=any&registry=any&action_type=any&search_by=party_name

I note One Task's IP backs the MonoCam system that won the Netherlands Tender whilst they licence their software IP to Jenoptick, for the use in Victoria and to Sensys Gatso for Tasmania. Outside of these, I am not aware of any deployment using this IP or their own IP that competes with ACE at scale. I also have no idea what would happens should ACE successfully win the IP claim.