Patents, page-4

hmmm - ive just looked at the prospectus

Appears they claim US patents? From the 25/1/2019 prospectus

"Splitit’s core technology is patent protected in territories such as theUnited States, Japan, Russia and Singapore (with pending patents invarious jurisdictions including Australia and China) and Splitit intendsto maintain its unique offering, being a non-lending instalmenttechnology that does not charge the end-customer late fees, interestor any other fees."



IP Australia had rejected the AU patent some 3 months prior, and the USPTO did grant a patent in 2014, but also rejected one some 6 years prior.

How important are these patents?

Again from prospectus

"Overview of Splitit and the Splitit Payment PlatformThe Company (formerly known as Pay It Simple Ltd) was incorporated in 2008 but only commenced operations in 2012following the grant of patents in the United States. The Company was established on the premise that customersprefer to “buy now and pay later” however do not want to apply for additional lines of credit, fill out lengthy applicationforms or undertake further credit checks in order to do so."

To be fair, the earlier patent granted here > http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/8290864 , which probably allows some wiggle room in terms of prospectus statements and accuracy.

Im not sure how relevant the patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Pay+it+Simple+Ltd%22&OS=%22Pay+it+Simple+Ltd%22&RS=%22Pay+it+Simple+Ltd%22 actually is to what they are doing right now. Its got some similarities, but the second reject patent (see IP Australia in my first post) appears the more relevant one.

Not claiming to be an expert, but there are some doubts here?