 The engines alone of the Airbus A380 use about 11 tons of titanium
Prof Derek Fray, still listed on Metalysis’ website as a founder and chairman of its scientific advisory board, is refusing to collaborate with the company because he believes that they unfairly hold a licence to his invention.
Business Weekly understands that Prof Fray’s research group at the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy has effectively been split into two, with Metalysis only given access to those scientists that it funds directly.
Prof Fray believes that British Titanium – a company with which he has worked for almost 10 years – and not Metalysis, is the rightful holder of the exclusive licence to commercialise the FFC Cambridge Process for the production of super-metal, titanium.
Prof Fray is the co-inventor of the Fray-Farthing-Chen (FFC) Cambridge Process, a new process for the extraction of metals and alloys from their solid oxides by molten salt electrolysis.
The dispute, which is almost exactly two years old, is an example of how wrong technology transfer can go, inflicting differing degrees of damage on every one of the major protagonists.
At the heart of the convoluted wrangle is the sequence of events that led to Metalysis being assigned the ‘head’ licence for the FFC Cambridge Process after it was surrendered by QinietiQ, a development that was approved by Cambridge University’s technology transfer arm. It was this transfer of rights that spelt the end for BTi’s exclusive rights to commercialise FFC in the titanium market.
Metalysis, which was originally set up to employ the FFC Process in all metals apart from titanium, offered BTi a non-exclusive licence on the basis that it planned to enter the market itself later on, but for obvious reasons this did not wash.
Prof Fray, who is a globally respected scientist in the field of materials chemistry and a founder of a number of other companies besides BTi and Metalysis, has been seeking restitution from the University for its part in the debacle for two years now.
Chief amongst his grievances was the failure of Cambridge University Technical Services – the tech transfer department now reorganised and renamed Cambridge Enterprise – to consult with him before the licences were reassigned.
And although the most recent appeal hearing – chaired by former High Court Judge and Intellectual Property expert , Sir Hugh Laddie – upheld Prof Fray’s complaint against the University’s handling of the FFC licence, the victory remains notional as no further action has been taken.
Business Weekly has made an application to the University under the Freedom of Information Act to see a physical copy of Sir Hugh’s judgement, but this request has so far been declined on the basis that the hearing was exempt from disclosure under the Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1923.
British Titanium is currently racing to meet a recently imposed three month deadline to raise the £4.7m it needs to relaunch its High Court action against the past and present holders of the ‘head licence’ for the FFC Cambridge Process - QinetiQ and Metalysis respectively.
BTi was placed into administration to protect it from the fall-out from its first abortive attempt at High Court action, when its case was struck out and it was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs because it couldn’t raise the £470k required by the Court for security.
If it hasn’t raised the litigation finance by March – or at least has written proof that it is in place – the company will almost certainly be wound up.
While James Hamilton, majority shareholder in and founder of British Titanium assured us that this was “ample time to finalise our litigation funding and restart our case,” the company has not managed to do so in the 22 months since it first started the process.
And while Prof Fray and British Titanium consider that it is in possession of a valuable licence that it has no business holding, Metalysis has by no means escaped unscathed, even if the promised High Court action never materialises.
As Metalysis CFO Harry Pepper says in his witness statement to the recent hearing about a second extension to British Titanium’s administration period: “I would like to make the point that Metalysis is being prejudiced by what appears to be the indefinite continuation of the [British Titanium] administration. Because of the administration, it has had the vague threat of litigation hanging over it now for 18 months.
“It is currently in limbo on the litigation. It cannot say when or if it might end and this is causing concern with existing and potential investors who would like to have certainty one way or another.”
Related stories
|
Delicious
Digg
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati