In the world of technology and innovation, investors are always on the lookout for companies pushing the boundaries and claiming groundbreaking advancements. Blackstone Resources AG, a company that prides itself on being a revolutionary player in the battery production industry, recently faced scrutiny over its alleged misleading statements regarding patents. This article delves into the investigation that unfolded, revealing discrepancies between the company’s claims and the reality of its patent status.
On December 7, 2021, Blackstone Resources AG organized a press day at the new facility of its subsidiary, Blackstone Technology GmbH, in Döbeln, Saxonia (Germany). The event was a spectacle, with claims of inaugurating a revolutionary battery production facility. Among the attendees was a shareholder and patent attorney who, intrigued by the company’s promises, decided to investigate further.
Upon scrutiny, it became apparent that the patent claims made by Blackstone Resources AG did not align with the available evidence. The shareholder and patent attorney, eager to verify the authenticity of the patents, formally requested the company to provide the patent number(s) under Art. 12 PatA. However, the response from Blackstone Resources AG was nothing short of deafening silence, failing to acknowledge the inquiry even after a registered letter and reminder.
Not willing to accept the silence as an answer, the shareholder continued his investigation. It was discovered that Christopher Gilb of Luzerner Zeitung had also been keeping a close eye on Blackstone Resources AG and its patent claims. His report on January 26, 2022, revealed that the company had retroactively amended ad hoc notifications on its website shortly after the shareholder’s formal inquiry.
The crux of the matter lay in the amendment from “patented” to “applied for patent” across the entire website. This change was not a mere clarification, as Blackstone Resources AG tried to portray in a subsequent correction ad hoc notification on February 8, 2022. The distinction between a granted patent and a patent application is substantial, turning the company’s earlier claims into what the investigator described as “fuzzy marketing blah.”
The investigation concluded with the shareholder expressing disappointment at the absence of any granted patents or even published patent applications that aligned with the company’s claims. This revelation cast a shadow over Blackstone Resources AG’s credibility, raising questions about the veracity of its statements and the potential impact on investors who were enticed by the promise of groundbreaking technology.
The case of Blackstone Resources AG serves as a cautionary tale for investors, highlighting the importance of due diligence and skepticism in the face of grandiose claims. The discrepancy between the company’s public statements and the actual status of its patents underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the corporate world. As the dust settles, the aftermath of this investigation prompts investors to approach such revolutionary claims with a discerning eye and a healthy dose of skepticism.
