"In proceedings issued and notified to Uni-Pixel in June 2012 and served in December 2012"
Does this look like a situation where Carclo was negotiating with Uni-Pixel in the Spring and then as a part of those negotiations they shot something at Uni-Pixel in June as leverage in those negotiations. Uni-Pixel told them to pound sand for the last 6 months and now Carclo is following thru with whatever they threw at them in June with this court proceeding??
Could be......in this vain if they have been unable to duplicate or figure out the advantage Uni-Pixel has held then make a claim in English court to force Uni-Pixel to disclose what's uniquely different. This IP distinction is potentially what this tussle is about.