Skip to main content

Launching the next generation of mobile and multi-platform signature system based on biometric parameters

Periodic Reporting for period 1 - SignSigma (Launching the next generation of mobile and multi-platform signature system based on biometric parameters)

Reporting period: 2014-09-01 to 2014-11-30

Sigma Technologies wants to exploit a very powerful unique biometric technology that can authenticate signatures for first time from any touch-screen (smartphones, tablets) with a performance similar to the complex, intrusive and expensive iris scan technology, which will open a new range of opportunities and markets. Smartphones, tablets and the growing access to mobility will accelerate identification needs, and ease its introduction through various applications like banking, health sector, insurance, digital preservation, etc. This technology will permit to reduce paperwork, reduce costs, save time in operations, and decrease fraud by bio-identity, consequently having a significant impact on the economy.
The SignSigma solution allows to verify the identity of a person by using the dynamic parameters of their biometric signature with an extremely low error ratio for first time merely using a common tablet or smartphone. The technology is not based on the image of the signature but on its dynamic biometric parameters such as pressure, velocity, acceleration. This technology has been recognised as the best technology in the First International Signature Verification Competition. The range of applications is huge, as this disruptive technology creates new markets as it will permit to be identified at any time, and anywhere.
The current innovation business project was submitted and approved on June 2014 as a SME Instrument (SMEI) Phase 1 with a total score of 14.02 (4.61 / 4.64 / 4.77). After the execution of Phase 1, during three months, all the objectives has been achieved as scheduled.
The outputs for each one of the task demonstrate that the SignSigma solution is free to operate. During the execution of this action we have been able to compare our solutions with others. Similarly, we have studied several devices suitable for the SignSigma solution in order to have them as references for further development and commercialization activities. That said our solution still shows to be relevant in the current market with room for development in order to offer a complete set of tools for our customers.
From the legal point of view, we have carried out a depth analysis of the European Legal framework. The old EU Directive (1999) was the starting point for laws in European contrived offering some hints of legality of our solution. The new European directive (enacted on July 2014) gives much more legal power to biometric signatures in Europe as in the US.
Overview of the Work done
The current report is an overview of the work done during the execution of this phase 1. In the proposal five tasks where defined. Each one of this task served for the preparation of a feasibility study, which is the main output of this phase 1 and also is the starting point to prepare a phase 2 proposal.
During the execution of this phase 1 a platform comparison was made in order to define the best technology to be used for the SignSigma solution. Secondly, the legality of the biometric signature was analyse at a European level and in three European countries. Based on the competition, key market applications were also defined and one market has been selected as main market to position the SignSigma technology. Regarding IPR issues, a patent search was carried out and the design, selection and registration of the SignSigma brand is being conducted at this moment. Lastly, an updated business plan, as well as a detailed work plan for a phase 2 execution has been created.

T1.1 Extensive Platform Comparison
When talking about current technologies used as platforms where to insert the biometric handwritten signature, we should use the generally used term “touchscreen”.
A touchscreen is a visual screening device that is controlled by the user by touching / making graphical gestures on the screen, using for that a special pen or just directly one or several fingers. i.e. it will reflect and capture what we write on it.
Touchscreens are composed by a series of sensors that transform a physical magnitude into an electric signal. Depending on the physical magnitude measured, we can consider different technologies: resistive, capacitive, acoustic, optical, etc. The 5 considered are shown in the table below, vs. the relevant parameters in the market.
In a nutshell, all technologies have different advantages and disadvantages when talking about resolution, responsiveness (processing speed), degradation, consumption, robustness, and cost.
Table 1 shows a comparison between all the technologies mentioned. A dash (-) indicates that the specific parameter is not supported and four stars (****) is the highest rating. In the particular case of pointing devices, one star means that only one kind of pointing device is supported and four stars indicate that all the pointing devices (including bare or gloved fingers) are supported by the specific technology.
From Table 1, it is easy to understand why almost all the existing touchscreen in the market are following one of the 3 last technologies: capacitive (projected mutual, to cover multi-touch), NFI and Bending wave. Resistive touchscreen are not considered basically because they don’t offer multi-touch functionality, key nowadays to support current applications. Optical ones, on the other hand, have shown to be extremely sensitive to dirt, and therefore causing multiple faults and error accesses.

T1.2 Legal Framework study
The main output of this has been to perform a legal analysis/validity of the SignSigma technology. In depth legal framework study at European level of digital signature was carried out. Furthermore, three EU countries have been evaluated in-depth. Legal aspects concerning the digital signature at a European level are crucial to determine the best applications.
EU Legal Framework
The European Union is currently finalizing regulation, which will increase the legal value of advanced electronic signatures and remote electronic signing services by offering the possibility to generate a qualified digital signature using a remote signing system. The regulation has been enacted in early July 2014.
The European legislation is predominantly based on Directive 1999/93/EC , which stipulates common obligations for certification service providers and common rules on liability and cooperative mechanisms in order to secure trans-border recognition of signatures and certificates throughout the European Community. The Directive addresses three forms of digital signatures: simple, advanced and qualified digital signature.
The “European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/93/EG about a Framework for Electronic Signatures” supports a broad technological approach to electronic signatures. It became law in the European countries subsequently beginning in the year 2000. Law makers are gradually reflecting “biometric signatures” now. The European directive does not automatically specify a certain technology. It defines levels of electronic signatures which are considered as “simple”, “advanced” or “qualified”.
There are several ways how dynamic signatures may be used to create electronic signatures:
• The simple embedding of dynamic signature data into a document results in a “simple” electronic signature.
• The definition of “advanced electronic signatures” reflects that the trustworthiness of electronic documents is closely linked to the power of proof for authenticity and integrity in the particular application and workflow. The idea of an advanced electronic signature is to provide a proof of intent of a signer and legally binding evidence of a transaction. In addition to the option to authenticate the dynamic signature, this form of signature requires encryption and the option to check that a document has not been tampered with (integrity check, typically via a hash code comparison).
• Article 2 of the directive has the following definitions:
1. “electronic signature” means data in electronic form which are attached to or logically associated with other electronic data and which serve as a method of authentication;
2. “advanced electronic signature” means an electronic signature which meets the following requirements:
(a) it is uniquely linked to the signatory;
(b) it is capable of identifying the signatory;
(c) it is created using means that the signatory can maintain under his sole control; and
(d) it is linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of the data is detectable;
Only “qualified electronic signatures” require the usage of digital certificates and reliable devices to carry those. Dynamic signatures may be used in this environment to replace PINs and enhance the usability of this kind of electronic signatures. The German law and regulation on electronic signatures has allowed this explicitly since mid-2001.
The terminology of an “advanced electronic signature” is not a global term. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) published a model law which includes terminology recommendations however they are not binding.
Similar requirements as defined in the European directive for “advanced electronic signature” are defined with in a different wording in several countries:
• The Australian Electronic Transactions Act 1999 defines similar requirements for electronic signatures without using a specific signature classification.
• Even within the European Union some laws in some countries are not equivalent to the EU-legislation: The Austrian law uses the equivalent of a “secure electronic signature” instead of the EU-terminology of a “qualified electronic signature” and so does the law in Poland.
• Indonesia: Law No 11 of 2008 regarding Information and Electronic Transactions (Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik / UU ITE – also called “ETI law”)
• Singapore: §17 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 describes the requirements of a "secure electronic signature".
• United Arab Emirates: §20 of the Electronic Transactions and Commerce Law No.2/2002 describes the requirements of a "Protected Electronic Signature".
New EU Regulation on electronic identification (July 2014)
The Regulation (EU) N°910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (eIDAS Regulation) adopted by the co-legislators on 23 July 2014 is a milestone to provide a predictable regulatory environment to enable secure and seamless electronic interactions between businesses, citizens and public authorities. In section 4 of the new regulation more specifically for Electronic signatures the most relevant articles are:
Article 25
Legal effects of electronic signatures
1. An electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures.
2. A qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature.
3. A qualified electronic signature based on a qualified certificate issued in one Member State shall be recognised as a qualified electronic signature in all other Member States.
Article 26
Requirements for advanced electronic signatures are the same as the ones mentioned in Article 2 of Directive 1999/93/EC.
An advanced electronic signature shall meet the following requirements:
(a) it is uniquely linked to the signatory;
(b) it is capable of identifying the signatory;
(c) it is created using electronic signature creation data that the signatory can, with a high level of confidence, use under his sole control; and
(d) it is linked to the data signed therewith in such a way that any subsequent change in the data is detectable.
Article 32
Requirements for the validation of qualified electronic signatures
1. The process for the validation of a qualified electronic signature shall confirm the validity of a qualified electronic signature provided that:
(a) the certificate that supports the signature was, at the time of signing, a qualified certificate for electronic signature complying with Annex I;
(b) the qualified certificate was issued by a qualified trust service provider and was valid at the time of signing;
(c) the signature validation data corresponds to the data provided to the relying party;
(d) the unique set of data representing the signatory in the certificate is correctly provided to the relying party;
(e) the use of any pseudonym is clearly indicated to the relying party if a pseudonym was used at the time of signing;
(f) the electronic signature was created by a qualified electronic signature creation device;
(g) the integrity of the signed data has not been compromised;
(h) the requirements provided for in Article 26 were met at the time of signing.
2. The system used for validating the qualified electronic signature shall provide to the relying party the correct result of the validation process and shall allow the relying party to detect any security relevant issues.
3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the validation of qualified electronic signatures. Compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall be presumed where the validation of qualified electronic signatures meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).
Spanish Legal Framework
Based on the applicable legal framework, namely the National Spanish Law 59/2003 there are three types of signatures: simple, advanced and qualified.
The simple electronic signature is the compilation of data in electronic meaning, which joined or associated with other, can be used as a mean of identifying someone’s signature and which serve as a method of authentication.
The advanced electronic signature is the electronic signature that allow identify the person who has sign and also detect any change made afterwards. This signature is associated only to a particular signer and it has been created through any meaning that allow that the person can control exclusively the process. The advanced electronic signature defines a process that does not describe a particular technology, but rather a process that creates an enforceable electronic signature if the signature:
• is uniquely linked to the signatory;
• is capable of identifying the signatory;
• is created using means that the signatory can maintain under their sole control;
• is linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change in the data is detectable.
The qualified electronic signature is the electronic signature based in a verified certificate and that it has been created through a secure device of signature creation. Due to that, the qualified electronic signature have the same legal validity in electronic files that the manuscript signature in hard copy files. The qualified certificate defines a process which must in particular include specific technology such as:
• an indication that it is issued as a qualified certificate;
• the identification of the certification service provider;
• the name of the signatory;
• provision for a specific attribute of the signatory to be included if relevant, depending on the purpose for which the certificate is intended;
• signature-verification data corresponding to signature-creation data under the control of the signatory;
• an indication of the beginning and end of the period of validity of the certificate;
• the identity code of the certificate;
• the advanced electronic signature of the issuing certification service provider.
The only one of the three with a legal validity is the qualified, since is the only one than can be comparable to the handmade one, being the latest the only one with juridical validity. The others (both simple and advanced) cannot be considered equivalents to the handmade one, nevertheless can be used in individual contracts.
German Legal Framework
The German Civil Code ("Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB") defines that a written form is required ("Schriftformerfordernis") for a very few documents such as a
• termination of employment (see section 623 of BGB)
• written reference at termination of employment (see section 630 of BGB)
• life annuity commitment (see section 761 of BGB)
• contract of suretyship (see section 766 of BGB)
• promise to fulfil an obligation (see section 780 of BGB)
• acknowledgement of a debt (see section 781 of BGB)
Documents listed still need to be signed on paper and may not be signed electronically. The German Civil Code served as a template for the regulations of several other civil law jurisdictions.
United Kingdom Legal Framework
Similar requirements outlined in the European directive for “advanced electronic signature” have been also implemented in the United Kingdom. These Regulations may be cited as the Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002 and came into force on 8th March 2002. The United Kingdom Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002, defines that requirements for qualified certificates must contain:
(a) an indication that the certificate is issued as a qualified certificate;
(b) the identification of the certification-service-provider and the State in which it is established;
(c) the name of the signatory or a pseudonym, which shall be identified as such;
(d) provision for a specific attribute of the signatory to be included if relevant, depending on the purpose for which the certificate is intended;
(e) signature-verification data which correspond to signature-creation data under the control of the signatory;
(f) an indication of the beginning and end of the period of validity of the certificate;
(g) the identity code of the certificate;
(h) the advanced electronic signature of the certification-service-provider issuing it;
(i) limitations on the scope of use of the certificate, if applicable; and
(j) limits on the value of transactions for which the certificate can be used, if applicable.
The United Kingdom is proposing an Electronic Communications Bill (English Bill) that will grant electronic signatures legal admissibility in court for the purpose of establishing the “authenticity” or “integrity” of communications. “Authenticity” refers to whether the communic
ation or data comes from a particular person or other source or is accurately timed and dated. “Integrity” refers to “whether there has been any tampering with or other modification of the communication or data.” The English Bill is not tied to one particular technology and “leaves it up to the court[s] to decide in a particular case whether an electronic signature has been correctly used and what weight it should be given.”
Legal Analysis of SignSigma
The current Spanish legal framework shows that SignSigma proposed solution is able to recognize a simple signature, hence having legal validity. In addition to that, the new technology developed have the following added advantages:
(a) Capacity to prove who have signed the document: since it includes all biometric parameters
(b) Capacity to demonstrate that the document has not been modified in any way.
By taking into account this 2 characteristics, SignSigma proves its robustness in the signature validation.
When we talk about verification and validation of a signature SignSigma mean that we can prove the integrity of the signed data, proving as well that this data has not been modified after the signature process. There is also the possibility to add an extra feature to the electronic signature that allow to control the timing of this signature. This last issue can be very useful for verification of data in the long way.
Legal Recognition of the Signature
The current biometric signature solution provided by Sigma Technologies, called SignSigma, is a technological solution for identification and authentication of people through the recognition of biometric parameters of the handwritten signature of an individual. The application can be configured according to the needs of each client, with different functionalities and allows, prior to signing an electronic document, people’s identification and people’s verification by electronic means. In the same manner allows the identification and validation of a digital signature of an electronic document in the context of a relationship between absent parties.
It is based on a system that: (i) digitize handwritten signature when it is used as a form of manifestation of the will, and subsequent storage; and (ii) carry out the identification and authentication of the person who performed the signature.
The SignSigma solution has been designed to be supported on tablets or mobile (ie, "signpads" Wacom type, or touchscreen tablets with pressure sensitivity such as Samsung Galaxy Notes).
Looking at the source of the electronic signature that is performed by SignSigma, we can conclude that the signature through which SignSigma technology performs its identification is legally valid under Article 3 of the LFE (Spanish Law on Electronic Signature). Although notwithstanding the foregoing, the probative value of the electronic signature solution, always ultimately depend on the judge's decision and, therefore can be classified as being a simple electronic signature (see further definition above in the Spanish framework section).
Sigma Technologies understands that there are some things where the probative power of the biometric signature must be unquestionable, preventing users from the same unnecessary legal problems. In the case of adding some security modules provided by Sigma Technologies, as:
(i) the document, the signature and all associated biometric data are encrypted by a system of public key and private key;
(ii) the documents with the electronic signature and all biometric data associated to this electronic certificate are encrypted; and
(iii) the document with the electronic signature and all biometric data are approved by a time stamp issued by a third party,
The solution has probative value enough to establish at least:
(i) When signing the electronic document is intended to formalize by electronic signature.
(ii) the integrity of the electronic document to be signed
(iii) the existence of a trusted third party, in this case Sigma Technologies (pursuant to art. 25 of the LSSI-Spanish Law for Services Information Society and Electronic Commerce), who generates electronic evidence and custody of the transaction undertaken by stakeholders in the operation, thus avoiding any potential one-sidedness of the same by one.
When all of this happens, the signature surpasses the requirements of a simple electronic signature, and one may proceed to qualified as advanced electronic signature.
Sigma Technologies currently is completing the necessary developments to offer its customers a complete solution for advanced electronic signature.
SignSigma has, as a simple electronic signature, legal validity as a manifestation of the will of the signatory. As it is not a qualified electronic firm, the legal validity of it is not automatic and depends on a matter of trial.
However, SignSigma (with its encryption modules, electronic certification and time-stamp by recognized entity) consists of very robust evidence to demonstrate: the identity of the signer and the integrity of the signed document; against the denial of the signature or about the fact that the signature has been transferred to/from another document.
In any case, the conditions of use shall strengthen the legal validity of the biometric signature as part of the agreement between the parties. The agreement of these conditions shall be done on paper, recorded with handwritten signature, and available and traceable to the user.

T1.3 Key market applications
The main output of this task was a report including an analysis of the market applications of the competition, identifying any market applications that has not been filled yet. First we identified the competition market applications. Table 2 shows the competitor and market applications. Secondly (from Table 2) the main market applications have been compared by strengths, value proposition and impact. Based on these facts a selection was made.
From the conclusions of a study carried out from the consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and from chapters 1.1 and 1.2 of the present document about the legal framework of the biometric handwritten signature, two frame uses cases, and two severities can be recognised.
When talking about frame use cases, the usage of the signature can be consider for the cases:
a) Identification/authentication of the party (which is linked to the concept of electronic signature)
b) Stamping the intention of an individual on a document as a proof of acceptance
And related to the previous, we have seen that the market can be segmented into 2 main bodies:
1) A transactional environment, where there is a need to authenticate the individuals and to state their willingness to follow in the agreement thy are signing; but nor the volume of the operation nor the impact on the lack of commitments (both economical and liability) has a sufficient value to put special efforts in the probative value of the signature
2) A secured environment, where, unlike the former point, the economic impact and/or liability in case of not complying with the signed expectations is big enough to ensure, in the process of authentication / acceptance, that the person signing / accepting the conditions, is really who is saying it is Translated into use cases applied to different segments, we have realised during the last years that small transactions in the public administration, Retail (shopping), Telecom (contracts for telecom services), same with Energy, or small transactions within Enterprises and Sales, will hardly demand that the digitalisation of the transaction may be guaranteed by the incorporation of an advanced signature mechanism like SignSigma.
In the former cases the saving related with the document digitalisation and management, both important savings in terms of costs (paper, printing, storage) and management (time to save and rescue the searched document) is by far enough to the transactional model under process.
But in case of being in front of:
1. Important economical transactions
2. Important liability
The mechanism to avoid long court processes through the establishment of strong and secure authentication and acceptance methods, will pay by itself. In this cases the probative value of an established mechanism should almost automatically yield into the verification, providing in case of demand and almost immediate proof for the court.
The level of “importance” as mentioned before could be evaluated when considering the side effects; i.e. the cost and time (duration) of the opened process; including in all the cases the impact in the company image, an intangible value that normally steps in when liability is impacting the case. This “importance” could be valued as 20.000 to 50.000 €; and in terms of liability between 100.000 and 500.000€. Anyway, these values will depend heavily on the application, the user and the segment, as the impact of the user-company credibility and image will drastically biased it.
Having said the previous, we have considered that those segments that make more sense for the application of strong and secure biometric signature solutions are the following:
1. Banking: when performing transactions over a “certain” limit. In this option we should mention as strong candidates the purchase of funds or borse assets; the creation of some deposits, the signature of any mortgage, personal credit, etc.
2. Insurance: when closing contract with a strong liability component, like rental cars, etc.
3. Health: when there is an important risk in the signed / accepted relation, and therefore an important impact in the liability
We have continue to analyse the market, and the feedback was the following:
a) Almost all the competition is engage in winning the “Banking” cake: The uses cases are pretty easy to define in this environment, and the ROI analysis easy to perform
b) The Insurances, and in particular the Health sector, are starting ones in many countries, with a very important impact in terms of liability and reputation.
Based on all the previous, Sigma Technologies has decided to position SignSigma in the Insurance sector mainly, Health sector particularly. This should not imply that we have to forget other upcoming applications, but we are pretty sure that we will be able to leverage from our lessons learnt in these sectors whenever other uses cases are fit in any market.
Furthermore, we have defined they key points in which our solutions differentiates from the competitors. This can be observed in Figure 1. We have compare current solution with the solution of the three main competitors.
T1.4 IPR issues
Under this task we have carried out a Patent Search. The results of this search have been included in a report. The patents found have been also been included in this report. Furthermore we have been continuing monitoring the current process of our patent application.
Regarding the image of SignSigma we have also drafted some ideas for the logo of our product. The idea is to identify or solution and also our company by implanting the same schema for this logo and future products.
Patent Search Report
A Patent Search Report (PSR) has been conducted in order to complement the information gather from the PwC report. The objective of the current patent search will focus on finding handwritten signature handling systems that include means to store signatures in a digital way and/or use handwritten signatures for automatic user authentication. Also, it has been of particular relevance the fact that the SignSigma technology does not only uses the static image of the signature but also the way it has been written, even containing pressure data information if the input device is able to provide it.
Patentability Analysis
This analysis has not taken into account the specific algorithm used by the SignSigma technology, the reason is that it is an already known method (Dynamic Time Warping). What has been considered is the kind of measures used by it, in order to differentiate from other solutions.
The results of the patent search show that none of the different features of SignSigma can be considered as new if taken separately. Nevertheless, no evidence has been found that the combination of all of them are present in the previous art, which means that this particular implementation should be considered as new.
Patentability Conclusions
• A very large amount of prior art references has been found.
• The invention seems to have novelty over the found prior art.
• Inventive step could be difficult to defend but possible.
• In case of a patent, more specific details about implementation are needed.
In addition, the report from the consultancy PwC state that SignSigma technology can be used without restrictions.
Trademark Registration
The visual identity plays a significant role in the way a product is introduced to its publics or targeted audiences. A unified visual identity for SignSigma technology has been built during this Phase 1 in order to increase the visibility and recognition of the technology as well as to get better results in terms of dissemination and exploitation.
The main objective of the registration of the SignSigma Trademark is to identify the SignSigma product and service and distinguished it from those supplied by competitors. Trademarks are concerned with brand identity - they can be distinctive words, marks or other features, the purpose of which is to establish, in the mind of the customer, a link between the particular products or services and the company. A Trademark can be a valuable business asset, have come to represent not only actual goods and services, but also the reputation of the business.
A trademark is how the costumer identify a company or a product and differentiates each products from everyone else’s and encapsulates each company values, since is part of a company intellectual property and is crucial to each company success as a business.
In that sense, trademarks are signs used in trade to identify products. In the framework of intellectual property law trademarks are practical little items.
It is possible to register from word marks (a word mark is representing using word letter, numbers or any other character that can be typed); figurative mark (a figurative mark is represented using pictures, graphics or images); figurative mark with letters (a figurative mark containing letters combines the use of pictures, graphics or images with words or letters); 3D mark (a three-dimensional mark is represented using a three-dimensional shape, such as the actual product or its packaging); colour per se mark (a colour per se mark is used only to register an actual colour to distinguish products or services) to sound marks (a sound mark must be represented graphically using, for example, musical notation).
The main benefits of registering a trademark are listed below:
• Protects the company brand value
• Builds an asset
• Depends against rival marks
• Defines the company rights
• Prevents counterfeiting and fraud
There are different procedures and paths in order to protect a brand and trademark, depending on the company reference market. If the company has a local market, it can apply for a national trade mark. On the other hand, if the company is looking for a bigger market can also apply for a Community trade mark (CTM), which gives protection for all EU Member States in one single registration. Based on either then a company can apply for registration of an international brand. Registrations are valid for a period of 10 years and may be renewed indefinitely.
All applications for a trademark must contain a representation of the trademark and a list of the goods and/or service to be covered by the mark. In order to harmonize the classes of goods and services, all Offices (national and international) have adopted the Nice Classification, a list administered by the WIPO since 1957. The Nice Classification
Sigma Technologies wants to exploit a very powerful unique biometric technology that can authenticate signatures for first time from any touch-screen (smartphones, tablets) with a performance similar to the complex, intrusive and expensive iris scan technology, which will open a new range of opportunities and markets.
The current innovation business project was submitted and approved on June 2014 as a SME Instrument (SMEI) Phase 1 with a total score of 14.02 (4.61 / 4.64 / 4.77). After the execution of Phase 1, during three months, all the objectives has been achieved as scheduled.
The outputs for each one of the task demonstrate that the SignSigma solution is free to operate from the legal and IPR point of view. We have been able to benchmark our solutions with other solutions to offer a starting point regarding the selection of the most suitable devices for SignSigma. That said our solutions still shows to be relevant in the current market with room for development in order to offer a complete set of tools for our customers.
In addition, from the legal point of view, we have carried out a depth analysis of the European Legal framework. The old EU Directive (1999) and the recently updated regulation (July 2014) creates a floor of security for the validity of our solution. Also, during this Phase 1 we have identified a market segment in which SignSigma will be positioned as a lead solution.
Following our corporate identity several logos have been created and a trade mark registration will be on the next steps once we decided for one sample. Regarding the IPR issues the results from the Patent Search Report guarantee the freedom to operate, the commercial viability and the innovation of our complete solution.
In view of the positive results of the execution of this Phase 1. We are now submitting the SMEI Phase 2 in order to reach our goal outlined in the Phase 1 Feasibility Study. After a detailed analysis during Phase 1, SignSigma project will firstly be focused on insurance sector, particularly on the health sector.
Table 4. International Trademark registration fees
Table 2. Competition vs. Market Applications
Figure1. Competitive Differentiation
Table 1. Technology Comparison for Biometric Signature
Figure 2. Full set of SignSigma logo proposals
Table 3. National and Community Trademark registration fees