Id already said civil disputes start outside the court room.

What I’m saying is that not all UK law works on the basis of accusations without evidence, like the GP argued.

Take this specific example, UK civil law does say the initial communication doesn’t have to include the patent numbers. However it does go on to say that if threats are then made then that information should be disclosed

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977/section-70b-...

If Synaptic require multiple weeks of work at $25,000 a week, to establish what patents are infringed, while also threatening to charge the developer for that time as well as further legal action, then it’s safe to assume that Synaptic didnt have enough confidence from the outset that their original claim was reasonably true.

In short, they are opening themselves up to litigation in return. But since their legal budget is vastly greater than this solo dev’s legal budget would be, they can skirt the fridges of what would be reasonable permitted communications.

BI doubt many UK judges would take favourable view with how Synaptics have handled their correspondence; if this ever were to reach the courts.

That is fair, I think what the above point was that formal technicalities matter only in so much as someone has the means and motivations to go to trial, which is rarely.