Bioprogress is a stock I have been in and out of quite a few times since it floated in May but not much mention here on the Investors' Room. Does anyone else follow this stock. I see it is up 1.5p today and a few good buyers seem to have appeared.

Dstorey

The next stage is indeed 2.11.04 - may not be finalised on the day though .

Ramrod, cheers...D

Nasdaq listings in America are not all they are promised to be, at least in the short term.

I learned this nearly a decade ago following Mid-States, a shell company re-named after a reverse takeover by a US car parts business. Its shares soared from penny status to 125p on excitement about its aim to list jointly on Nasdaq. The business was reporting sound profits and looked materially undervalued relative to US quoted rivals. But as soon as the listing became effective Mid-States shares dived. Having sold the car parts business, it is once again a shell.

As hopes gathered over a Nasdaq listing for BioProgress (the Aim-quoted developer of non-gelatin pills and other products) I wondered if there might be a similar effect. Certainly, this was a factor cautioning me against switching into BioProgress as its shares rose from about 100p to 130p.

After the Nasdaq listing became effective the shares promptly shed these gains. It looks like a trading rule of thumb to buy shares on the expectation of a Nasdaq listing and sell on the event - or even go short or establish a spread bet down.

A key hope with US listings is that they will attract a new range of shareholders. With a company such as BioProgress, there are sound long-term reasons for developing its profile in the US. Plenty of people here were buying its shares recently on the basis of its overall potential, not just the Nasdaq listing. But all the same, it does not necessarily follow that such a listing would bring in new buyers.

Traders should note the classic rise and fall, which has good odds of repeating itself in other shares. Long-term investors can certainly ignore all this "noise trading".

http://tinyurl.com/5r66u

Hi All

Forgive me, but as BPRG is a bi boring today, check out
CHR. Just gone through a consolidation, a few buyers this morning moved the price 10%... Like the sector.. just about to buy a few grand as
a punt...

We expecting any news on the Stanelco situation today?

Believe the case will be heard tomorrow.

Sorry to be pedantic. The case has already been won by BPRG its the amount of damages to be decided tommorrow.

Thanks for the clarification.. taxation I believe? Anyone pick up CHR,
just looking at a neat 650 profit...

bradley007: Looked at CHR after your earlier tip, IYO is there more upside and why?

Re tomorrow, having made some inquiries, I suspect that the only agreement tomorrow will be the costs payable by SEO immediately. There will be another amount claimed and disputed that will go to an independent court appointed accountant to verify. What happens next is key. Does InGel have sufficient funds or backers to meet the demands made by BPRG? In these situations the claiming company (BPRG) will want to know how much revenue has been generated by InGel using the derived patents. The cleanest outcome could well be BPRG taking all over InGel! Naturally the defending company will fight this tooth and nail, so we can expect a confused and muddied outcome, but if the Judge has reviewed the case already we might be surprised.

Any comments welcome! John

Tend to agree. Pure speculation but I bet BPRG will go for costs around the 500k level.

For info if anybody wants to go its court 52 and is in open court. I believe there are 50 odd spaces.

If anybody reading this BB does attend please file a report immediately to us on the outcome!!! Thanks in advance!

Yes please keep us shareholders updated whoever gets to go could be interesting times ahead...

John, thanks for that, waiting with baited breath...

To be honest CHR was a punt, it looked like the price after consolidation was a
bit out of kilter, so I bought for the day and sold this morning at 175, its off since. There are only 6m shares in issue so any buying will move the price... its on my watch list..

Anyone got any news, BPRG down SEO holding... Should we get a summary at the end of play today?

Still going on-from what I can gather seo trying to say patent invalid-clutching at straws imo.

It would seem that SEO have been arguing about the validity of the patent this from the other place.

wimbledonman1 - 2 Nov'04 - 12:09 - 1633 of 1662


Thanks Matto
Mr Miller (representing SEO) argued that the judgment wasn't clear on whether SEO had pure joint ownership rights to claim 6 as a whole i.e they would be able to commercially exploit it without the need for consent under joint ownership rules. This is what SEO argued i.e they also had joint ownership of that part of claim 1 which was required to use claim 6. BPRG's counsel obviously argued that what the judge meant in his judgment was that claim 6 whilst jointly owned was dependent on claim 1 and that SEO would not be able to use claim 6 without a licence. With this in mind BPRG's draft order contained a proviso that no licence or rights were granted to SEO in respect of claims 6 and 7 (i believe there were two claims that attracted joint ownership) i.e they couldn't use it. The judge indicated that he agreed with BPRG's interpretation and that he meant in his judgment. SEO have now turned around and just made a separate application to destroy the validity of the patent (on prior art grounds). The judge suggested that he wasn't particularly pleased that to start with SEO were claiming ownership of the patent and now since it looks like they have lost it they are attempting to destroy its validity. Judge pointed out that entitlement and vlaidity are two separate points. Therefore good news and potential bad news due to SEO's action - my personal opinion is that SEO are desperate. However, I don't think that there will be a final order until SEO's application has been heard. Please be aware that the above is my own personal interpretation and I accept no liability whatsoever for inaccuracies or misstatements

Many thanks for posting this Janus, BPRG shares still down at present but I suppose that is nothing to do with this judgement yet... Reading the above it does seem SEO are getting desperate...

from the other place-

cockneyron - 2 Nov'04 - 14:28 - 1813 of 1858


Look,I don't want to get involved in what is going on at the Court today,it was surely expected that SEO would muddy the waters and fight tooth and nail in the vain hope of getting at least something out of it all,so I dont see why everyone is so surprised at their actions,remember the Judge is no fool.

I have just spoke to someone at the court (they are on a lunch break at the moment)the person I spoke to tells me that GH,BM and the Bioprogress legal people all seem to be happy with what's going on,no point in posting bits and pieces as I am pretty sure a better post of today's events will come out later.
I will not make any comment on whats going on until I know a lot more.

Instead how about looking at the end result of the main case ??

The Judge found on two separate issues - patent law and breach of
confidence. In strict relation to patent law he found BPRG to be sole owner
of the core inventive step and therefore sole owner of all important claims
in the master patent. He held that Alan Draisey had co-invented a couple of
immaterial claims. Again, strictly to patent law he found SEO to be sole
inventors of patents 2 & 3. If the matter rested at that point, then BPRG
would be free to self exploit patent 1, but would require Draisey's consent
to sub-license it. SEO would be free to self exploit and sub-license patents
2 & 3 - however, because of BPRG's ownership of patent 1, SEO would have a
problem because of claim 1, which would cause SEO to seek consent from BPRG.

I Hope this is clear.????

But, because the Judge found for BPRG on the breach of confidence claim,
then the whole picture changes. BPRG has an action against Draisey in
respect of his breach of confidence in respect of the two claims awarded to
him in patent 1. Simple question: how could Draisey have made those
inventive steps without breaching BPRG's confidence? Not possible.

Same goes for patents 2 & 3. How could SEO have made those inventive steps
without using the information gained by them from breach of BPRG's
confidence ??? So patents 2 & 3 (applications actually) will eventually be assigned to BPRG.


So as things unfold you'll see BPRG get what it already knows it will get -
the lot.

A few other points to clear up. PVA and starch are polymeric materials. So
the detergent sachet project SEO has with R&B is caught by the BPRG patent.
Gmanhi (on SEO board) and others talking about SEO/Cardinal getting around patent 1 by the use of other materials is pure BS. Starch, modified starch and even gelatin are polymeric materials. Look up the definition of a polymer.



Some have both made very good points about the wording used
by the Judge. He was very generous to SEO's witnesses, on purpose I might
add, thereby eliminating any grounds for an appeal.

Breach of confidence is the crucial award.

RON

PS. PLEASE DO NOT POST THIS ON SEO BOARD.....thanks

Thanks for post, doesn't look good for SEO me thinks...

schull69 - 2 Nov'04 - 17:26 - 1951 of 1961

ALL:..just back from cc and this will be very brief because I must dash...bprgawarded 65% of taxed costs...interim payment of one third of 65%(835000k)to be paid within 14 days..all not resolved today but GH andBM very pleased with progress...had lunch with both when GH was very pleased with US...I will give details of why the price went down at 12..someone who left the court just before....I'm very sorry I'm not avaiable this pm but I will red your comments and ?s and reply in detail early tomorrow....everything is going our way and we have a lot of good news coming up..apologies once again.

Bones! Loved post 1132.

Maybe you missed the fact I bought a few some in the long term account in August and lobbed half at 116p for a few bob in Sept.

The rest goes on any close below 1. It keeps getting close.

;-))

PS What happened in the "case" folks?