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.

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?

Don't start :-)

Its almost here 1,well you never know.

The pound.. the round number effect...

buyers and sellers fighting it out!

Evening jumpin,it mite be a week away yet!!

BioProgress PLC
03 November 2004


Press Release 3 November 2004


BioProgress plc

('BioProgress' or 'the Company')

Further success for BioProgress in patent entitlement case


BioProgress plc (AIM: BPRG; NASDAQ: BPRG) announces that in a hearing yesterday
in the dispute between BioProgress Technology Limited and Stanelco Fibre Optics
Limited ('Stanelco'), the UK Patents Court made further rulings following the
previous judgment handed down on 1 October 2004.


The Court made various declarations about which company had invented the process of sealing water-soluble polymeric materials by radio frequency ('RF') welding in order to form capsules. These declarations made reference to BioProgress' sole entitlement to the main claim and all except three subsidiary claims in the Master Patent. The Court also clarified that BioProgress' entitlement to the main patent claims in the Master Patent conferred no right upon Stanelco to use any of the subsidiary processes without the permission of BioProgress.


In its earlier judgment, the Court had held that Stanelco had misused
Bioprogress' confidential information by making the patent filings which founded the three families of patents. Yesterday, the Court made an Order for the commencement of the procedure for assessing the amount to be paid in damages by Stanelco to BioProgress for breach of confidence.


Stanelco was ordered to disclose details of its foreign patent applications, so
that ownership of all patents and patent applications in the Master Patent
family can be dealt with at a further, final hearing in approximately 4-6 weeks
time.


The Court also made an order for costs in favour of BioProgress. Stanelco must
make an interim payment towards these costs of approximately 180,000 within two weeks.


At the end of the hearing, Stanelco indicated that it had commenced an
application to request the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the previous
judgment. Stanelco was ordered to file its evidence within seven days.


Graham Hind, Chief Executive of BioProgress said: 'We are very pleased that the
Court has confirmed our entitlement to the main patent claims in the Master
Patent and has awarded us interim costs. The Court has made clear directives to
Stanelco as to the course of action it must now take. We remain as comfortable
as we have always been with our position, and will be making no further comment
until the next hearing is concluded.'


- Ends -


Forward-Looking Information.

The Ordinary Shares of BioProgress plc are registered under the US Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934. This announcement contains certain 'forward-looking
statements' within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations and
are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may
vary materially from the expectations contained in the forward-looking
statements. The forward-looking statements in this release include statements
addressing future financial and operating results and the timing and benefits of
the reorganisation. Detailed information about factors pertinent to the
business of the company that could cause actual results to differ is set forth
in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Company is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaim any such obligation
to) update or alter its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise. This announcement is for information
only and does not constitute an offer or invitation to acquire or dispose of any
securities or investment advice. The distribution of the announcement and/or
issue of securities in certain jurisdictions may be restricted by law. Persons
into whose possession this announcement comes are required to inform themselves
about and to observe such restrictions.


- Ends -


For further information:

BioProgress plc

Graham Hind, Chief Executive Tel: +44 (0) 1354 655674

grahamhind@bioprogress.com

www.bioprogress.com

More from the other place

schull69 - 3 Nov'04 - 07:17 - 2237 of 2241

ALL:this is a very early start for me (5.40)but I said I would post a fuller note,it will be a bit long,I don't type that fast and having read all yesterdays posts last night feel responsible for some confusion.The court adjourned at 4.55 and I only had time for a quick post on getting home.I will clarify facts and give my impression of the day.....costs:Piggy1227 reporting was spot on:BPRG has got 65% of taxed costs and been given one third of total(835000k)which is 181000k to be delivered within 14 days..this total figure includes 183000 which was the insurance premium.SEO made a ridiculous claim for costs and hadn't even handed in a properly itemised bill which the judge noted.His ruling recognizes without doubt thta BPRG are the winners of the cc....It was clear from the start of the hearing that SEO were grabbing at straws and our man,Baldwin who is by far and away the more capable counsel of the pair,stated that SEO are 'desperate for delay'.There was an attempt by Miller(SEO cousel)to query the judgement regarding patent 1..the judge affirmed that the Mr Novack is the inventor of the inventive concept for claims 1-5 and 8-9 of p.1,Mr Draisey played a part in claim 6 but SEO cannot operate becausse they have no licence for 1-5..Baldwin:'clains 1-5 operate as a bar to 6'...The question of foreign rights in Israel,Singapore and Sri Lanka came up and I could not follow all this except that BM in cinversation referred to the son of the SEO director,Howard White,who operates from there and mentined 'iscaps'(someone more knowledgable than me can elicidate)..the outcome of this is that SEO is to submit proposals to BPRG within 14days.....Miller continued to grasp at straws in the hearing,recognised by Judge Floyd when he stated;"Mr Miller,we are arguing ahout angels on heads of pins."Miller was only doing what he was paid to do-make the best case for his client-but on re than one occasion had to concede that he had made 'a bad point'......now for my view on the share fall:when the case started there four people the public seats,3men and a woman-2 men came in later...the woman left at 1.30 and one of the men had already left unobserved by me.One man came in later but was present for just a brief while.I read the posts last night and comment about claim6 started at about this time with Wimbledonman who is either a man or a woman.I am not implying any suspicious motive on the part of this poster,rather I note how a little piece of info can induce panic..it's a feature of internet communication that we all have to live with and attempt to understand..............I went out of the Courts with a chap who told me he is an investor with SEO.He is a decent man and a far from happy one.I wont give details of his holding but it is cinsiderable and a man who wanted to organize his own pension fund sees his goals not coming to fruition...someone mentioned a while back that we more fortunate investors must not confuse the well meaning private investor with a shabby management.GH and BM came into The Wig and Pen and stayed at the bar with we two.I had met BM at the summmer cc but had never met GH.I was obviously very pleased to have time with our man and to form an impression.In the course of conversation he enquired my bb nickname so that is the context for these comments:he is very happy with the rception in the US...he had meetings with Colgate(who are very pleased with the start of Max Fresh)and FMC...the Wyeth deal is progressing very well...all pharmas urgently want to get out of gelatin.....there will be no compromise whatsoever with SEO...Cardinal are not a takeover threat to the company at this stage of its development...the convertable bond gives him cash which Americans like to see and the poss of aacquisitions...he wants to give news and there is significant news coming up..he wore a pin stripped suit for the nasdaq launch because that is how Americans picture a British businessman.I received an impression of an amiable,honest and hardworking man who is working very hard ti build what one day will be a vety important international company....we must best let him get on with it.....The cc resumed at 2.00 and following the discussions re costs the issue of damages came up....more phillibustering by Miller....the outcome is that SEO must make a full disclosure of documents extending to theeir use of all 3 patents 'suffficient to show'(Baldwin's insistance on what I suppose is a legal term)within 28days...my impression is that Baldwin cant wait to shaft SEO into outer space and this is when there will be fireworks.It's now 7.15 and I need a break..I will respond up until 10.30.and then pm....this whole business has still some weeks to run but there is no doubt of the outcome in our favour...best wishes to all who mean this company and share well.