for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

The court case result will now have massive impact, the judge virtually told SEO to settle, they have peed in the wind for years over this, investors are not daft these days, lack of clear thinking damns management in the eyes of thinking stock exchange followers.Think of the time effort and money poured into this nonsense.
Someone will pay , erm i.e. the shareholders.

No court case scheduled for tomorrow then, looks like its all over for now.

copy from schull69 - 19 Jan'06 - 17:09 on another bb


All:cc.a short post as I have to go out soon so just fact:the Court ended at 3.20 with the judges urging that the talks between the two sides,which were going on all day today we were told,should continue so that they can come to an agreement which is beneficial to both.Jacob said that the three judges will hold off starting coming to judgement until Monday ,but this process will start if they haven't heard up until that time that the two sides have come to an agreement.It was clear that if an agreement isn't arrived at there could be "years of litigation".He made his point strongly and Miller said he would continue to urge this on his clients.I can't recall Baldwin echoing this in as strong terms but he didn't disagree.The judges'recommendation for on-going talks should not be construed as pointing in any way to what their final judgement would be....I've got no idea on that.

I've got no inside track on how things could go so I wont waste your time with my speculations.

copy from another bb
phalarope - 19 Jan'06 - 18:22


Having attended all 4 days of the appeal (which finished this afternoon), I can tell you that the parties are trying very hard to settle out of court. At the end of the trial, the Lord Justices were told that they would hear by Monday if a settlement had been reached, and that if no settlement had been reached by then, then one was unlikely thereafter.
LJ Jacob made it clear that irrespective of the appeal result, many years of difficult litigation and sorting out of the patents lay ahead. Much better to concentrate on commercialisation to the benefit of both parties now, than wait another two years by which time a competitor could have emerged with a rival technology.

I won't comment too much on the appeal itself. Suffice to say that I think entitlement is likely to remain with BPRG with claims 6 and 7 of Patent 1 possibly going to them as well. Patents 2 and 3 could end up in joint ownership instead of solely with SEO as at present. Neither do I think that SEO will succeed in getting the prior art admitted to the case.

However, I beleive there is some chance that the breach of confidence finding in the original trial could be overturned. SEO were strongest on this, and don't forget, the original trial Judge wavered on this himself, before deciding in favour of BPRG.

If there is no settlement, I would have thought a jugdement will follow fairly quickly, say within a month.

Those are my thoughts. I'm no lawyer, so feel free to completely ignore them! But keep an eye open for a settlement RNS next week. I'm pretty confident we'll see one!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bioprogress may well settle for all the patents plus costs, in this scenario everyone wins(almost)as Stanelco will avoid damages and can continue with their other business relatively unscathed. The detergent capsules may prove a sticking point though imo.

Merger I think is best way forward..

where`s post 14261?

oops forgot I filtered the gormo!!!

For anyone who has been keeping up with events - they will have known that the case was only ever scheduled for a max of 4 days.

Thanks for the other post of events so far

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm

Finally got a reply re Starpol and Lendel MFG which says that Stanelco and Lendel are not working together in any capacity. Lendel MFG Inc was developing a polyurethane foam material for the agricultural industry and called it Starpol, merely a coincidence. Lendel have since agreed to cease to use the name which is registered to Stanelco plc.

No court case can be " scheduled for a max. of 4 days", utter rubbish, the court -room may have been reserved for four consecutive days, that is a different matter.
You really must try to keep up with ` events`in the real world outwith bb`s.
The court case continues until it is resolved,

Can't be any love between these companies now, so I really don't see it beiing a case that leaves both equal.
If BPRG wins damages it will sour SEO's operation, IMHO. If it doesn't then one has to wonder a the morals of their customers - really would you want to deal with the loser? In this case it appears that BPRG was the "wronged" party...so if they "Lost" due to SEO dragging the case along slowly, it would have little effect on BPRG customes, unless it resulted in BPRG going bankrupt. The BPRG falling sp was not helping investors.
Not much longer to wait, then........but I can't see the winner being happy with a "Get Well Soon" card and a contribution to costs..........whoever wins will want compensation for this whole debacle.
My money's on BPRG (I hold).
All imho - dyor.

Does anyone remember when the 120 day period for an FDA ruling on Starpol expires ?

I think it was around 6th feb

The Starpol 2000 European announcement was made by RNS on 12th October 2005. It also mentioned at that time US approval for fruit and veg.

"Starpol 2000 has been fully approved for use in food contact applications for
all food categories throughout the European Union following analysis and testing
carried out by PIRA International (Packaging International Research
Association).

Food contact approval has also been granted for Starpol 2000 for all fruit and
vegetable categories in the USA, with tests continuing for contact with all
other food types to US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) standards."

So I guess mid Feb at the latest, assuming approval is granted.

BPRG sounds a good bet to me ` hangon`

Thanks.

A bit of old news - which I only found out about today. I had always assumed that there were no major institutional investors in SEO - which has always been one of my risk worries.

Apparantly, apart from the major shareholders (Age of reason - 23.5% and Richards & Appleby -7.35%), other shareholders includeSchroeders - 3.1 %, Framlingtin @ 2.5%, Flemmings at just under 1% and a host of other minor holdings held by the likes of Jupiter, M&G, Gartmore and AXA. Up to date as of today

Although not yet major holdings - it certainly eased one of my main concerns - and although the latter all hold less than 1% - and in some cases pretty paltry numbers - it does at least show it is on their radar.

No doubt someone will find a reason to knock the figures - but thought you may be interested amyway.

Hello Sequestor

Extra comment on the CC from a contact : apparently a case between two other companies has made it even more difficult for the SEO/BPRG case to be decided by the judiciary. That might seem to help SEO in that the dispute can lay fallow whilst the precedents in this area with other litigants are decided at the others' costs and time, leaving SEO's mgt to get on with commercialising their other IP, and coming back to getting a decision on their dispute with BPRG at a later date at a time when they need it decided.

Very interesting sharesure
thanks
lindos