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.

courtreporter - 16 Jan'06 - 17:57 - 57240 of 57240


Court 74 11 until 4

Talks all weekend to reach settlement

Started with further talks in seperate room

No agreement reached

Stanelco appealing patent ownership, breach and prior art evidence application

Mlller went first dealing in the above order in his hesitating style

Discussion around capsule definition, unlikely to include sachets, based upon how formed

Core inventive concept challenged on grounds of how rather than idea of

Judges advocate settlement, mention of several years of litigation

Miller continues Tue

Impossible to call it at this stage

Will post on both threads to assist debate

I hope we settle with Stanelco to avoid this dragging on and on as it is more important to us than it is them in terms of core business.

cannot understand the lack of posts, where is everybody ? (235 posts on advfn today)
last day of cc ?
someone must have something ?

We are all waiting (nervously) for the outcome of the cc, sp raising meantime

lol
I think you will find most posts are on the SEO thread, the usual BS about how SEO will conquer the world, and the usual outrage If someone says it won`t.The share price reveals the court case progress

All quite on the western front by the close

I have been out all day so just catching up - found this account on another thread courtesy of Schull69 - seems to play a straight bat

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!!

Some body has a little faith in this share.

Holding(s) in Company
The Company received notification on 23 January 2006 that Fidelity Management & Research Company (FMRCO), Fidelity Management Trust Company (FMTC) and Fidelity International Limited (FIL) and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Fidelity Investment Services Ltd (FISL), Fidelity Gestion (FIGEST), Fidelity Investments Advisory (Korea) Limited (FIA[K]L), Fidelity Investments Management (Hong Kong) Limited (FIMHK), Fidelity Pension Management (FPM), Fidelity Investments Japan (FIJ) and Fidelity Investments International (FII), investment managers for various non-US investment companies and institutional clients, are together interested in a total of 10,365,072 ordinary shares of one pence each in the Company, representing approximately 7.34 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital.

This shareholding is registered as follows:



Shares held
Management Company
Nominee/Registered Name


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9,567,839
FMRCO
Mellon Bank

797,233
FIL
Brown Bros Harrimn Ltd Lux


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10,365,072

Total holding


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This notifiable interest also comprises the notifiable interest of Mr Edward C. Johnson III, a principal shareholder of Fidelity International Limited, and interests held on behalf of authorised unit trust schemes in the United Kingdom.

yep that was an interesting RNS, the next one will confirm the stuffing of SEO?

Further re acquisition

BioProgress announces completion of acquisition of Dexo SARL

March, Cambridgeshire, 27 January 2006: BioProgress, the speciality pharma and
healthcare company, is pleased to announce that it has completed its
acquisition of Dexo SARL.

Excellent- and up she goes.

.

Excellent week, a true diamond awaiting its` final cut,

Hopefully the end of the court case tomorrow

Case Reference: A3/2005/0819
Title: Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd
Type: Appeal
Appeal/Application: from the order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Chancery Division, Patents Court dated 02-NOV-04
Hearing Status: To Mention on 09-FEB-06
Venue: London

Blinger

A true diamond indeed - why have you sold them then ?

Stanelco PLC
09 February 2006


9th January 2006


STANELCO PLC ('STANELCO')

STANELCO AND BIOPROGRESS SETTLE PATENT DISPUTE

Stanelco plc, the radio frequency applications group, and BioProgress plc, are
pleased to announce that they have reached a settlement of the legal dispute
between two of their subsidiaries.

Stanelco RF Technologies Limited and BioProgress Technology Limited were
disputing entitlement to three families of patents relating to the making of
water-soluble capsules sealed using radio frequency.

Under the main terms of settlement, both parties will be able to commercially
exploit all three patent families. Stanelco plc have agreed to issue to
BioProgress new ordinary 0.1p shares and or cash up to a maximum market value of
1,000,000.

Commenting on the settlement, Ian Balchin, Executive Vice Chairman, Stanelco
plc, said: 'We are pleased to have resolved this long running dispute with
BioProgress. This is a pragmatic solution for both parties and enables us to
concentrate on our respective businesses'.

I dont know about anyone else - but I call that a good result for both parties....win win

Thread List Earlier Posts

The BPRG RNS seems to be essentially the same with just the bit below added

Commenting on the settlement, Richard Trevillion, CEO, BioProgress plc, said:
\"BioProgress is pleased to have resolved this dispute with Stanelco. This is a
positive solution for both parties and enables us to concentrate on our
respective businesses, which for BioProgress represents further development of
its speciality pharma and healthcare activities\".

I have copied this across from BPRG as I think it answers a number of questions that have been posed re the patents etc.

I hope Chay does not mind - as it also crystalises some of the thinking behind the ocs.

Chay01 - 13 Feb'06 - 15:39 - 1492 of 1503


Great news this morning that Tampa can produce cGMP film and Bio will be bringing its products to market via Dexo as well as supplying film for partners. The company is no longer fully dependent on other film suppliers or on partners to bring products, incorporating Bios technology, to market within their own timeframes.

The dispute with SEO is yesterdays news now and the company is rapidly moving ahead with its focus on commercialisation without the added distraction of an ongoing cc. The purchase of Dexo and the JV with Crescent Pharma will enable Bio to pursue many revenue-enhancing prospects in the near future.

There has been a lot of confusion over the settlement agreement so I spoke with DF earlier today to clarify the situation.

Questions and answers:

1. Can you confirm that bio owns P1 and SEO P2 and 3 as determined by the patent court?

BioProgress own the whole of patent 1 (in all jurisdictions worldwide) and SEO patents 2 and 3.

2. Will SEO be able to license P1 for pharmaceutical use and if so are they likely to progress InGel with Cardinal?

BioProgress has granted SEO a non-exclusive license to P1. There is no restriction on SEO licensing RF welding of capsules to the likes of Cardinal. BioProgress feel they are in a strong position to commercialise the IP with the existing Swollo technology.

3. Will SEO have to compensate Bio for the use of P1 and will Bio have to compensate SEO for the use of P2/3?

No

4. Is Bio likely to exploit the patents for non-pharma use?

Bio has unrestricted use of P1, 2 and 3 and does not need SEOs consent to license the patents to any company it wishes to.

5. Did Bio compromise on the deal to avoid the case being dragged out over an extended time period? Apart from ownership of P2/3, the ability to prolong the litigation seemed to be SEOs only trump card.

Bio achieved the best deal possible and now has certainty with regard to the future. More was achieved via the oocs than would have been possible via the court process. Shared ownership of P2 and 3 would have been worthless as permission of use would have had to be granted by the other owner in order to use the technology. Also, to stop SEO using patent 1 would have required further costly court action without guarantees of the outcome.

The time and cost elements were very important issues e.g. even though Bio proved entitlement to P1 they still would have had to go thru the lengthy and costly process of proving that entitlement in all the foreign jurisdictions where SEO had registered the patents.

6. Bio has gained access to P2/3, received 1m as part of the settlement terms and are now able to commercialise Swollo incorporating RF capsule sealing. Management time can also be used to grow the business rather than be distracted by litigation. Are there any other benefits to settling the case now rather than letting it run its course?

There were no certainties if the case was left to run its course. Bio had a strong case but the court may have sided with SEO on some points. It is now certain that Bio owns P1 and has unconstrained use of P2 and 3.

A damages claim would have taken years to conclude thru the courts, which would have been very expensive and taken up valuable management time. The award of damages was also very uncertain, as there were only potential rather than actual losses incurred so a huge award was very unlikely. Bio would only have received part of its total costs.

Its time to concentrate on the future and realise the rapid progress that the company is now making. Any thoughts that nothing is happening behind the scenes when news flow is quiet can be totally dispelled.

I think special thanks should go to Richard Trevillion for his sterling efforts and strategic guidance of the company since he took over the role of CEO. Working a 22 hour day seven days a week may not be too much of an exaggeration considering he has had to take on many of DFs duties recently (due to DFs back problems). Having the worlds premier non-gelatin film system is one thing but we are fortunate now that we have hard working, honest personnel, within the company, who are able to bring it to the market place.


Chay.

PS The company is now in a closed period - Preliminary Results for the year ended 31 December 2005 should be announced around the same time as last year (21/3/05).

The brokers note (being written by Elizabeth Klein) will be out soon dont think it was being held up by the cc though.

will bio finally be able to make some progress then????????

Well I would expect a sready stream (relative) of news to start coming out over next few months. Good prospects now with this new management team I think.