Medisys PLC (MDY) Providing innovative solutions to the rapidly growing point-of-care diagnostic and healthcare worker safety markets. For more than 35 years, companies in the Medisys group have been advancing healthcare through development, manufacture and distribution of revolutionary medical products. The Group's mission is to become a leading worldwide provider of diagnostic systems and medical safety products enabling rapid, cost effective, on-site delivery of healthcare solutions.
For more than three decades, Medisys' primary operating unit, Hypoguard, has been devoted to advancing personal and professional healthcare management. The Company's core focus is diabetes glucose self-monitoring - a rapidly growing market of nearly $5 billion worldwide.
'Medisys-group.com'
'Hypoguard.com'

15/02/2006
Medisys reported a 'considerable improvement' in trading during the first four months of its financial year, and said the business has been cash-flow neutral for the year to date.
The medical products company said competition in its core long-term care blood glucose monitoring business has not intensified. A drop in sales amid intense competition in the market caused a fall in sales and profits last year.
Sales volumes have recovered to previous highs by cutting prices and offering various promotions, Medisys reported this morning.
Margin improvements have been achieved faster than originally anticipated, it added. The company has benefited from cost saving measures implemented in the second half of the last financial year and cost reductions for its proprietary biosensor products.
Meanwhile, it has completed the development and manufacturing scale up of the first of the new systems it has designed for Menarini, the fifth largest worldwide branded marketer of blood glucose monitoring systems.
While the launch date is not yet clear, (Around March 1) Medisys predicted that sales of the products will be one of its key revenue growth drivers in the current financial year.


LATEST ON MDY V'S ROCHE COURT CASE
MDY V'S ROCHE COURT CASE Case IS Dismissed. http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=8721#lastread
My apologies for any one that was on MDY it looks like we have been stitched up like a kipper the sale of Hypoguard blood glucose monitoring business at that price looks like an sp of 3p against the close of 6.4p what can I say no one could have seen this coming a total sell out and that is what I have done.

No decision yet but it looks encouraging.

DATED: September 13, 2005

277
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS, INC., and CORANGE INTERNATIONAL LTD.
v.
APEX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP., and HYPOGUARD USA, INC.,
_________________________________________ )
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TESTING OF ACCUSED PRODUCTS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE. 36,268

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Apex Biotechnology Corp. and Hypoguard USA, Inc. (collectively Apex), by their attorneys, respectfully move the Court to order Plaintiffs Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., and Corange International Ltd. (collectively, Roche) to produce any and all documents and things responsive to Apexs various interrogatories and requests for production regarding product testing, and to produce a witness or witnesses to testify on Roches behalf as to each subject identified in Defendants Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition of July 26, 2005. While Apexs discovery requests pertain to both of Roches patents-in-suit, Apex has offered to compromise for now, and accordingly limits this motion to only information related to the unenforceable U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,268. In support of this motion, Roche states:

1. On February 20, 2004, Barnes & Thornburg LLP initiated this action on behalf of Roche by filing a Complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,366,609 (the 609 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,268 (the 268 Patent) by Apex and several other Defendants. Donald E. Knebel executed the Complaint on behalf of Barnes & Thornburg in its capacity as counsel for Roche. Roche filed an Amended Complaint on April 23, 2004, signed by Helen K. Geib. By executing the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Mr. Knebel and Ms. Geib certified that Barnes & Thornburg had complied with the prefiling requirements imposed by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Neither the Complaint, the Amended Complaint nor Plaintiffs July 21, 2004, Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions contain any description of extrinsic evidence that would support an objectively reasonable conclusion that Defendants products infringe Roches patents and that an infringement suit is not frivolous. In particular, they contain no evidence of adequate prefiling testing to determine whether Apexs accused products met the claim limitations in the 268 patent, such as Cottrell current and substantial completion, as construed by this Court in prior litigation between Roche and Bayer Corporation. Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Inverness Med. Tech. et al., Ct. No. IP 00-1103-C-M/F (Roche v. Bayer litigation).

3. On August 4, 2004, Apex served its First Set of Interrogatories to Roche. Among other things, Apex asked Roche to [d]escribe [its] construction of the meaning of each element of each claim of the 268 patent that [it] contend[s] has been infringed and to identify, among other things, any extrinsic evidence that [it] contend[s] support[s] [its] construction.

4. On August 4, 2004, Apex served a First Set of Requests for Production from Roche. This set of requests contained numerous requests relevant to the issue of prefiling product testing, including Request Nos. 18, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33.

5. On September 13, 2004, Roche served a response to Apexs First Set of Interrogatories that failed to provide any useful information about any testing that may have occurred either before or after Roche filed suit.

6. Roches Responses to the First Set of Requests for Production, served on September 13, 2004, were not accompanied by any documents pertaining to testing performed by or on behalf of Plaintiff to determine whether any of Defendants products or methods infringe any claim(s) of any of the Patents-in-Suit, with the one exception of a document entitled Competitive Product Analysis: Hypoguard Assure 3 and created by Theron, Inc. in June 2003.

7. On December 2, 2004, Apex served its Second Set of Interrogatories to Roche asking, among other things, for the identity of all entities or persons who have conducted or been involved in any reverse engineering study or analysis and for all documents and things . . . that refer or relate to the reverse engineering study, analysis, meetings, discussions, or conferences, including but not limited to any reverse engineering reports.

8. On January 11, 2005, Roche served a response to Apexs Second Set of Interrogatories that provided none of the details requested. Neither did it explain Roches reasons for claiming privilege for any withheld documents.

9. On July 26, 2005, Apex filed a Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition of Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Corange International, Ltd. representative(s), identifying twenty-seven matters relating to product testing that it intended to examine in a deposition scheduled for August 29, 2005.

10. Ms. Geib of Barnes & Thornburg LLP indicated, in an August 10, 2005 telephone conference with Robert W. Busby, Jr. of Baker & McKenzie LLP, that additional testing-related documents exist but have been withheld as privileged documents. See Letter from Robert W. Busby, Jr. to Helen K. Geib (Aug. 12, 2005) (Exh. 16 to Memorandum).

11. On August 12, 2005, Apex provided Roche with a detailed list of each of the documents on the Roche privilege log that appeared to be related to product testing and requesting a fuller description of each. Id.

12. On August 22, 2005, Roche served its Responses and Objections to Apexs Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition and refused to provide any witnesses to answer even the most basic of questions, except with regard to matters 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19, and then only to the extent that the questions seek non-privileged information relating to the June 2003 Theron report. Roche refused to provide any witnesses at all to testify on 22 of the 27 matters listed in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice.

13. On August 23, 2005, Roche responded to Apexs letter and provided a revised privilege log for some documents. Roches privilege log, as revised, contains numerous references to testing-related documents. The entries referring to product testing, however, do not contain sufficient explanations to establish either the nature of the documents or the basis for Roches failure to produce them. To date, Roche has provided Apex with nothing more than conclusory statements in its discovery responses and infringement contentions filed per the Courts Case Management Plan.

14. On August 26, 2005, Apex contacted counsel for Roche by e-mail and requested that Roche provide copies of withheld documents relating to any testing of the 268 patent, including documents originally contained in the produced file folder labeled RDPC 03041 Evaluation of Hypoguard ASSURE 1,2,3 & Medline EvenCare System 1 of 2. These were documents falling within the production range RDC1229796-1229935 and previously identified by Roche as being relevant to the product testing issue. Letter from Helen K. Geib to Robert W. Busby, Jr. (Aug. 23, 2005) (Exh. 17 to Memorandum). In addition, documents to or from a person identified only as Consulting Expert 2 are apparently related to the 268 patent. Id. Roche has refused to provide copies of any of these documents.

15. As discussed in the accompanying Memorandum, Rule 11 requires that in a patent infringement case, counsel must conduct an independent and objectively reasonable claim construction and infringement analysis before filing suit. This requires that counsel obtain a sample of each accused device and compare its actual design and function to the construed claims. Once the issue has been raised, the burden is on plaintiffs counsel to demonstrate that it complied with the prefiling requirements of Rule 11. Roche is refusing to do so on the grounds that all of the relevant documents are both privileged and subject to the work product doctrine.

16. As also discussed in the Memorandum, none of the documents in Roches revised privilege log pages that are identified as related to the 268 patent are privileged. Moreover, while some (but not all) of the documents may be work product, a party cannot hide behind the work product exception where, as here, the requesting party has exhausted all means of trying to obtain the withheld information, the patent at issue is invalid and unenforceable, the attorneys conduct is at issue, and the need for the items identified as work product is compelling.

17. Accordingly, Roche has a continuing obligation to produce all of the documents requested in Apexs various interrogatories and requests for production that relate to product testing of the Apex accused products, and Roche should produce one or more knowledgeable witnesses to testify on the matters identified in Apexs July 26, 2005 Rule 30(b)(6) notice. In particular, Roche must produce the documents listed on its August 23, 2005 revised privilege log pages and identified as relating to Consulting Expert 2, the third party that Roche indicates examined the Apex products in light of the 268 patent.

18. As a result of Roches continuing shell game, its refusal to provide the information requested by pointing instead to each of its previous conclusory, nonresponsive answers, Apex and the Court have no means to determine how Roche ever concluded that Apexs accused products allegedly met the claimed limitations of the 268 patent. Simply put, absent relief from the Court, Apex has no way of determining how Roche allegedly determined before filing suit that Apexs products supposedly met complex claim limitations in the 268 patent claims such as Cottrell current and substantial completion. This is especially noteworthy given that these terms in the asserted 268 patent claims already had been construed by this Court in the Roche v. Bayer litigation, two years before Roche filed suit against Apex.
WHEREFORE, Apex respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to order Roche to produce any and all documents related to the 268 patent and responsive to Apexs discovery requests described above, and to produce a witness or witnesses to testify on the matters outlined in Defendants July 26, 2005 Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition. Apex asks the Court to require, as an absolute minimum acceptable response, that Roche (1) provide the identity of Consulting Expert 2; (2) produce the following documents withheld from production:
Bates Nos.
RDC1229837-1229839
RDC1229840-1229841
RDC1229854-1229854
RDC1229909-1229912
RDC1229801-1229801
RDC1229807-1229807
RDC1229913-1229914
RDC1229915-1229915
RDC1229916-1229916
RDC1229917-1229917;
and (3) produce a witness knowledgeable about the prefiling investigation, if any, that Roche conducted to determine whether each of the Apex accused products infringed the 268 patent.
DATED: September 13, 2005
APEX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP. and HYPOGUARD USA, INC.
Respectfully submitted,

wispaman - 14 Sep'05 - 08:01 - 686 of 687


277-2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS, INC.,
and CORANGE INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
v.
APEX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP., HYPOGUARD USA, INC.,

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TESTING OF ACCUSED PRODUCTS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE. 36,268

The Court, having received Defendants Motion to Compel Production of Documents Relating to Testing of Accused Products for Infringement of U.S. Patent No. Re. 36, 268, and the supporting memorandum (Apexs Motion to Compel), and all responses and replies to Defendants Motion, and being duly and fully advised in the premises:
IT SHALL BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Apexs Motion to Compel is GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiffs shall answer in full all interrogatories related to testing of the Defendants accused products against the claim limitations of U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,268, regardless of whether attorney-client privilege or the work product exception has previously been claimed for such documents; Plaintiffs responses shall include the full name, present or last known address, telephone number, and present or last known place of employment of the person or persons identified only as Consulting Expert 2 in the revised privilege log entries served on Defendants on August 23, 2005;

(3) Plaintiffs shall produce any and all documents and other tangible things related to testing of the Defendants accused products against the claim limitations of U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,268, regardless of whether attorney-client privilege or the work product exception has previously been claimed for such documents; these documents shall include but are not limited to the following:
Bates Nos. RDC1229837-1229839
RDC1229840-1229841
RDC1229854-1229854
RDC1229909-1229912
RDC1229801-1229801
RDC1229807-1229807
RDC1229913-1229914
RDC1229915-1229915
RDC1229916-1229916
RDC1229917-1229917;

(4) Plaintiffs shall produce a witness or witnesses to testify on the matters outlined in Defendants July 26, 2005 Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition; and

(5) Plaintiffs shall comply with this Order within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

ENTERED: __________________
_____________________________
Hon. V. Sue Shields
Magistrate Judge

Re above 18
"As a result of Roches continuing shell game, its refusal to provide the information requested by pointing instead to each of its previous conclusory, nonresponsive answers, Apex and the Court have no means to determine how Roche ever concluded that Apexs accused products allegedly met the claimed limitations"

ok - I give in - so in a nutshell - what does all that legal stuff mean ??

Baza

baz
Well I think its looking good for MDY to win the cc, I could be wrong.

Roches refusal to provide the information requested

Thanks Driver - lets hope so

Baza

For the LATEST ON MDY V'S ROCHE COURT CASE click on the link in the header.

Here we go

Medisys PLC
27 September 2005



For Immediate Release 27 September
2005

Medisys PLC

('Medisys' or 'the Company')

Roche Complaint for Patent Infringement

Court Makes Favourable Finding on 609 Patent Claim Construction


Medisys announces that the US District Court (Southern District of Indiana
Indianapolis Division) has issued an Order on Claim Construction (the 'Order')
for US Patent Number 5,366,609 (the '609 Patent') in Roche's Complaint for
Patent Infringement filed in February 2004 against Hypoguard (along with certain
other defendants) in respect of the Assure products.

The 609 Patent is the remaining patent in issue following the Courts prior
ruling in June of this year that the other patent that Roche claimed was being
infringed was unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct before the US
Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of that patent.

The Order sets out how the Court has determined that the terms used in the 609
Patent shall be construed in an infringement trial to determine whether the
product in issue (being Assure 3 in the case of Hypoguard) actually infringes
the 609 Patent. Under the Court's timetable, such an infringement trial is
currently scheduled to take place in the latter part of 2006. However, based
upon the Order, Hypoguard now plans to file a motion to ask the Court to dismiss
Roche's Complaint on the basis that by applying the Court's claim construction,
no reasonable jury could find that the Assure 3 product infringes the 609
Patent.

The Board is pleased with the Court's findings in relation to the construction
of the 609 Patent claims and remains confident of a successful outcome to this
litigation, without cost to Medisys. To date, all costs associated with
Hypoguard's defence of the claims have been paid by Apex (the manufacturer of
the Assure, Assure II and Assure 3 products) under the terms of an indemnity
given by Apex.



- Ends -

Well that made a big difference to the sp - NOT

Baza

decent size buys and sp up a little--this is better than most of mine today!! rotten day all round with Dil rubbing it in about yoo results as well--I'm going for some retail therapy!

A bit better now - up 20%
Baza

Baz mp
Just got in, looking good. I was feeling a bit guilty for putting mp on it, feeling a bit better now.

Medisys PLC
29 September 2005



For Immediate Release 29 September 2005


Medisys PLC
('Medisys' or 'the Company')

Draw down Under Committed Share Finance Facility

Medisys announces that it is drawing down 125,000 under the Committed Share
Finance Facility Agreement (the 'Agreement') announced by the Company on 28th
July 2005 with the Headstart Group of funds ('Headstart').

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Headstart has subscribed, subject to
admission, for 4,385,965 new ordinary shares in the capital of the Company
('Ordinary Shares'). The subscription price for each Ordinary Share is 2.85p.

Application has been made to the UK Listing Authority for 4,385,965 Ordinary
Shares to be admitted to the Official List and to London Stock Exchange plc for
these shares to be admitted to trading on its market for listed securities. It
is expected that admission to listing will become effective and that dealings in
these shares will commence on 4 October 2005.


- Ends -

Another draw down under committed share finance facility, in effect a rights issue with a different name, it bashes the sp when it takes place. When all this is out of the way and hopefully the cc behind MDY this share will head north.
A good time to top up when the draw down takes place.

sp recovering, buying opportunity missed.

Could have traded this today, 16% down this morning and now only 2.9%

Must confess to have been watching seo most of the day

baza

Some new stuff has gone on the
LATEST ON MDY V'S ROCHE COURT CASE page 6/10/2005

http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=8721#lastread

Can someone interpret that lot in words of one syllable please ???

Baza

Driver Hi,

The MDY v MPM challenge you proposed a few months ago, seems MPM are going nowhere, and MDY has dropped back to where it was back then !

I think MPM will be putting out some news soon, it is due I believe, then we may have 'game on' again :)

Cheers,
PM

It looks like punters think the cc is done and dusted, no official news yet though.