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.

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.

Topped up it does look like its all over.


ENTRY ON APEX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1

The Court, having received "Apex's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of Claim 1" ("Apex's Motion for Summary Judgment"), and all responses and replies to Apex's Motion, being duly and fully advised in the premises and finding that such motion should be granted:
IT SHALL BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiffs' remaining claims of infringement against Apex's Assure 3, Apex Defendants' only remaining product in the litigation, are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. No claims remain against any Apex Defendant. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to consider any motions for sanctions that Apex Defendants may seek by separate motion. ENTERED:
Judge, United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

I understand that bit - moi aussie driver

baz
Moving up on no official news yet, its going to fly soon.

Well it looks like MDY won the cc unofficially, (no RNS today) if the RNS comes out Monday morning there is only one way this share is going, vertically, keep an eye on it.

Hope that the press also pick up on this over the weekend.

LATEST ON MDY V'S ROCHE COURT CASE

It appears that the cc is still on going and is not yet won or lost

Two documents were filed on Pacer under the same reference (289) which meant they weren't linked to each other. The first was a motion from Apex, the second was a draft judgement document produced by Apex that they wanted the judge to issue

Instead of those being filed as master and slave documents, clearly showing they were both produced by Apex, it looked as though one was from Apex and the other was issued by the judge. Pacer now shows the correct relationships between the documents.