Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Vectura Group LSE:VEC London Ordinary Share GB00B01D1K48 ORD 0.025P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.60p +0.41% 145.50p 145.60p 146.10p 146.40p 143.80p 144.30p 1,032,247.00 16:35:24
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 72.0 -1.9 1.2 121.3 985.93

Vectura Share Discussion Threads

Showing 5451 to 5475 of 5475 messages
Chat Pages: 219  218  217  216  215  214  213  212  211  210  209  208  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
22/2/2017
14:37
No real reason for this rise, just reaching the top of its normal trading range. It's around this level that the traders usually step in and send it tumbling down to its lower end again and that also sets the conspiracy theorists up and running yet again! A good time to trade a few perhaps! Roll on the next announcement that might give some justification to a meaningful share price movement!
dontay
21/2/2017
17:36
fhmktg - if not it's very close,encouraging closing price touching 200 day MA on strong volume,need next two days to confirm. AO
a0148009
21/2/2017
16:04
looks like its trying to end red. no way finnish over 146 shame, over all not a bad day at 16-03 pm off out now anything can happen in 27mins
pooroldboy55
21/2/2017
14:20
Is that a fully formed double bottom in place?Onwards and upwards!
fhmktg
21/2/2017
14:16
diesel-perhaps that's been it all along!
alexchry
21/2/2017
13:58
Trouble is when I get a warmer feeling it means something different these days!
diesel
21/2/2017
12:25
Hi alex Also think things are about to change will be disappointed if we end the day in the red.
pooroldboy55
21/2/2017
11:48
pob-I've been waiting for you to say you were expecting the usual afternoon fall after the morning rise. A short while ago, I said I that had a warmer feeling about VEC, if the share price finishes above 146 today that feeling will get even warmer.
alexchry
21/2/2017
11:16
diesl why did you have to say that, now we are doomed.
pooroldboy55
21/2/2017
11:07
Feeling more relaxed with this for now, the brief visit to 130 didn't hold and I'm confident that the long term downtrend of the last year is now reversed. Wouldn't be surprised to see a stronger move northwards over the next couple of months. There I've done it now !
diesel
19/2/2017
19:47
What I find disappointing is that there does not seem to have been a clear explanation from VEC as to the exact reason for the disspute. From a shareholders point of view i find poor ,and impossible to form an oppioion as to the likely outcome.
best1467
17/2/2017
11:10
PJ, Thats the conclusion I came to, but still unethical if GSK have tinkered with the formulation/process in full knowledge of VEC's IP in order to get around the additional patents.
rogerrail
17/2/2017
09:58
Popper Joe-I think you may be right. My worry is that GSK have far deeper pockets than VEC when it comes to funding litigation.
alexchry
17/2/2017
09:35
Roger, from the RNS in July announcing legal proceedings: Patent licence and option-to-licence agreement In August 2010, GSK and Vectura entered a license and option-to-licence agreement encompassing a number of Vectura patent families relating to various formulation technologies relevant to GSK's Ellipta® products. A number of these patents expire in 2016. GSK had the option to extend the term of the agreement by licensing additional patent families on or before 31 July 2016, but has formally notified Vectura that it does not wish to do so. This is saying that it is patents that have expired. The RNS implies that VEC expected GSK to use the existing licence agreement to take options to use later patented technology, but that GSK had declined. So on the face of it, the situation would seem clear cut. If GSK are continuing to use VEC technology for which patents have expired, then VEC have no argument. If GSK are now using later VEC technology for which patents remain, then GSK have no argument. However, I thought I read something last year at the time when this all cropped up, that suggested GSK had decided that they wanted to employ alternative technology to that for which VEC hold patents. So perhaps that is the crux of the matter. Is the technology that GSK is now using, or plans to use, close enough to that covered by VEC's patents or is it genuinely a different technology?
popper joe
16/2/2017
22:45
Perhaps the patent infringement concerns patents that had been filed but yet to be awarded at the time of the first license agreement hence the option to license?
rogerrail
16/2/2017
22:26
The lawsuit concerns the infringment of patents, what expired was the option to license the ip protected by those patents.
rogerrail
16/2/2017
21:19
Hi, I do not hold at the moment. I got shaken out post SKP merger and have been sat on the sidelines since. There remains a little too much uncertainty for me to come back. VEC and SKP made sense for many years as a tie up IMO, but these things take a while to settle down. regards, Paul
polaris
16/2/2017
21:09
Paul, good to see you posting here. Have you retained a stake in VEC after the takeover? I would be very interested to read your views on VEC and it's prospects. Your posts on the SKP board were always much appreciated.
popper joe
16/2/2017
19:09
It was only a few years ago that the alleged slow sales of the GSK products in the pre-close statement for SKP caused the share to shed some 20+%. The announcement today just reinforces what i said at the time - this is BS! At the time i was more than convinced that the products would meet expectations in the listed timescale and likely before. I added that the agreement was poor by SKP to cap the possible royalties - i would have taken a fixed lower %age of sales and been non-capped. With the performance of the series i am sure the royalties could have more than doubled the 9M GBP cap. regards, Paul
polaris
16/2/2017
16:01
I've struggled to understand VEC's position with regard to GSK being asked to pay ongoing royalties for use of a patent that has expired. I can only think that they have a licence agreement that specifically states that royalties will continue beyond expiration. However, as per this case from 2002/2003 concerning Dolby noise reduction technology, such an agreement may be unlawful. Copied and pasted: Scheiber Meets Brulotte Peter Scheiber, inventor of the “surround sound” audio system, held several patents on this technology both in the United States and in Canada. Scheiber’s last United States patent was scheduled to expire in 1993, while his last Canadian patent was scheduled to expire in 1995. In 1983, Scheiber sued Dolby for infringement. Rather than undertaking the expense of litigation, the parties agreed to settle on a licensing contract. During negotiations Dolby proposed to Scheiber that in exchange for lower royalty payments (and hence, increased sales), it would continue paying beyond the expiration of the United States patents until 1995, when the last Canadian patent expired. Scheiber agreed to these terms. However, upon expiration of the United States patents in 1993, Dolby discontinued its royalty payments and Scheiber filed suit. Dolby rationalized its actions based on the Brulotte rule: “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” In Brulotte, the Thys Company sold hop-picking machines incorporating several of its patents. In addition to the flat sum for the physical machines, Thys also licensed the machines based on the machines’ incorporation of the patents. Under this license, the purchasers paid royalties to Thys in various amounts depending upon their use of the machines. Since the license extracted royalties extending beyond the term of the patent grants, the purchasers discontinued payment when the patents expired. Over the dissent of Justice Harlan, Justice Douglas’ majority opinion invalidated the license agreement as “a bald attempt to exact the same terms and conditions for the period after the patents have expired as they do for the monopoly period.” While recognizing the legitimacy of using the patent as leverage to exact royalties as high as possible during the life of the patent,the Court deemed it improper to use that same leverage to exact lower royalties for a term extending beyond the life of the patent. The Court analogized post-expiration royalty agreements to tying arrangements, whereby a monopolist uses its power in one market to leverage itself into another market. In other words, since the patentee has a monopoly in the preexpiration market for his product, a patentee cannot use that monopoly as leverage into the postexpiration market. Although the Court seemed to acknowledge that equality of bargaining power could exist between a patentee and licensee in entering into this type of agreement, it nevertheless erected an insurmountable barrier by creating a per se rule of invalidity. Thus, under the Brulotte rule, Dolby had a virtual slam-dunk because Chief Judge Posner’s opinion for the court found the two cases to be “indistinguishable.” So it may well be the case that GSK are not acting unethically, but rather they are hamstrung by the law.
popper joe
16/2/2017
14:11
... and there lies the conundrum! Will VEC/GSK amicably settle the litigation proceedings? Will the Asian COPD trial report be to VEC's advantage? Will the USA report due in May turn out to be a dud? All that uncertainty stops the share price from being able to re-rate. But then you don't get potentially fabulous growth stories at cheap prices without those sorts of uncertainties!
dontay
16/2/2017
13:27
Would like to think failure to win dispute well and truly priced in although market reaction to negative news always promotes fresh pessimism on the day. On the other hand a positive outcome for Vectura could see an immediate 10p+ rise. Maybe an update in the finals 4/5 weeks off, maybe even comment on Kinnovata progress but wouldn't bet on either.
carpadium
16/2/2017
13:27
Looking at GSK's results it looks like they sell a billion pounds worth of Ellipta products, you'd have thought that £13M was not worth breaking sweat over. However, they seem to spend well over £100M on litigation so must find things for their lawyers to do.
alexchry
16/2/2017
13:18
The length of time that has passed since the GSK issue was publicised... without any news of a court date being set or ANY news being forthcoming... hopefully suggests that negotiations to compromise and settle out of court are continuing.
dontay
16/2/2017
13:18
As I understand it , the litigation concerns two patents associated with the addition of various micro-particle additives to Ellipta products and the related manufacturing process. These additives assist in the dispersion of the dry powder inhaler making it more effective for longer. Its not clear what GSK's case is for continuing to use the ip without paying royalties, have they found a loop hole in the patent, modified the process or relying on their commercial clout to disregard the underdog? Whatever the situation is, ethically their behavior is shameful.
rogerrail
Chat Pages: 219  218  217  216  215  214  213  212  211  210  209  208  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:35 V: D:20170223 05:06:42