Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[horace_h] 06/6/2014 10:39

Well said Robards. I think we all know the potential here but many of us have sat patiently/impatiently since 2009 - and earlier). The decisive numbers, obviously starting with profitability, would probably see the leap to the sort of price at which Arysta spent 2.05 million pounds back in May 2011 - 45p (although some dilution has occurred since then).

As Here and Now, Wan and others note, we have had more indications that sales are on the right track in recent quarters and we all have the opportunity to question the Borad more deeply on July 11th. I've sold nothing since I started collecting in 2009 but respect those who sold yesterday - trading/investing is not emotion-based.

As for our surrogate Private Fraser receiving the statement in his/her usual bright sunny way, he/she is consistent and long standing. After this last statement, I'm wondering where our articulate "saviour from ourselves" on the patent application front is - will we be meeting him/her on July 11th?

[here and there] 06/6/2014 10:37

'In addition, the Directors are pleased to report that Plant Impact has entered into a receivables-based working capital financing facility of up to £1.00m with HSBC, which will allow the company, at its discretion, to comfortably support any short-term working capital requirements related to the upcoming Southern Hemisphere season.'

it really is not very complicated. If they get large orders and are short of cash to make veritas, they borrow from the bank to make the order. loans set against monies owed and due to come in.

[robards] 06/6/2014 10:09

Sounds more like a loan with receivables as collateral rather than factoring - although the two things are similar in certain ways. Factoring tends to be more expensive than the former because the factor is buying your receivables and therefore taking a risk on the creditworthiness of your customers.

I haven't got a problem if the company decides to obtain a loan facility rather than raise money by issuing more shares. If they are reluctant to tap the market again then fine by me, as long as they are confident in their financing methods.

Otherwise I share the sentiment that we are still waiting on some decisive numbers!

[mthead1968] 06/6/2014 08:31

here and there, just because I am not an apologist for this company (as you so patently are) it does not make my comments any the less valid. Factoring is often the resort taken out of desperation. A sort of last resort, so to speak. Ask any accountant. The trading update was, in my opinion, underwhelming.

[here and there] 05/6/2014 22:21

LOL

what a great contribution as ever!!

[mthead1968] 05/6/2014 21:09

Factoring. That's a very expensive way to raise money. I would guess they would prefer to raise in the market but are finding that difficult.

[wan] 05/6/2014 13:11

It sounds as if cash is 'expected' to improve materially!

[cerrito] 05/6/2014 09:21

Cannot make the Investor Day and any way was there last year but look forward to your reports.
For me not all that inspiring but not sure if I am moved to sell. Specifically good that their cash balance has improved and they have the HSBC facility-at what cost?- but note that in the six months to Jan 14 their cash outflow pre working capital was £487k so a further fundraising may well be on the cards. Note their comment about cash balances rebuilding-perhaps their profitability is greatly improving.
I was hoping for a bigger increase in their sales to end of April compared to last year given the impact on bad weather in N Europe's spring in 2013.
Intrigued by their comment on the current Brazil dry bean season..cannot find anything in my notes about when this season is and how much they anticipate selling.

[horace_h] 05/6/2014 08:25

Indeed - more good progress and the HSBC facility should lower the need/chances of another cash call and dilution.

It is good that the Investor day will particularly focus on the crucial way forward in the broad acre crops but will also gives shareholders, including of course agextpert, the chance to clarify the patent situation.

I'm registered to attend and look forward to meeting the PIM Board of Directors again and bulletin board contributors. It's good to meet the character behind the user names and discover whether those accused of skulduggery are genuine or keyboard warriors...

[here and there] 05/6/2014 07:38

happy with today's trading update. european season looks promising with a decent uptick in early season sales, the weather will not be a handbrake this year. Brazil expansion will happen and they have a handy little bank facility to keep the business rolling on

[timbo003] 29/5/2014 08:10

Investor day coming up.

A chance to ask about some of those pesky IP questions raised by agextpert perhaps, as well as the possibility of future equity fund raising (which must be EIS qualifying, or I would definitely not participate)

[here and there] 16/5/2014 09:56

Good to see a team from Bayer and some Brazilian growers who use Veritas visiting PIm in the UK

[wan] 16/5/2014 08:48

To perhaps back up my theory, not to mention significant advantages over competitor products (who must be arguably worried!), and to provide an interesting read -

THE FRUIT GROWER • MARCH 2014

page 2
Amētros ®
4 years of trial results in UK and Europe now available

page 30 - 31 -

Time to reconsider calcium management for your fruit

Often however, growers see the inclusion of calcium products in the spray programmes simply as something that must happen, with most products featuring older technology that offers products that are bulky and hard to use and that has largely relied on the same mode of action and outdated understanding of calcium transport within the plant. Whilst these products are reasonably effective in getting some calcium into the plant, they are usually required in high amounts and result in a lot of waste because they don't work with the plant systems. Moreover, they often have restricted application windows due to their harsh formulas which can scorch the plant.

So there was an opportunity for improvement which has led to a big investment in calcium transport research. Now, scientists working with Plant Impact in Hertfordshire have a greater understanding of the plant's transport mechanisms and how products can be developed to work with the plant in order to enhance and improve calcium mobility.



I maintain that PI's response to the EPO requests (which is typical and ultimately healthy) will be robust and arguably they knew it was coming, so perhaps that is why (data and scientists working with Plant Impact in Hertfordshire) PI's view that; their long standing application will be granted, has not changed. In turn one could assume the likes of Bayer have seen such detail.

[here and there] 15/5/2014 13:12

you only interested in talking about one thing and refuse to talk about anything else...i wonder why?

[agextpert] 15/5/2014 12:11

Robard,

It's all about opinions. The US patent names a class of compounds with a narrowly defined description. PIM clearly feel that they need to have definition by activity not by chemical description. This is pretty unusual, so it strikes me they must feel it is needed (for reasons only they can know).

It is clear that defining by activity is far wider, it would even include as yet undiscovered compounds, or completely chemically different compounds that turn out in the future to do the same thing. This is why patents do not normally allow this approach. PIM are saying they need undefined chemicals, not me. It is the opinion of PIM.

I don't know if they are protected by it or not, PIM seem to think not. As discussed the US patent fits PIMs description to the EPO of claims that would not offer protection.

You have not mentioned the concentration limits here. PIM also claim having them means no protection, and the US patent clearly does have set concentrations at upper and lower limits.

It is a side issue anyway, it is the rejection of many claims in the EPO patent, that PIM directly state would leave them unprotected that I originally posted.

With the US one we are extrapolating it out, but it does have the characteristics that PIM state would leave them no protection in the EPO amended claims request.

Thanks for a polite response. You are welcome to your own opinion having seen the relevant info. I haven't expressed my personal opinion on how well it protects, I am more interested in PIMs documented ones.

[robards] 15/5/2014 11:38

Agextpert, thanks for your reply.

But I don't agree that the US patent corresponds to the claims which PIM elsewhere said offer incomplete protection. The US patent reads obviously wider than the matters adverted to in PIM's letter of 18.6.12.

And the US patent lists wide descriptions of compounds and doesn't read to me to be limited to named compounds.

[here and there] 15/5/2014 11:33

only one employee is left from the old regime...

old management set up a new company in the same space, plenty of rivals out there with agendas to promote.

[acta_topup] 15/5/2014 10:48

A number of ex-senior management left under a cloud...this poster is highly disingenous IMO

[here and there] 15/5/2014 10:47

Who do you work for?

Are you connected in anyway with the former management of PIM?

Your intentions are perfectly clear as are your motivations

[agextpert] 15/5/2014 10:25

Robard

After having quite hostile posts from you I am wary of entering into a discussion. However since you ask this one quite politely I will answer.

Lets start by making sure we are comparing the same things. The amended EPO claims you reference are not the newest ones that I am looking at. I am discussing the ones submitted on 18/6/2012.

I am not going to get into comparing small rate differences here, but just try to explain simply how they fundamentally differ.

The US patent in its granted form (so far as I can see on google patents) and the form that the original EPO claims were in, are broadly similar in structure. They name compound/s (Di –phenyl-urea derivatives), at a concentration range (different ranges but both with upper and lower limits), and a range of calcium levels (again different but with upper and lower limits). These are to cover a range of uses in agriculture.

What PIM are saying in the 18/6/12 request to amend is, that if they have to have named compounds (like in the US patent) then it is hard to protect, as it is possible to substitute for different ones that are similar – so they ask to define by effect (cover any compound with a claimed effect).

Similarly they suggest that naming set concentration ranges (like in the US patent) makes it possible to go higher or lower to avoid the claims, so they wish to have no named concentrations and define by effect again.

This is completely different to the US patent, and the original EPO claims, and covers unlimited unnamed compounds, at unlimited unnamed concentrations. They claim they should not need to demonstrate any of his actually works, as it is somehow "obvious to anyone skilled in the art". I don't actually agree with them on this, and neither does the EPO who have concluded they should have shown it if they want to claim it. You can't add data to patent apps after the fact in normal circumstances, this is why they have tried to use an obscure argument that it is obvious (so they can get round the fact they have not done any of the science needed to actually prove it).

If you read the justifications proffered by PIM for the requested changed claims, the core of the argument offered by PIM is that having a patent based around named compounds (like the US patent) gives them no protection, and that having upper and or lower concentration limits (like the US patent) gives them no protection.

As the granted US patent has upper and lower concentration limits, and also named compounds, it falls bang in the description of what PIM are saying to the EPO leaves them with no protection. PIM are saying this, not me, it is their opinion not mine, and it is a matter of public record. As stated I do not necessarily agree with PIM that it offers no protection, and it is not the route I would have gone down with the EPO.



What puzzles me is why PIM decided the protection of the kind in the US patent was not adequate, and I can only guess at that. My speculative guess is that they may have had competing products come in in the US, that do not fall under the patent and they are keen to prevent this in other markets. This is just a guess. It does seem strange though that they are so adamant that a patent structured the way the US one is (defined concentrations of defined chemicals) will give them no protection, if there have been no issues.

It is also odd that they changed the claims twice, once along similar lines to the US patent (expanding compounds and rates) and then soon after they ditched it (before the EPO even considered it) and went with this new set of very expanded claims. They do however seem to have lost the market in the US, which may or may not be linked. Who knows. I would guess they have competition the first set of new claims didn't cover, so panicked and tried for the new approach, which is a bit desperate and was never likely to be accepted.

Regards reduced claims, well the US patent is limited to very few compounds, and the EPO have informed that they only think a single compound is justified – both more limited than the original PCT application which listed more compounds from the chemical family concerned. When you consider that PIM in the EPO changed claims justification that any limit to compounds leaves them unprotected, quote "The person skilled in the art would understand that other related compounds would have a similar effect" they go on to say that limiting the claim this way would "allow them to easily substitute a similarly active urea from those well known to him. Third parties would therefore be able to utilize the essence of the invention without infringing the words of the claims"

... they must have wanted at very least the ones they named in the original PCT application. In the US patent they didn't get that so far as I can see from looking at it.

It's a Bit of a mess really. On the one hand we have Wan claiming Brubaker says everything is fine and nodding at the fact they got a US patent. On the other hand we have PIM on record as saying that the type of claims in the US patent offer no protection (upper and lower concentrations set and limited named compounds).

This is why I do not think Wan/Brubakers (alledgedly) pointing at the US patent makes sense, when PIM are simultaneously telling the EPO that similar claims would not give any protection. Especially one in a market in which they used to have lots of sales, and now don't appear to have them anymore post patent grant (so far as I can see anyway).

What is certain though is that the claims in the US can't be changed, so if PIM are right in what they are saying to the EPO then it can't be worth very much. What is also clear is that the EPO are not going to accept the structure PIM are requesting, so if they get a patent it will likely be one that according to PIM does not give them protection.

If it helps I can list the US claims vs original EPO clauses vs what PIM say they need to prevent being unprotected from competition. If I do that then I think you will concede that according to PIM the USA patent is not very much use.

Now before you lot jump on and accuse me of being negative remember I only mentioned the US patent issue when Wan who alleged the CEO had spoken to him raising it as a sign everything with the EPO application is rosy, in order to dismiss my perfectly valid fact based observation on the EPO patent. Also in the post I am only answering a question, and have supplied referenced facts straight from PIM which are available here:

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

(Replace xx in https to tt as obscures when posted, look at 'Reply to communication from the examining division on 18/06/12). Page 3 if you don't want to read through the fluff.

If you don't like what PIM say in it then take it up with them. I am only discussing what is there to be seen by investors and industry.

Opinions on how important this is are just that, opinion. I am on record as saying I like this companies products and see value in the technology. That doesn't mean that I will ignore issues that PIM themselves flag up with their patents. In a company that has never turned a profit, the IP and chances of protecting it enough to compete with much larger basic manufacturers is the only thing you can place a value on. It is really important then to understand how strong the IP is, and what effect genericism may have.

[robards] 14/5/2014 17:18

agextpert, you said this:

"The American patent is an exemplar of the mess they are in, not an example to calm the market

The US patent office took a similar line to the EPO, and drastically cut the claims, as they were not supported by the data submitted. The scope of the granted US patent is similar to the claims that PIM have written to the EPO about stating that "they fail to cover the essence of the invention" and asking to increase the claims."

Having read the description of the scope of US patent it reads to me to be much more like the widened description sought in PIM's amended EPO claim, as set out in their amended claims and accompanying letter of 29.5.12.

What's your reason for saying the claims were drastically cut?

[acta_topup] 14/5/2014 16:17

Could it be none other than PB???

[jammytass] 14/5/2014 16:15

i think he has been reported and his ip addy has been traced so legal action will take place !!!

[acta_topup] 14/5/2014 15:16

i would report this individual - he is not what he appears to be

[acta_topup] 14/5/2014 15:15

do you have something against the company? you seem a little too close to be believable...also your new username is a very red flag