Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[here and there] 23/6/2014 11:26

I hope to see a doubling of revenues from Brazil during the next season. Anything more than that and I will be a very happy chappy

[fctwente] 19/6/2014 15:30

A tripling of revenues is possible. But this having said, will only be enough to break even point.

[q1w2e3r4t5] 19/6/2014 15:23

Brazil about to go nationwide. What sort of deal annoucement should we be looking for? Is a tripling of revenues a daft dream given they only did one state last year?

[fctwente] 19/6/2014 14:16

Agreed, they need revenue. But are not getting it quickly enough I think.

[here and there] 19/6/2014 11:45

well maybe Wan. They are doing some work with Bugoil in California but it really is a peripheral part of the business atm. All staff, resources and energies are focussed on selling product in Brazil, and Northern Europe. They need revenue and profit which will drive everything else

[wan] 19/6/2014 10:07

Is the time right for Bugoil?

June 17, 2014

Research and Markets: Global Biopesticides Market - Growth, Trends And Forecasts 2014 - 2019

The crop protection industry worldwide has made a marked shift towards utilization of biopesticides in favor of conventional mineral oil-based pesticides. This has been necessitated due to a variety of factors, including the negative impact of pesticide use on humans, animals and the environment and non-biodegradability of regular pesticides. This new publication substantiates this fact, giving critical insights into reasons for greater adoption of biopesticides, emphasizing some of the major growth areas. Volume and value demand for biopesticides is slated to outpace synthetic pesticides by a considerable margin globally, with bioherbicides emerging the largest and biofungicides the fastest-growing sub-segments. By region, while North America would retain its dominance in terms of volume and value of biopesticides demand, Asia-Pacific is anticipated to surpass other global markets by progressing at a faster rate.

On the other hand, one major factor limiting production of biopesticides is the large number of smaller companies engaged in the same, with outlays required for registration and demonstrating new products to growers being significantly high. To overcome this bottleneck, the United States' IR-4 program has been of immense help in assisting with the process of registering sustainable pest management products for minor crops. As a consequence of this program, the EPA was able to approve more biopesticides compared to regular products in 2010. However, several larger players, such as Monsanto have recognized the potential offered by biopesticides and are investing in smaller companies to evaluate new products.

[here and there] 15/6/2014 10:11

PIM gets a mention in this piece in the mail today

[agextpert] 07/6/2014 16:19

Timbo003,

Thanks for your comments, they are helpful. These are fair points as I said in my previous post also, it may well be the fact it didn't work well enough, but we should have been told this. I had been left with the impression that it was a good technology just going off the words of PIM, and was surprised to see it had been moved away from. On this board I try to give broad concepts that everyone can understand and I think the essence of what I said is right, small indiscrepancies between the rules of different patent offices I don't think takes away from the validity of what I have said.

I have had a look at your links, which pointed to three patents in the UK if you look at the application numbers and then relook at them under the granted patent tab you can open them and have a look at their status, 2 of the three have the legal status ceased, one of which is the one we are discussing. The final cannot be found as granted so presume it hasn't been, or maybe still in negotiation. I would count this as little progress for an IP company over 7 years.

[timbo003] 07/6/2014 15:28

agextpert

I for one welcome your input and thank you for bringing this to shareholders attention. It would certainly have escaped my attention and due diligence had you not done so. I confess I only have a small holding in PIM, bought recently as an option to give me the right (but not the obligation) to participate in any EIS qualifying open offer fund raising which may occur in the future.

I have a bit of on the hoof experience of the patent process myself (albeit in a different field) and I will take issue on a couple of minor points in your last post:

You state: "it would be out of the ordinary to make a patent application on a product that turned out not to work, because the application requires you to submit data proving it does"

It does happen in my experience and it has certainly happened to me more than once in the past. Maybe the invention works on the small scale in the lab under controlled conditions, but on scale-up, and/or outside the lab in the real world, it does not work well enough to be viable.

You also state: "The process does not give any ability to add data post filing".

The process does not allow you to add data post foreign filing, but it does allow you up to one year to add data after filing the original priority application and it is usual practice for applicants to do this.

[freddie01] 07/6/2014 15:23

So go and meet them and air your concerns.

[agextpert] 07/6/2014 14:23

Guys,

I was shocked to see that this nematicide patent was no longer current. I remember the big splash made about receiving the grant and awaited the sale of the IP or the building of markets to sell the product. It was felt important enough by PIM to release an RNS regarding the development of the technology but evidently not enough to then inform of their moving away from it.

It may well be the case that the nematicide didn't work and the correct commercial decision was to walk away, but commercial decision and investment decision are different entities. An investor has to make a decision on the value of a companies assets, and I feel it should be reasonably transparent, to be able to do this. A company with a technology that has the ability to tap into a 20 billion euro market in my opinion is more valuable than that same company without it.

Other companies are doing very well with plant extract derived nematicides generated helped by EU funding (see link).

hxxp://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn84/PN84_18-20.pdf

Meanwhile PIM has failed to register BugOil in the EU, and seems to being doing nothing in the US where it has both registration and patent. And now they have dumped IP on a nematicide, while other companies have successfully launched products.

Although regarding the efficacy of the product, PIM seemed to believe at the time it was very good, plus it would be out of the ordinary to make a patent application on a product that turned out not to work, because the application requires you to submit data proving it does. The process does not give any ability to add data post filing, so you can be damn sure you would want to put your best foot forward in the initial application, and have submitted the best data. This requirement would assume exhaustive studies would be carried out prior filing.

It shouldn't be the case that this information is only available to those able to ring the directors, or personally meet. The whole point of a public company is it is meant to trade on public information. I would be uninterested in what the board have to say at an investors meeting, as it seems it's what they don't say which has much more impact. Besides, it is fairly obvious they are about to have a whip round, if the cash burn has continued.

The posts today however, are greatly amusing, it seems an odd tact to try to devalue my argument by speculating I must be the inventor of all these patents. It seems that this board are still much more focused on pursuing a witch-hunt than actually acquiring knowledge, or discussing PIM.

I am happy to discuss PIM and the content of my posts, I am also happy to say that everybody is entitled to their own opinions, anything I say on how this affects the companies value is just speculation but speculation based on public available facts. Also I may be incorrect in some things, for example if there are more patents in circulation, post them up it gives balance, as I am sure you can see it is not that easy to find every worldwide patent, which is why PIM should give updates. I feel like every time I look at PIM I find more undisclosed issues. It is clear that many on this board afford the benefit of inside knowledge. I have to create my opinions based on research in the public domain, which I reference, and allow people to make their own decisions, but in doing so I happen to think the dwindling IP, negatively affects this company.

I will finish by saying as I have said a few times here. I happen to think the products are good, I happen to think the past research was good, this is why I am so disconcerted by them being unable to make any profit, after the best part of a decade and with substantial funding.

[horace_h] 07/6/2014 11:25

P1nkfish - I agree. There is no doubt that David Marks has done some excellent work, including his time at Plant Impact.

Regarding agextpert's claims, Wan, Here & Now and I all contacted Plant Impact when this was first aired. I was obviously happy with John Brubaker's emailed response to me or I would have started offloading. The subject will inevitably come up again on July 11th at the Investor day. If agextpert really is a concerned shareholder he will appear at said meeting. If he is David Marks then he will not.

One accepts the reality that rival businesses compete in less than ethical/moral ways but anyone falsely posing as a concerned shareholder I place in the Jim Cramer "crawl back under your rock" category.

[here and there] 07/6/2014 11:00

I was invested in PIM back in those days and david Marks got into trouble for posting on ADVFN about PIM . Apparently he criticised the company in public whilst being a director. From what I could gather at the time there was complete disagreement in what direction the company should go. David marks wanted to remain R&D focused and Bleazard wanted to try and commercialise what they had.

It is a long time ago so my memory might not be serving me accurately and I am repeating other's opinion

[p1nkfish] 07/6/2014 10:18

HH, good post. PIM is a very ethical investment. One thought though. If this chap is who he is believed to be then his concerns may be very credible as his resume reads well.

Just because he may have an axe to grind doesn't make him wrong.

[horace_h] 07/6/2014 09:31

Well well well...

Excellent digging Timbo003 - you've certainly earned your £5, though I'm intrigued as to why you're (apparently) sure it is David Marks - that does look likely. If it is, someone who notes:

"I left Plant Impact in 2009 when they ceased R & D"

rather than:

"Bill Thompson replaces David Marks in this role following the Company terminating David Marks' employment as Chief Technical Officer. As a result of this termination, David Marks is no longer a director of the Company."

won't be coming to the Investor Day! The LinkedIn page is certainly as articulate as our "Saviour from ourselves" and he wouldn't wish Plant Impact well from a purely business point of view after being "Terminated".

I look forward to further discussion on this - if it IS David Marks then maybe Newton's Third Law will subsequently apply to him and his business...

Mthead1968: As you accepted "consistent", I'm equally happy to be described as a cheerleader for Plant Impact. I've invested a lot of money (for me) in the company because I believe in the products and the current people and I want nothing but success for it. I also look on increasing food production as a moral investment but this is not emotion-based - since my first naive buying I'm now a professional trader - still with a lot to learn. These days, if I detect/decide that things are not continuing along the current path then I will sell and move on without emotion.

It is not like cheering the lower division football team I chose long ago - I'm stuck with them! That thought makes me wonder if Mr Marks is a Gillingham fan...

[timbo003] 07/6/2014 06:54

Got it: agextpert is David Marks and I claim my £5 prize.

[timbo003] 07/6/2014 05:57

Renewal fees for maturing patents are substantial (circa £20K/year I think would be typical for a patent covering most major markets), so it makes little sense in keeping a patent going if it is generating little or no revenue or it cannot be sold/licenced to a third party. Having said that, I'm not sure every time a non-revenue generating patent is abandoned, it should warrant an RNS, although perhaps it should get a mention somewhere in the annual reports (is there any mention of these abandoned nematicide patents in the last two ARs?).

I wonder if agextpert is assigning a bit too much emphasis on patents for PIM's business model anyway? Sure they are important, but I doubt if they are essential. There are other forms of IP and there are also trade secrets and "know-how" to consider, as well as strength of the brands, brand loyalty and first mover advantage, all of which can play an important role in building and protecting market share.

Anyway, all potential questions for the forthcoming investor day.

Finally with my pedants hat on, it's not entirely accurate to say that PIM haven't "filed" any patents for years, they have in fact filed 3 different UK priority applications in the last 8 years see link below, although I note that the last one (GB1108498.5) does seem to have gone nowhere.



Also searching on espacenet, I find another one with a 2010 priority date (looks like it was a US priority application)

[mthead1968] 06/6/2014 15:15

I think the patent issues illustrate at least one thing. That is the willingness of the company (and its cheerleaders) to engage with investors when ever there is good/positive news, and their seeming unwillingness when it comes to anything remotely negative. The news regarding this nematicide technology is certainly new to me. And I am an avid collector of news concerning my investments. It would have been better in my view that the news came from the company - at the very least as a mention in the annual report (which from memory, it has not). Like others I also consider the wrangles over our European Calcium patent worthy of mention too, because if not resolved will manifest as a serious problem. GLA

[horace_h] 06/6/2014 14:46

Presumably you found this as that database has just been updated but, as YOUR link shows, this application was withdrawn on December 23rd 2011. As it says, this was the most recent event in the patent chain. Happy Christmas. A decision made under the previous management philosophy.

You claimed to be someone that has lodged lots of patents in this field and clearly spend a lot of time digging for PIM-related dirt and have come up a little short to say the least. Please feel free to debate that on July 11th - my lapel badge will include the name "Bavaria Bound" (my username on the iii site) but I somehow doubt that you will appear.

At the time of writing, I could sell 50,000 at 19.25 - despite increasing that 159,000 odd trade earlier this morning. The institutional investors and the market do not reflect the negativity in your flash in the pan appearances. And only the market's verdict is of real relevance - not mine or yours.

Tedious in the extreme - if you're a real person and appear, I'll engage.

[mthead1968] 06/6/2014 14:41

here and there, I shall forgive you for getting confused as you often prove unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts. Why on earth should I apologise for anything? Factoring is a term that covers drawing down monies from invoices. This is EXACTLY what is involved here. What's more, it is more expensive than a conventional loan (under all normal circumstances).

[here and there] 06/6/2014 14:38

I believe you are revering to a press release from Oct, 2009...see below

Press release
22 October 2009

Plant Impact plc

("Plant Impact" or the "Company")

Plant Impact awarded €1m research grant from EU

Plant Impact plc (AIM: PIM), which develops and markets ecologically friendly crop nutrition and crop protection products, announces that a Plant Impact led consortium has been granted €1m European Union funding to develop its patented nematicide technology and a soil delivery system.

The grant is in respect of the project "Non-toxic and Cost-Effective Essential Oil-based Nematicide and Soil Delivery System". The research is to be completed during 2011. The project is to provide all relevant research and commercial capabilities to deliver a marketable product. The consortium comprises of seven organisations across Europe, with Plant Impact being the nematicide technology provider and coordinator of the consortium. Approximately €300,000 is payable in respect of Plant Impact's contribution to the consortium.

Pressure to increase yields from available land (especially in Europe) has resulted in the rise of practices such as monoculture and a reduction in crop rotation, providing ideal conditions for nematode survival and spread. Many of the current nematicides are being phased out because of their greenhouse gas emissions or their safety and handling profile.

Plant Impact's approach aims to provide a non-toxic nematicide that can be applied in a timely and cost-effective manner without the need for soil sterilisation which results from fumigation. Following extensive networking within the EU farming communities, Plant Impact believes this solution will be welcomed over existing approaches based on four key-differentiators:

As you can see, they were one of seven companies involved in the research. The object was field trials in 2011. They did them and the results were not promising. Present management decided to focus all efforts on those products that had the best chance of significant returns as soon as possible. This is exactly what they have done and are achieving. Getting into broad acre drops has been the ambition of past and present management and clearly offers the chance of exponential sales growth over the next few years. Present management should be applauded for not wasting precious and scarce resources, both human and financial , on product/s that either do not work or need vast resources to monitise them.

I gather that the nematode trials effectively didn't work which would explain why they are not bothered about chasing patents...waste of time and money!

If you were to bother to chat with management, I am sure they would be happy to tell you all about it. Hope you can make the investor day so you can present all these questions re. patents. I expect, as a concerned share holder, you must want some answers

[agextpert] 06/6/2014 12:19

PIM dumped more patents! VERY CONCERNING.

Upon closer inspection of PIMs patents, it appears they are no longer fully supporting many of them. I am most concerned at the moment about their decision or necessity, to dump the European nematicide patent family! This constitutes 32 patents lost in some of the biggest markets in the world for nematicides, that PIM have now lost.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?number=EP07732791

The IP is the only thing that gives this company a value, as commercially they continue to make losses. I would wish to know every time they drop IP, as less assets = lower valuation of PIM. IMO this should have been announced, not hidden away.

PIM valued this market at upto €20 billion, and they had a stonking great grant of €1 million euros to get this product ready for market by 2011.(RNS from PIM).

It is very worrying that PIM are walking away from assets as potentially valuable as this, and seem to be pursuing a one trick pony business model based on one product where the IP is not defendable (verytas/ inca/ amestros). PIM are on public record as saying the IP gives them no protection from competition.

Why are PIM seemingly incapable of defending IP, or developing actual products and sales from any but one of their many historic patent assets? I would be hoping as an investor to see the patents grow not shrink, and whilst it is surprising to me that they are loosing patents what is more surprising is that they haven't filed any for years, even with their mammoth R&D spend at Rothamstead!

[here and there] 06/6/2014 11:25

i see you feel no need to apologise for the factoring nonsense...same old, same old

[mthead1968] 06/6/2014 11:06

Thank you Horace_H - I'll settle for consistent. Consistently disappointed, as you are very well aware. Perhaps, as soon as I detect some light at the end of this very dark tunnel, I'll be sure to let you know. ATB