Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[trotterstrading] 21/7/2016 19:41

Fair points Wan. I agree with them in the main, but if as you say it's not really that important, why bother spending time, effort and money with patents in the first place? Sorry to linger on this point.

[timbo003] 21/7/2016 09:25

Brief details of the new UK priority patent application concerning a double strength Veritas formulation have now published

So viscouscircle can mark down June 2nd 2017 as the date it will be foreign filed and December 2nd 2017 as the day to look out for regarding the publication of the full specification:

[mthead1968] 20/7/2016 16:24

TT. There is of course a much shorter, simpler answer. i.e. Nothing. ;-)

[wan] 20/7/2016 15:18

TT...One could say a lot on this topic and there are indeed labs that specialise in deformulation,which is demanding and very expensive, but perhaps it's suffice to say, people have tried to analyse and copy Coca-Cola's secret formula, but failed on several fronts including understanding the procedures used and indeed arriving at the exact formula/taste, not to mention of course the strength of the brand, which would be difficult to emulate, especially when selling on a comparable price.

Bayer are a very large company (so it depends on what you call a larger company) and they market PI's Veritas in Bayer branding, which says a lot about the product and critically the trust in such a product that the end customers require, which is backed up by proven data from extensive trials.

If it's possible for someone to get close to the formula, it might not be quite close enough to be compatible for mixing with, or using alongside existing products such as Bayers FOX, or indeed close enough to make a perceptible difference in yields (for many reasons). And in any regard, actually validating a product amounts to a lot of risk in terms of costs and certainly time.

So, the secret formula is one aspect, but brand is also a very important factor too. Not to mention that a patent has been filed for the new version, Fortalis, which Bayer has also adopted.

[runwaypaul] 20/7/2016 15:02

im in for a trade here gla

[trotterstrading] 20/7/2016 13:13

Don't hold any shares here but have been following the company with interest for about a year. I did live the story, but I do have to disagree with those of you who say patent is not important, particularly in new cutting edge science. What is to stop another larger company who operates in this space reverse engineering the formula and marketing it themselves at a lower price?

[wan] 18/7/2016 10:12

There is of course no guarantee, but it will be interesting to see what product the trademark Nerio might be applied to, and indeed what crop -



The Nerio trademark was applied for a few months after Fortalis -



I also checked the US Patent and Trademark Office to see if Fortalis was registered (in case it perhaps needed a different name (Nerio) when launched in the US) -

Fortalis was recently registered by PI -


But Nerio was also recently registered (but after Fortalis) -


Taken from last years Results, it could be another soybean related product -

"The Group made good initial technical progress against this development plan in 2015. Technical results from 2014/15 Brazilian growing season tests for "F1", our second soy crop enhancement product prototype, continue to look very promising. "S1", our third product prototype for soy, is also making very rapid progress through early formulation, glasshouse and field screening tests. Trade names for these products will be announced on commercial launch."

Or it could be PI's first wheat related product, also from last years Results -

"At the same time, our research and technical development teams continue to make progress with the Group's product prototypes for its first entry into the wheat market as field screening continues in European markets and the United States. As this product nears commercial testing phases we aim to announce additional commercial partnerships."

As I say it is no guarantee, but obviously something is at least being considered in advance.

[venture traveller] 15/7/2016 08:19

I am not too concerned about any patent losses, or indeed patent infringement. Look at Apple, they have multiple patents on their products, it doesn't appear to stop competitors from selling their own versions of the technology. The essential factor here, as with any product is branding. Apple would be finished without the hype that surrounds their name. A poster mentioned McDonalds, it's the same with them. A burger is a burger, but the brand is everything. You could look at virtually any successful product and see it's the brand that sells it.

I remember the CEO mentioning that he considered the brand far more important than the patents, and he is right. It's far too easy these days with international business, to get around patent laws. I recently launched a new product, and totally dismissed the idea of a patent, as any Chinese company could quite easily copy it leaving my options to defend the infringement limited. If I had massive pockets full of cash and felt it was worth risking to defend, then I may stand a chance. I would rather invest in a brand name, and hope that that would hold sales. This is if ever the thing gets going. I read 90% of new products never see a successful sales growth.

[horace_h] 14/7/2016 09:02

Looking at the "viciouscircle" posts, he/she was "the large shareholder that got out in June 2009 with a price he/she was happy with". That would be (at best) the 45p price that has prompted this re-appearance as the price has fallen back from last year's high of circa 65p. No surprise that he/she didn't appear at THAT point to say that he/she had been wrong and should have held.

So what kind of keyboard warrior nurses that sort of six year old angst? What kind of warrior (groan) comes back after such a time to give an articulate damnation of Plant Impact from his/her point of view? In virtually the same style as Agextpert on an earlier insidious thread. Marks out of 10?

I really don't care whether it is David Marks or not - if it is then he clearly hasn't learned anything from his dismissal in 2009 and one would wonder why HE doesn't stick with what he was clearly very good at. Corporations such as Bayer, Syngenta etc. do not form the type of relationship John Brubaker and David Jones have developed unless they are true professionals. Going back to making mischief in "chat rooms" would not bode well for Levity's future.

Regardless of his/her identity, perhaps our hero will tell us what's so great about Levity of why - like Agextpert, he/she has returned after six years to save us all for ourselves.

I hold one other AIM share - Reneuron - and on of the various boards (LSE, III etc.) there is a character called Fredd1eBoy. This apparently nice Chap has been promoting the share with unbelievable optimism and "the great breakthrough to our fortune has been just around the next RNS" for years now. It's just as ludicrous as some character coming back after six years or, to a lesser extent, dear old MTHead who hasn't said anything positive since 2011.

The share price hasn't collapsed as a result of the patent application - as Timbo says this is not the first time this has happened. If anything, it has fallen back because the Wheat product has not yet arrived - that IS a disappointment to me but no reason to sell or worry.

But the day I listen to purely positive Rampers or purely negative mischief makers (I do have other terms) is the day I go back to playing the Lottery.

And where is BugOil when one needs it...

[timbo003] 13/7/2016 17:59

>>>vc

Looking at your history on ADFVN, it is not surprising that people believe that you are David Marks, see the two quotes below, which taken together narrows the field down to a short list of one:

05 Nov 2009: “As it happens I know a fair bit about patents and how to check them, I even have a few patents of my own”

09 Nov 2009: “No I hold no shares, and have no interest in holding any. I was one of the largest individual shareholders until June though”.


On the subject of the new Fortalis technology; it would be perfectly possible to get a patent application approved for the Fortalis technology provided it fulfiled the requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial application. I have every confidence that the new management will be well aware of the pitfalls of filing patents which are subsequently undermined by prior art and the published application being used by competitors to help make copycat products. They would not have filed unless they were confident of a successful outcome.

We do not yet know the basis for the new Fortalis invention, but Plant Impact will no doubt have shown that by using information disclosed in the prior art (including EP1899283) there was no obvious way to obtain a stable solution of calcium and DPU at the desired concentrations. They will then presumably have shown that by applying a prerequisite amount of fairy dust (whatever that involves) that it is (surprisingly) possible to achieve the required solubility in a stable solution. At this stage we know nothing about the application (or the fairy dust) and so your assumption that the invention lacks patentability is pure speculation.

[viciouscircle] 13/7/2016 11:33

There are some outrageous comments on here this morning.

Wan (or is it Brubaker?, or Lord Lucan?, or Shergar?), where is there any evidence at all that Marks has objected to the patent? It could be anyone, or indeed multiple people. Regardless it is not really relevant.

Where is there is there any evidence that Marks is doing anything with PIM tech old or new? What you are saying is possibly libellous as are some previous comments about Levity.

As far as I can tell, Marks is not doing anything in Brazil, or on Soybean in general. I also can find no comment from Marks anywhere on PIM since leaving to do different things. You lot are obsessed, it's like a Walter Mitty convention on here.

Blaming the person that left PIM the legacy of IP you have all invested in, who left years ago, for a patent altered years after he left is laughable. Seems to be doing lots of things very different to PIM in different markets and on different crops representing little competition to PIM and vice versa.

Back to PIM.

Regards the latest suspected reformulation Fortalis, if the patent is along the lines Timbo describes then it's already covered by the expanded claims PIM tried to defend in the old one. Where they expanded to any amount of active, and any level of calcium. They stated this was obvious, so they will have to fight against their own words as prior art. This approach has already failed once. It doesn't seem very convincing, but it will become clear in time. The core IP seems to be being rejected regardless, leaving a trail of PIM generated prior art to negotiate.

The McDonalds analogy is just silly. It's more like Coca Cola publishing their recipe, then losing the protection on it. On that basis any new formulation chemistry in Fortalis might be better kept as knowhow.

The question now is can they make money in a possibly generic marketplace. They have a big partner in Bayer which is good. Brazils economy is bad, and the trading statement was lukewarm indicating 'channel inventories', economy, and marketing might all conspire against them. Time will tell.

The coverage of the investor day cited growers not wanting to use Veritas in Argentina at 2 litres rather than 1 litre, so they have squeezed 2 litres into 1 bottle and concentrated it. I guess this is because 2 litres is too expensive, so I would expect margin on the new product might be lower as twice the raw materials. Again it will become apparent over time.

They have a lot of eggs in one basket though.

Spending seems to be going up too. £11m over three years on R&D and so far all there is is a concentrated replacement of an existing product. Slim pickings for such a big spend IMO.

European sales have slid, where is the brand trust there?

Lots of questions, none of them answered by speculating about Marks.

[wan] 13/7/2016 07:52

As Timbo points out you don't need a patent to commercialise your product, but you do need a patent to protect your product and stop others using it.

Given the efforts deployed by the likes of Marks to have the patent refused, one assumes he has more than a personal vendetta with PI (given the management changes at PI), so we can assume he wants to use the product, which also tells us it's a great product. However, things have moved on! Whilst the likes of Marks has focused on the current technology, PI has been developing a new and improved technology and subsequently filed a patent application (which Marks cannot yet see!).

Most readers will now know that the new technology has already launched as Fortalis, which importantly has already undergone extensive field testing. The results and data has resulted in the extension of Plant Impact's ongoing business relationship with Bayer CropScience, this technology validation via extensive field trials and Bayers further commitment (to both Fortalis and Veritas) says far more than Mark's can attempt to imply on here (or elsewhere).

From the recent RNS -
"This new foliar spray is Plant Impact's first formulated product to use the second generation of the Group's CaT(TM) technology, which has been developed over recent years, tested successfully in Argentina, Brazil and the United States and is subject to a pending patent application. "

Obviously I expect PI to present further evidence (probably close to the 4 months time limit), which obviously could address the issues, especially as they have been precisely and clearly laid out, and at the very least, presenting further evidence will extend the process to the continued frustration of the likes of Mark's!

In the meantime and in any regard, PI will continue to commercialise products that use the original technology, which as Timbo also highlights, is about more than what is contained in the patent itself e.g. actual in field testing and yield data and not to mention PI's secret formulation, which the patent does not reveal.

Bayer's patent knowledge and indeed dedicated IP staff, will have also taken the situation into account before committing to both the current and new technology, and I would also draw readers attention to the following from the 'initial' commercial agreement with Bayer -

"The parties have agreed to an initial, multi-year sales and production forecast and to various commercial and intellectual property responsibilities under the agreement. The financial details were not disclosed. "



Notably then and six months later, PI announced a significant additional agreement with Bayer, which again actually says much more than the likes of Mark's can ever hope to say or imply.


In short and in my view, efforts from the likes of Mark's will prove to have been ineffectual to PI's success!

[bigglesbingham] 13/7/2016 07:00

Great response timbo. This subject raised its head 18 months ago and I was concerned and reduced my holding from 500k to 400k this was at 20p. I was wrong to listen to the remarks made on this board. Speaking to the company at he investors day last year and subsequent research I concur with you timbo, with agricultural products getting farmers trust is huge and a lengthy process and a fundamental time consuming barrier to entry. Mac Donald's don't have a patent in burgers but they don't do too bad.

[timbo003] 12/7/2016 23:13

>>>viciouscircle (aka David Marks)

It does look as if you have scored a victory at the EPO (at least for now) and unless Plant Impact come up with a convincing response within 4 months the patent application will be refused (link to EPO correspondence below)


Assuming for now that the application will be refused, it will certainly not prevent Plant Impact continuing the roll out of Veritas (and now Fortalis).

As you no doubt know, it is not necessary for a company to have a patent on a product in order for them to commercialize it, it just prevents anyone else (for example your own company Levity) producing and commercializing a similar product. If the patent isn’t granted, you (and others) will have freedom to operate using the technology and commercialize similar products, should you have the resources to do so.

There are many barriers to entry other than patents, for example the considerable body of data showing increased yields generated in extensive field trials and the considerable body of data showing compatibility with other crop products such as Fox fungicide, the growing brand awareness and brand trust with farmers and the importance of having a large supportive commercial partner who markets Plant Impact's products in tandem with their own.

Back on the subject of patents, we have recently learnt that Plant Impact have filed a new priority application concerning a concentrated version of Veritas and presumably it is intended that this product will supercede Veritas.

Given Plant Impact’s prudent approach to patent filing since your departure, I suspect they would not have filed unless they were fairly confident of a successful outcome. Your statement regarding the probable lack of patentability for this latest patent application is pure speculation as you do not know what is disclosed within the application and it will probably remain that way for the next 12 to 18 months.

[viciouscircle] 12/7/2016 17:52

Patent office indicated yesterday that the patent covering Veritas/ Inca/ and probably the underlying tech for the latest version "does not meet the requirements of the European patent convention" in other words it is being rejected.

Might explain todays trading.

[venture traveller] 07/7/2016 16:55

wan,

Let's hope you're right.

[wan] 07/7/2016 10:39

VT...What you are missing is the facts, which we are awaiting from PI.

Currently the market appears to conclude that 'if' there is any reduction in Veritas sales, this will be offset by the launch of Fortalis (and possibly improved Banzai sales/prospects), thus it will be interesting to see the outcome and subsequent market response.

Fwiw and in my opinion only, Fortalis and subsequently the further versions of the CAT technology (Veritas?), ultimately have the very real potential to increase sales to another level in the Americas.

[venture traveller] 07/7/2016 08:43

Thanks guys, your time spent informing this board is much appreciated.

Without news for increased Veritas sales and or Bayer contributions, this will continue to slide. Unless of course, there is a major breakthrough from another product.

"
Following very successful sales growth of our Veritas® product in the 2015/16 Brazil soybean season, we have conducted extensive market research and post-campaign analysis to inform the coming 2016/17 season marketing campaign and volume planning. Recent improvements in the global soybean price and a more stable Brazilian currency provide an improving foundation for the 2016/17 Brazil growing season, leading the Group and its marketing partners to anticipate a significant promotional campaign for Veritas®. As last year, the Board expects to dispatch early season orders for shipment of Veritas® before Plant Impact's 2015/16 financial year end. The total invoiced volumes of Veritas® in Brazil for the full 2016/17 growing season will be a function of the success of the marketing campaign, underlying market conditions and existing channel inventories, all of which we expect to be clearer by the time we make our preliminary announcement of this year's results in October.
" John Brubaker from recent trading update.

Correct me if i'm missing something, but this statement does not imply any sales, let alone an increase in sales.

[bigglesbingham] 06/7/2016 23:41

Thanks for the superb write ups gentlemen. I found that very useful. In a nutshell brubaker as cagey as usual jones very good figurehead. They have recruited good staff and it appears to be a waiting game for the next launch and sales results. Long term hold in my opinion. Would like a tick up in share price but in it for duration.

[rlivsey] 06/7/2016 12:21

Yes very good. Many thanks. As an investor I'm worried that time and resources are being spent on r and d, not being turned into tangible results. The share price and chart is not v pleasant. Any views

[here and there] 05/7/2016 10:50

Gentleman, thank you for taking the time and effort to transcribe your impressions.

Found Timbo's precision particularly useful, excellent work.

[coincall] 05/7/2016 09:50

Ceritto and Timbo, thank you both for your informative posts - really wish I could have been there.

[wan] 05/7/2016 08:18

Ceritto and Timbo...I have been away for a while, hence I could not make the Investor Day. I know what time and effort is involved and I thought that your coverage was excellent. Your efforts are very much appreciated, thank you.

Timbo...You have gone the extra mile, particularly interesting and useful commentary.

[mthead1968] 04/7/2016 16:45

Thanks Cerrito.
£11m over three years research spend?? All they have so far come up with is a slightly different Veritas, which itself is just a slightly different InCa. They still don’t have a single technology that did not originate from David Marks, and they never spent at anything like the level they are now.

The ‘new’ product is basically a replacement for the only product they actually make anything from, surely a new product would be more useful!

Presume the patent is still the same old patent which may well have issues and not be granted.

It is hardly innovative.

Worrying no financial updates, usually if there was good news they would be talking it. Perhaps the Brazil economy is having a bad effect.

Did they comment on Ecoculture? they are selling a product on cacao in the same markets in big volumes. Is this why sales are not very good?