Premaitha Share Discussion Threads

[blackss] 08/6/2016 10:21

I think we misunderstand each other eirico. I most certainly do not buy on the advice of pundits like TW but i am just pointing out, a lot of people do and thats is how he makes his money. People will also buy on the advice of FinnCap. My point is these people are unaccountable and as you say, people should do their own DD but unfortunately there are investors and gamblers and the gamblers tend to go on tips rather than research. I don't blame him for the position the company finds itself in , i do blame him for the people who bought on his advice and have lost upwards of 50%.
Personally i sold out awhile back at 12p and bought back in at 9p in Mid April.
A lot of holders here are simply in because they were invested in VIY which was bought as a shell and became NIPT.

[elrico] 08/6/2016 09:42

Be it TW,finncap, we are all adults in an adult world, though I admit this may not seem the case sometimes, you should do your own DD and time as you see fit. I've been watching from the sidelines for c14 months and didn't feel the risk reward entry was until about 9p. I also accept I may ha e this wrong, but ill live with it and refrain from blaming any 3rd party. Th e point in making blackss, I read the same reports as you but somehow timed my entry much later, and I accept you seem to have a more detailed knowledge of the company. If nothing else, it highlights how our interpretation of the info differs.

[blackss] 08/6/2016 08:17

sorry Twix i see you also mention this in 3337.

[blackss] 08/6/2016 08:16

i think you also have to ask what would the cost of fighting this action be if we lost ? Personally i dont think the money put aside is anywhere near enough, we would have to hope others being challenged would help spread the cost. If we win then others who are being charged like Genoma, with the same offence would surely have their cases dropped.

[twix386] 08/6/2016 07:16

cl2201,

Well, I think it is naive to expect that to be the only result if we lost the writ. I'd rather ask why would anyone expect that? If we picked up business by infringing patents and in the process gained revenue and contracts that otherwise Illumina would have had a good chance to secure, that there should be no penalty other than keeping all we secured and just paying for a license going forward from the court verdict date seems unlikely to me. What about Illumina's lost business opportunity just with Genoma who we were bidding against? Why would no further ramification be expected if Illumina won?

Illumina seek all remedies and it beggars belief imv that would stop at their victory in just asking us to pay going forward for a license sending a court message that there is no other penalty to infringing patents when won, than for the losers to pay for a license only then and carry on keeping all their contracts and revenue having had it ruled illegal! You really don't expect a further penalty in that case?

What would you do if you had patents granted as Illumina have? Defend them robustly to protect your IP is what most would do, irrespective of us being on the opposite side. I think, hope and believe we will win too, but I do think that the ramifications of a loss are under represented by Finncap.

I am simply stating an opinion just as Finncap have, as nobody knows the outcome or ruling - obviously. So imho my view has as much merit and seems common sense to me.

btw, the question also isn't what would Illumina gain financially from minimal damages. It would be what damage to the competition (Premaitha) would those damages inflict? Small to them in financal terms could/would be material to us and likely we'd at least be requiring another funding. We use the competition's platform and not Illuminas. They don't want us in business, so forget them being content to allow us to continue with a revenue stream. They may have to if the court rule it, but it's so much more in our case. It's at least as much a platform war as any licensing agreement spat underlying this case.

I'd like to see much more commitment to us from TFO than we have seen. Really, a loan for equity is insufficient and I was dismayed that's the best we could extract.

aimho

[cl2201] 08/6/2016 05:19

Why is it naive to suggest that a licensing agreement would be the worst case scenario? Illumina's MO on the litigation front is to stifle competition and/or essentially force companies to sign up to IP licence agreements. With this is mind it is absolutely understandable that finnCap have taken said stance.

Let's say Illumina "win" (which I believe is unlikely) - as a multi-billion dollar company, what would they gain from receiving minimal costs/damages from Premaitha? Tying Premaitha into a licensing agreement, however, would give them a revenue stream going into the future so they can continue to monopolise the marketplace (Jay Flatley has stated his desire to outlicense their NIPT IP as their market strategy).

"I find this sounds a little like spin and surprised nobody is challenging it"

It looks like you are challenging it. I would certainly welcome any research you conduct on the matter.

[twix386] 08/6/2016 02:40

I think a licensing agreement alone if we lost is naive.

We are seeking to include anti-trust and damages and Illumina are seeking all remedies which surely must include a penalty and costs if we lost for infringing their patent, revenue earnt in EU, lost business for Illumina who may well otherwise have won contracts we deemed then to have secured illegally.

To think we just pay a license fee to carry on if we lost seems very misleading to me. Surely there would also be costs, assuming we did get to pay for a license to continue?

I am sorry to say, that I find this sounds a little like spin and surprised nobody is challenging it or looking deeper at FinnCap's one-sided and frankly biased sounding outcome if we lost! imv it is far too rosy in that event.

[cl2201] 07/6/2016 19:02

Wistleblower - Likewise, good to see your side of the coin.

I made a slight error in my reply in that I mentioned the "director selling" - it was of course Rupert Lywood who sold, not a director as is often incorrectly stated here (I must have picked up the bad habit).

TW wouldn't have known about Rupert Lywood selling because he wasn't a director. Indeed he was misled, like we all were, when RL stated that he would not sell for a further 6 months after his initial flurry.

The fact is that we are at 9p - my personal opinion is that this is an incredible bargain, others may disagree. Litigation has and will play a part in the company's near/mid-term future but I agree with finnCap's remarks that the worst case scenario (I still think Premaitha will prevail) is not going to be the withdrawal of IONA from the European market but more likely a licencing agreement.

[wistleblower] 07/6/2016 18:41

cl
A good reasoned response thanks
In fairness i don't personally blame TW for the drop in share price and i don't make him a scapegoat but i can see why Black does, i do blame him for not reading the signs and for giving people bad investment advice. My beef with him goes across many of his stocks not just this one.
The decline in the share price here has been pretty steady since April 2015 or 14 months. Nothing has reversed this from contract news to Thermo's £3m investment, Director sells came after this and the decline was well under way by then but i do agree we would probably be nearer 12-15p without them. I still think the damage long term is the litigation and the reason delay in the court case to 2017 was as much to blame as any director sell. TW knew about the court case and i am sure he knew about the director sells if his implied communication with management was true ? It was this supposed finger on the pulse that he used to justify his predictions.

[cl2201] 07/6/2016 18:19

BlackSS - I will state right now, for the record, that I am not a huge fan of TW. I think he's a very good investigative journalist but that's pretty much the extent of my respect for him. That said, with regard to his predictions on Premaitha, it still doesn't really make sense to me that he should be made a scapegoat for the decline in the share price Whether he predicted 30p or 5 pounds, it was ultimately RL selling that has brought the share price to where we are now - you can argue that the litigation has had some effect but the fact is the share price was above 20p even after that had come to light, so I'm more inclined to believe the former caused the big drop to where we are today.

If, fundamentally, the company was flawed and TW had picked a lemon with an incompetent management team and/or an awful product and was still plugging it as a strong buy, I could sympathise with those detractors, but the fact remains that (in my opinion at least) the management team, SL in particular, is incredibly sound and sales for FY16 were at the upper end of expectations, so there's clearly traction there. Yes, the ongoing litigation has slowed down new contract wins but the business continues to grow despite Illumina's attempts to halt progress.

On a side note, the single biggest bugbear for me is the suggestion that the company has valued itself at 6.5p. It was the seller that valued their stake at a fire-sale price because they needed the cash (clearly at whatever price they could get). The argument that those directors who purchased shares at 6.5p somehow translates to them valuing the company at 6.5p is absolute nonsense.

[blackss] 07/6/2016 16:52

elrico
TW forecast this to 30p when it was 27p, 25p when it was 20p, 20p when it was 15p
and after that i lost count. It has nothing to do with anyone selling at 6.5p he has been calling this wrong for over 12 months, long before any director sold.
He has completely missed the elephant in the room which is the court case. He was advising people to buy the week before the director started selling ;-)
The plain fact is he and FinnCap have got their forecasts wrong and in my opinion they would do better to just shut up as they do us no favours at all especially those who buy on their predictions..
Unless of course you and Cl2201 know better ?

TW would do well to either post on here as TW or stick to the rules of ADVFN and stop using multi user names.

[timojelly] 07/6/2016 16:41

Illumina just don't give a sh1t do they.

[cl2201] 07/6/2016 16:32

Elrico - Finally someone with some sense.

[hjb1] 07/6/2016 16:31

at it again!!


Sequenom Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Ariosa, Others in Australia

Jun 07, 2016 | a GenomeWeb staff reporter
.






NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – Sequenom has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sonic Healthcare, Australian Clinical Labs, and Ariosa Diagnostics in the Australian Federal Court, alleging the firms infringe a patent it holds related to noninvasive prenatal testing.

Sequenom alleges in its suit that Sonic Healthcare and Australian Clinical Labs run Ariosa's Harmony noninvasive prenatal test, which it said infringes Sequenom's Australian Patent 727,919.

The patent is a counterpart to the broad US-based patent that Sequenom held related to NIPT, US Patent No. 6,258,540, and which the US District Court for the Northern District of California found ineligible for patenting in 2013.

Sequenom said in the suit that it would seek all available remedies, including damages and orders of restraint.

In a statement, Sequenom CEO Dirk van den Boom said that over 45 labs and healthcare organizations had licensed intellectual property to develop NIPT from the patent pool that Sequenom and Illumina established in 2014.

"We are committed to preserving the value of the intellectual property of the patent pool for the benefit of our licensees, and this lawsuit adds to suits already filed in the UK and in Europe," van den Boom said.

Illumina has sued Premaitha Health and The Doctor's Laboratory, TDL Genetics, and Ariosa in the UK — lawsuits that will be heard together in 2017.

In addition, it brought suits against Swiss NIPT firm Genoma and two Polish companies, Centrum Badan and Medgenetix.

[elrico] 07/6/2016 16:28

I fail to how anyone can blame Finncap or TW for a director dumping his stock and or Illumina debacle; It looks some people can't hold themselves to account and need a scapegoat.

[timojelly] 07/6/2016 13:52

Time for contracts to do the talking.

[blackss] 07/6/2016 13:28

Big
You cant predict where this will go simply because it has virtually no fundamentals and is driven by news. Now unless you know when and what that news is which you dont, you cant predict the share price all you can do is guess which makes you no better than Winniethrith and FinnCap.

[cl2201] 07/6/2016 13:03

"Don't buy any wait this will go to 6.5p over the quite holiday season".

Good luck with that.

[thinkbig?] 07/6/2016 13:00

Well if they think the shares are only with 6.5p why are people buying them at 10p and 9p. Don't buy any wait this will go to 6.5p over the quite holiday season

[blackss] 07/6/2016 11:37

It would be nice if finnCap and Winniethrith were accountable for the nonsense they put out into the markets but i'm afraid its all about them making money not us.

[thinkbig?] 07/6/2016 11:17

Lining there own pockets 41 million shares at 6.5p.Biggest con going lol

[currypasty] 07/6/2016 10:44

you mean the 41 million shares 'placed' out there at 6.5p

makes fincaps note .. 20p.. look stupid when the director, and 'institution demand' think its worth 6.5p

[thinkbig?] 07/6/2016 08:36

Dump Dump Dump good profit 6.5p to 9p