Premaitha Share Discussion Threads

[ramas] 05/8/2016 08:03

Oh and interestingly graph suggests a breakout to the upside .... Buyout is a good face saving exercise ....hmmm

[ramas] 05/8/2016 08:03

I'm for going all the way and I'll happily participate in any fundraising should it be required .....

[kaka47] 04/8/2016 10:47

I feel the yanks will pay very heavy price in a multimillion $ settlement if they the lose but I think they won't let it go that far instead they will buyout premaitha before that when they realise they haven't got a leg to stand on i think buying out premaitha is the best option for yanks to maintain monopoly. I bet yanks are already accumulating stake at a cheap price

[twix386] 04/8/2016 09:40

hjb1,

I have already said.

If we have a strong case and we are confident of victory as the BOD have always said and this is a true fact, then let illumina come to us to settle or take it to court, win, have no license fee to pay, go for world-wide and also enter usa AND get anti-trust and damages. Wait until around Sept 2017* for verdict - so 1 year and we'd be thrilled.

Likely Illumina would settle way beforehand if we have indeed such a strong case and much of the initial sparring has gone our way with unredacted pooled agreement demanded, EU Commission investigation. imv we need this to make up for all the commercial damage we have suffered rather than just saying we'll pay up after going through it with no ability to recover costs and agreeing to pay a license fee that we have been fighting tooth and nail against doing as we insist we have NOT infringed their patent - but okay we'll pay up anyway at the 11th hour after killing off our landgrab and inflicting maximum damage.

If we expect to win then we should plan to go to court. On the other hand if we are not convinced, then seek a settlement as we appear open to doing.

And please don't forget I was VERY critical of the delay to Summer 2017. I stated we should have stayed for first hearing in early October 2016. Then the reason now given for ananysis in seeking a settlement would have been irrelevant!

* looking at timeframes on High Court hearings, verdicts normally come within 2 or 3 months of court date, so yes go to court and wait a year, but I expect Ilumina would seek to settle before court hearing anyway if we had a good case as stated and went to court.

[hjb1] 04/8/2016 09:27

Twix, so what would you prefer...take it all the way and a share price stuck at these levels or below for 12/18 months...or do a deal now and likely a share price much much higher very quickly.??

[twix386] 04/8/2016 09:18

yes,of course.

But if we actualy do have a strong case and are extremely confident then I'd rather go to court, win and seek anti-trust and damages. The BOD know the truth.

If we don't, then seek a settlement.

Trouble with this news and putting it out is it unintentionally looks like weakness, whether true or not as everyone says we have a strong case, as you say, but they don't say we have a strong case and we'd like to/thinking to settle please!

[timbo003] 04/8/2016 09:11

In any legal dispute, irrespective of the merits of the arguments on both sides of the dispute, both sides are going to state that they have a very strong case and that they are extremely confident (even if they are not), that's the way it works I'm afraid.

If they do settle for a modest royalty (i.e. low single figures), I think the shares will respond very positively (at least in the short term).

[twix386] 04/8/2016 09:07

the anti-trust card (and damages card) is only in play for consideration after we WIN the court case and sure if it goes to court AND we win, then the court has said it will be considered at that time.

I am sure any settlement will have to be able to be sold to both parties shareholders. The point is we will have to compromise and lose out, AFTER we have allowed up to 2 years to pass of hostile attacks and weak commercial performance when we should have Landgrabbed, but we'll just write that off to experience along with all the costs etc if we settle.

Look, imho it may be the best course, but it's now shown that we mismanaged this whole thing if we seek to settle late in the day sighting time management that nobody did more to increase than our very own delay to Summer 2017!

It's been like sabotaging our own strategy by calling it and then waiting through a storm to reverse course after all the areas we've worked on and statements made!

[small crow] 04/8/2016 09:00

The key problem is that none of us know what motivates the Hardman note! All one can say is "expect smoke & mirrors".

[hjb1] 04/8/2016 08:56

well if Illumina don't play ball then Prem will play the anti-trust card surely.I don't believe it's that easy for Illumina either...could well be a truce called by both parties to move forward..we will see, but anything that gets us moving forward is a big positive for me.

[twix386] 04/8/2016 08:39

Yes Ngen,

Depends on the detail of any agreement.

All the Hardman Note says is we are considering giving up to seek a license agreement.
That's how I read it and it doesn't inspire much faith that nice old Illumina would say "here you are" when they state to date they want to kill us off by all remidies.

Pie in the sky hypotheticals, but who knows.

[twix386] 04/8/2016 08:39

if we settle just for a license deal, then year(s) of destructive commercial attack from Illumina and a chance for damages etc will be lost.

Yes, if done at 11th hour as I mentioned then maximum commercial damage is done, just to agree to pay for a license, having lost our landgrab and been hurt badly. One of the worst relaistic outcomes, other than complete failure is to accept this attack for year(s) and then just pay up for a license anyway.

Our settlement should not stop the EU competition case going ahead, so any settlement we agree to should not effect this continuing, so our case has little/no effect on Illumina's judgement to settle regarding the EU Comission investigation.

[ngen yap] 04/8/2016 08:34

I don't disagree nor agree Twix. I think it all depends on the deal. What if the deal was something like "Here, Premaitha, take £5m as contribution to legal costs that never should have happened, and future marketing efforts to sell IONA test, in return for a licensing deal of 10% NET future revenue" (all numbers for illustrative purposes only)

[timbo003] 04/8/2016 08:32

Even though this seems to be a case of David vs Goliath,and Premaitha appear to have the most to lose, if the anticompetitive ruling were to against Illumina it would cause a great deal of pain at Illumina too. Therefore it seems to me that like many other patent disputes that the most likely outcome is that this dispute will be settled at the 11th hour, on the courthouse steps.

From the July 4th RNS:




".....if Illumina and/or Sequenom have infringed the EU competition rules, then the Commission has the power to impose far-reaching licensing remedies, as well as to impose significant fines against these companies (up to 10 per cent of each company's worldwide group turnover). We hope, therefore, that the Commission's investigation will urgently cause Illumina and Sequenom to reconsider and modify their current practices to address the very serious concerns that have been raised"

[twix386] 04/8/2016 08:24

EDIT.

No doubt marked down on this news and rightly so, although I suspect it will be short lived as we have a buyer/approach Sept business update

[twix386] 04/8/2016 08:24

Thanks for your thoughts Ngen.

Mine at this moment in time are........

the very problem we now point to - a time management issue - we actually created ourselves in large measure, making a rod for our own back, by delaying the writ hearing by a year!

The news of seeking a license agreement on the grounds given make SL look like an amateur!
I said at the time of delay this was a bad decision when SL was talking up the decision as giving us time to build on our commercial momentum. Pure theatre!

I don't see why why Illumina wouldn't wait until early 2017, even if they went for granting a license. Give us longer in commercial hell and I thought their idea was to stop us by all remidies - not grant a license. The granting of a license was touted as a court ruling after hearing and open to judge. It is not a requirement beforehand. Granting license and terms would be up to Illumina and that's if they didn't want to go to court.

The granting of a license would give us a better share price and resolve the issue, but it would not placate anyone after this last year's turmoil, commercial lost opportunty, costs and no chance of meeting all the strong words of anti-trust and damages. It would be a cave-in and one we then should have done over a year ago! An element of mis-management has become clear at this potential news imv.

[ngen yap] 04/8/2016 08:03

I read with interest those on LSE board that a licensing deal means Premaitha has conceded. I think one has to always remember there are two parties (maybe more) in negotiation here. WE have to weigh up the opportunity and cost from both sides. Illumina will be going through same business case assessment. Whilst they have deep pockets for legal case to go the full way, if EU anti-competition investigation plus our own case go against them, they will be fully exposed in this space rendering their patent IP invalid. So, there could be a "save face" deal. On the extreme, there could even be a "licensing deal" but "upfront investment" from Illumina into Premaitha. This way we win via uncertainty cleared albeit with reduced margins going forward. Illumina protect their patent for future on others but at a cost too. Ultimately, we just don't know what is being negotiated behind the scenes. The fact that Adam Reynolds mentioned this possibility back in Q2/Q3 2015 means there is precedent, and that we went through the process for a while strengthens our negotiation. Let's see.

[gooosed] 03/8/2016 17:41

Posted by paduardo on LSE bb :

"Hardman & Co Monthly Rsearch Note

Risks: Although Premaitha still believes that it has a strong defence, from a time management perspective and eliminating uncertainty, the company may seek an out-of-court settlement for access to the IP. The Court action, together with the stock overhang, has been undermining the performance of the shares.

Investment summary: Premaitha continues to broaden availability of the IONA test both nationally, and internationally through distribution deals, despite the on-going patent infringement case. Management is likely to be undertaking the mathematical cost of defending its position versus the removal of uncertainty by agreeing a license deal with Illumina for IP access."

Might this not get under Thermo Fisher's skin . . . . just a thought ?!

[hamidahamida] 03/8/2016 11:51

Looking forward to the next trading update.

[twix386] 02/8/2016 14:16

YES, but Vialogy added a trick.They got work, didn't tell anyone and they didn't get paid either. lol

Premaitha, whatever happens stands head and shoulders above Vialogy.

[blackss] 02/8/2016 14:04

I seem to recall this "getting work but not telling anyone" idea was rolled out for Viology as well. I can see no reason at all why if contracts of any significance were won we would not be told so i have to assume no contracts of any significance have been won.
I just hope measures have been taken to cut costs while the company is basically standing still for the next year or we will be looking at another placing at these or lower prices..
Its a shame the European customer seem to be unconvinced by the likelihood of nipt winning its court case and are holding fire especially as the costs must be very favourable with the £ collapse against the € but there we go that's life.

[dave444] 02/8/2016 13:59

No they sell it at £250

[twix386] 02/8/2016 13:55

Absolutely Ngen,

the pragmatic view is in, but it doesn't effect announcing either contracts outside EU or material price sensitive contracts/partnerships. That tells us nothing of substance this financial year and we look for lots of smaller deals to accumulate and I would agree, likely highlighted in Prelims in Sept when we see what numbers make up the Pudding.

Don't you think that the lack of RNS for outside EU and/or material market sensitive wins ANYWHERE is disappointing, as it's now been over 4 months and not a peep, with all wins by default therefore small enough to be "pragmatic" ;-)
It's a smoke screen hiding the fact nothing material or noteable outside EU has come through, by stating this pragmatic adoption.

Good news to see NHS Bath win. It all helps, but surely we expected a bit better in material market sensitive news this H1 of financial year!

Let me illustrate...........
At the start of March 2016 I had in mind PG's forecast of 15 contracts for this financial year and building on our commercial momentum as SL stated. For delivery I expected delivery of an average of 1 contract every 3 1/2 weeks subject to real life variations. I didn't expect Hardman paid for research to amend it to 10 contracts by end 2017and to have seen nothing material or outside EU RNS'd since!!

[twix386] 02/8/2016 13:52

Absolutely Ngen,

the pragmatic view is in, but it doesn't effect announcing either contracts outside EU or material price sensitive contracts/partnerships. That tells us nothing of substance this financial year and we look for lots of smaller deals to accumulate and I would agree, likely highlighted in Prelims in Sept when we see what numbers make up the Pudding.

Don't you think that the lack of RNS for outside EU and/or material market sensitive wins is disappinting as it's now been over 4 months long and not a peep with all wins small enough to be "pragmatic"?