I have posted my thoughts on another forum - but happy to share it here too.
"" This provides more clarity around BPO's case ... in fact it narrows it considerably.
It seems BPO's case against SLA is indeed actually around the quality of CGNC that SLA provide compared to other CGNC available on market. I'd find it very difficult for BPO to argue that they did not know of any other CGNC suppliers; afterall it was stated clearly on the patents that other methods of extraction were available (paragraphs 0003 to 0009).
The patent starts off by stating known extraction methods of CGNC and their shortcomings. The patented CGNC by SLA is unique and superior as it produces a superior yield CGNC which maintains a higher level (approx 10-15%) more polyprenols than the most similar technology.
I wonder how much science has gone into coming up with the term... "Chemically comparable" as it is a very vague term if you ask me.
'chemically comparable' is definitely not 'identical'.
Anyhow again this narrows BPO's case - and it does not seem it is a direct challenge on SLA's ability to manufacture the CGNC, rather it is around the quality of the CGNC and its comparability to potential substitutes. Which again BPO reviewed the patents that clearly state the availability of alternative sources.
It also distances itself from SLA's premium products such as Ropren which have its own extraction patents. Which is a sigh of relief for some I believe. ""
BPO Price at posting:
1.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
