I think BPO would be drawing a long bow if they start laying...

I think BPO would be drawing a long bow if they start laying claim to human Ropren sales. As the use of bioeffectives A is firstly a different product with different uses and secondly is used in humans and not animals. I don't think SLA even need a good lawyer to draw that distinction and seperation.

Anyhow I do not have any further information to disclose other than what BPO has announced yesterday. And from that I fail to understand BPO's angle. It seems they are arguing a technicality rather than a failure of SLA to deliver on the terms of the DA.

SLA have clearly been able to manufacture BioA and supply it to BPO over the past few years. Whatever you may call it 'extract' or 'manufacture'.. the fact is that BPO received BPO for development. So they are obviously not arguing that point.

So my conclusion is that they are arguing the technical meaning of manufacture - which I would have thought they'd have considerd in their DD process before agreeing to the DA. But ofcourse they will argue that SLA intentionally mislead them... under what grounds I really fail to comprehend. Why? Because SLA have in fact given BPO BioA to develop. Where I think BPO would have a case is if SLA represented that they were going to supply BioA, and subsequently failed to do so. Hence the confusion and question onto what BPO are trying to achieve?