Ann: Dispute with Solagran Limited , page-8

SLA's Ropren sales in Russia have nothing to do with BPO's claim on BioA. They are two distinctively different products and undergo very different manufacturing processes to get them to the final product. BioA has been sold for around 2 years now and the sales have been quite constant, whereas Ropren has only been on sale in Russia since Feb 2010 (earlier in NZ).

Which begs the question as to what BPO are trying to get at. They claim SLA do not have the right to 'manufacture' BioA for sale, however SLA have been manufacturing BioA for around 2 years and have been selling it in Australia (309k revenue in 2009 and 394k in 2010).

And BPO will have the legal wood on SLA? The first blow is not necessarily the winning blow my friend. And from what I have read - BPO's avenue taken is not very 'water tight' or strong IMO ofcourse. You'd think they'd think more carefully about launching legal proceedings on SLA based on ONE patent attorney's opinion. Hence the LOL; as this in my opinion is quite a decision given that BPO dont have much more than a few hundred grand in the kitty.

Big call given the circumstance. And personally just thought they'd come out with a better case than what they have presented so far. It just seems a little far-fetched for BPO to claim that after 3 years of the DA, suddenly they feel that they were mislead by SLA's claim that they could manufacture and sell BioA in Australia (of which they have sales to back). SLA's patents have been under extreme scrutiny in the past and have taken their good time in getting approved. Anyhow - just seems a little 'odd' in my opinion.

Well I guess BPO did achieve one thing. And that is a response from SLA is almost definite now. SLA have clearly been concentrating their attention and time on Ropren in Russia.. which is where I'd want them to be spending their time. BPO on the other hand... well a lot more uncertain is where I will leave it.