and akin to my naming them serial litigants and so agreed, but there's lots of other information relative to forming overall opinions on writ and chances of settlement with even our own percieved current wisdom of a mixed ruling - i.e. unlikely to be a binary outcome.
Bakky, I agree our diversification out of EU and into Asia and M.E. where writ does not apply is undoubtedly a wise move to leave us an on-going business IF we lost the writ. However, what I still fail to understand is then going further to assume we'll be okay as they can't touch it. They cannot touch it, but imv if we lost the writ the costs and damages may make it irrelevant for existing shareholders. The company though would survive just as you say. We may be diluted to hell though - not saying it would happen, but that nobody even mentions the costs of losing impacting existing shareholders is beyond me. Illumina would go for the jugular in compensation, infringement damages etc etc and we would then find out the truth of losing - maybe a(nother) consolidation - including about exporting analysis to Macao and if it really would work when push comes to shove in the face of a court ruling, just as the Hardman Dr hopes.
We need to WIN or settle beforehand. A loss will probably be catastrophic for existing shareholders.
I do absolutely agree that the fact EU labs are still signing up is a good sign/omen. As is the granted Freedom to Operate license we have which I hope stands up to court scruitiny.
as Europe has adopted a much more cautious and very much slower approach to nipt, (as in only the very high risk cases) then I am not too bothered as ME and Asia is the much better, faster and bigger market that Illumina can't touch rgds writs.
We do have a great product and assuming no settlement I expect a verdict by Xmas, probably around October/November - and then a fairly quick respnse by Illumina to appeal and a huge groan at the likely appeal date way out into 2018. I want it settled. Though any likely settlement terms I could foresee would make the BOD's rhetoric and denials look misguided having waited until the last minute, but such is life.
If I were Illumina having got the full CE Mark I would settle under the right conditions, with the risk/reward ratio having shifted and product offering landscape now being matched enough to facilitate this solution. We said there is no merit and we do not infringe. I expect/pray we do not infringe, but the last 2 years have shown that there clearly was merit to the writ - for Illumina and if they settled now for license fee and of course no anti-trust/damages etc etc then they played a blinder in cancelling out a better product's landgrab until their own product could compete under full CE Mark and improved result waiting times and product over this long period.
SORRY, but well played Illumina. If they think they can really win then they will proceed to court, but there's got to be a 50/50 chance of settlement. There is a reason we are at this dismal share price and that's the writ and the non binary outcome that's expected - i.e. a mixed ruling with some pain for all. AIMHO
Illumina are serial litigants and haven't had a great success record!!
However it's clealry not an illegal writ. The patents they have are valid and approved - bought and paid for and 100% legal. They bought out the company with the strongest IP and allowed Ariosa to proceed so they made a value judgement on the strength of their case and it will be tested in court after being bought by Roche. I place more hope in our statement that we can win as wedo NOT infringe anyway.
With a binary outcome not expected and having said we are open to a settlement whilst AR reported to have said he was worried a fewmonths ago, I find some complacency as usual from posters' general bias. I too expect a win, but believe it's no way a slam dunk and I also truly believe we would settle if offered a satisfactory deal and that that deal would make all the rhetoric a joke when it would mean paying a licensee fee and letting Illumina off for all the damage and costs - commercial and financial. I havew no doubt at all we would do this under acceptable terms to be rid of this writ and I also think we should because of the appeals nightmare that may drag on even if we win. aimho
I expect Nightera is referring to the concept of malicious prosecution. Ie that Illumina have initiated previous legal proceedings against competitors along similar lines which, when tested in law, have not once succeeded. I expect NIPT's legal beagles will be pushing this line strongly from the outset in front of m'lud.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.