Member Info for Feeks

The Placing is conditional upon, among other things, the Placing Agreement not being terminated in accordance with its terms.



This Announcement should be read in its entirety. In particular, your attention is drawn to the detailed terms and conditions of the Placing and further information relating to the Placing and any participation in the Placing that is described in Appendix I to this Announcement (which forms part of this Announcement).



By choosing to participate in the Placing and by making an oral and legally binding offer to acquire Placing Shares, investors will be deemed to have read and understood this Announcement in its entirety (including the Appendices), and to be making such offer on the terms and subject to the conditions of the Placing contained herein, and to be providing the representations, warranties, indemnities, acknowledgements, agreements, confirmations and undertakings contained in Appendix I.



For further information please contact:



Belluscura plc

Proposed placing by way of an accelerated bookbuild to raise £5.0 million



Belluscura plc (AIM: BELL), a leading medical device developer focused on lightweight and portable oxygen enrichment technology, today announces its intention to issue new ordinary shares of 1 penny each (the "Placing Shares") to raise in aggregate gross proceeds of £5 million (approximately £4.7 million net of placing related expenses) (the "Placing").



Dowgate Capital Limited ("Dowgate") is acting as sole placing agent, bookrunner and broker in connection with the Placing and SPARK Advisory Partners Limited ("SPARK") is acting as the Company's nominated adviser.



Highlights

· The net proceeds of the Placing receivable by the Company will be used principally to fund the purchase of raw material inventory and manufacturing non-recurring engineering costs in connection with the recently announced global manufacturing agreement with InnoMax Medical Technology Limited to manufacture the X-PLO2R® portable oxygen concentrator family of products in Shenzhen, China

· The Placing is being conducted by way of an accelerated bookbuild which will commence immediately following this Announcement (the "Bookbuild")

· The Issue Price will be determined through the Bookbuild

· Admission of the Placing Shares to trading on AIM is expected to occur in two tranches with admission of the EIS/VCT Placing Shares taking place on or around 18 May 2022 ("First Admission") and admission of the General Placing Shares taking placing on or around 19 May 2022 ("Second Admission")

· The final number of Placing Shares to be placed will be determined by Dowgate, in consultation with the Company, at the close of the Bookbuild and the result will be announced as soon as practicable thereafter. The timing for the close of the Bookbuild, and the allocation of the Placing Shares thereunder, will be determined by Dowgate in consultation with the Company

· The Placing is not being underwritten (in whole or in part) by Dowgate, SPARK or any other person

· Appendix I to this Announcement (which forms part of this Announcement) contains the detailed terms and conditions of the Placing. The capitalised terms not otherwise defined in the text of this Announcement are defined in Appendix II to this Announcement



Further details of the Placing (in particular, the final number of Placing Shares) will be set out in an announcement to be made on the closing of the Bookbuild.



Application will be made for the Placing Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM with First Admission expected to take place at 8.00 a.m. on or around 18 May 2022 and Second Admission expected to take place at 8.00 a.m. on or around 19 May 2022 (or such later time and/or date as Dowgate and SPARK may agree with the Company not being later than 8.00 a.m. on 31 May 2022 and 1 June 2022, respectively). The Placing is conditional upon, among ot

Whoever it was worrying about the standard of legal proof apparently being lower at PTAB, I think this may be a fallacy because the lower legal burden applies only to the initial question of whether the PTAB parallel process should be instituted. So this is a different test (and a lower threshold) than is applied when PTAB decides whether the PTAB should declare invalidity.

This also fits with comments I have seen made in various Nanoco filings referring to the burden on proof falling on Samsung in making out invalidity as brought in the IPR, but as ever, I am happy to be corrected if someone can point to a contrary source:

The PTAB decision of 19 May '21 puts it like this:

"We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”"

The 'problem' if it is one is that I've made this a large part of my portfolio so next week counts a lot.

Found it now, thanks but my goodness there is so much. I was trying to suss out in my mind where it leaves us if the Emulsion argument fails. But i am tempted just to wait for the judge now as I am doing so much reading I shall end up in a coma.

Ok great, thanks again

Thank you Morbox and sorry for being useless with the tech and for wasting your time but I just cant find a way to located the other IPRs.

I have only this link which should be the 0068 patent but I cannot seem to find any others.

ttps://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00182

Fabulous Morbox, that will keep me busy. Have you been through it yourself?

One question I have, the S PTAB petition seems to relate to the sole claim of the 0068 patent and yet we have been told that Nanoco's trial case involves 5 patents and 47 claims ......? How does this square off?

We've got access to the PTAB dockets but what about the main trial pleadings. Is there a way of viewimg those too?

Strange not to mention their close working relationship with Nanoco...;-)

Slight misquote Mattyboy where you refer to the judge's remark about an "uphill battle" on the emulsion argument. The judge immediately qualified this by saying "But there's certainly a possibility that they're talking about different embodiments"

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-trial-spotlights-u-k-ban-potential-in-global-patent-fights

Could this possibly be what BT was referring to when he spoke about the use of injunctions in EU territories?

Correction to my earlier post which I had inadvertently posted on this thread rather than Procook (kitchenwear) as intended!

I am an investor in REVB, but not so far, PROC

https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-m-a-musk-trump/elon-musk-says-tesla-open-to-buying-a-mining-company-idUKKCN2MW1YO

Just the sort of fella who would be open to using automated private 5g networks

NGR i hope so, the market just needs o get going sooner rather than later. Once it does we can start realising the full value of the IP

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.photonics.com/AMP/AMP_Article.aspx%3fAID=67885

“STMicro’s entry into the SWIR market is significant, because, unlike existing players, it’s a larger company that will be able to supply significant volumes of sensors with high reliability, making them viable for integration into industrial, consumer, and automotive devices,” Dyson said in a follow-up correspondence.

Reference in here to farming applications which was new to the Nanoco slides

https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Sensor_Innovations_Drive_Expansion_into_New/a67678

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B08M9JZJQX/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8

The ratings are very good but viewing is temporarily unavailable. Grumbles relate mainly to glitches like open packaging or incorrect order size so obviously there have been a few issues on that score nothing to do with the product itself

Hang on, no backlight. Is this the fabled EL-QD?

Yes it is amerloque but equally an emulsion is a type of mixture or a subset of that generic definition - being a mixture that requires two immisicble phases. Samsung's legal argument hinges on a direct reference to emulsion in another para. which they say is linked to 128 though to get there ome must accept the judge's point about shorthand and as one poster remarked previously, the Samsung argument comes across a bit like making ****tails.

It takes a stretch, for example they say that an emulsion can be made by evaporation (i.e an obvious step) but in this case they argue that the toluene is not completely evaporated hence 'residual'toluene is mentioned. Its a convenient retrofit argument but far from clear cut IMO.

The most significant counter argument i can see is that there is still no analysis of the solubility of epoxy with toluene so it is impossible to determine on S's expert evidence whether an emulsion actually exists under Dubrow at the point of deposition -- might have to.check back on that specific point (I talk like a scientist now but I am really not, LOL).

So i think we might lose the emulsion argument if the judge is prepared to.stretch the interpretation thus and ignore some gaps in the expert evidence.

I could easily.convince myself that Nanoco wins this argument too but margimally.favour a pessimitic outcome.

I remain heavily invested

Intrusivethought I concur.