Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Some movement today? 100k shares asked slapped? Seems somebody got interest on this sleeper. News soon? BTI-320(Sugardown) Phase 2 result?
They are using Alternate Reporting Standard - Not SEC Filer
The Attorney's letter and Alternate reporting is just to satisfy OTC current status requirement to qualify for OTC listing/trading.
Anytime soon. Great pipeline and very low risk. The ROI is exponentially if a strong positive data leading to final clinical stage (Phase 3). IMO
Good Luck! Hope they reinstate SEC filing status.
They did an Offering and sold worth $460,000 (Form D - Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities) Filed on May 03, 2019, a year after filing Termination of Registration SEC Form 15.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1420108/000147793219002298/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
GLUC non-SEC reporting company.
Form 15-12G Filed April 16, 2018
CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR SUSPENSION
OF DUTY TO FILE REPORTS UNDER SECTIONS 13 AND 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1420108/000147793218001817/gluc1512g_.htm
Are they planning to reinstate? They need to show SEC documented earnings report in order to gain more investors+confidence. IMO
Now that they hold only 1.6% of LK O/S, they're not required to file any further transaction unless they decide to buy back and reach 5%. The only time to know is when they file 13F-HR filing. I'm guessing they're not done selling yet.
Lone Pine never bought back but SOLD OUT! Zero Shares as of April 3, 2020 SC 13G/A filing.
See my previous post below;
SEC SC 13G/A Filed Today...Lone Pine Capital LLC SOLD OUT All shares (6,067,357 American Depositary Shares, Representing 48,538,856 Class A Ordinary Shares)
SC 13G Filed 2019-11-29: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1061165/000106116519000017/sc13gluckincoffee.htm
SC 13G/A Filed 2020-04-03:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1061165/000106116520000027/sc13gluckincoffee.htm
NO..no..no! In fact, JPM SOLD! SC 13G/A is an amendment from previous filing. The 12,740,800 shares is the remaining position as of the April 3 Filing . see my previous post #445 below;
SEC SC 13G/A Filed Today...J P Morgan Chase&Co. SOLD more than half (9,148,278 shares) of position.
SC 13G Filed on 2020-01-31 : 21,889,078 Shares
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000191/Luckin_Coffee_Inc.htm
SC 13G/A Filed today, 2020-04-03: 12,740,800 shares
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000276/Luckin_Coffee_Inc.htm
SEC SC 13G/A Filed Today...J P Morgan Chase&Co. SOLD more than half (9,148,278 shares) of position.
SC 13G Filed on 2020-01-31 : 21,889,078 Shares
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000191/Luckin_Coffee_Inc.htm
SC 13G/A Filed today, 2020-04-03: 12,740,800 shares
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000276/Luckin_Coffee_Inc.htm
SEC SC 13G/A Filed Today...Lone Pine Capital LLC SOLD OUT All shares (6,067,357 American Depositary Shares, Representing 48,538,856 Class A Ordinary Shares)
SC 13G Filed 2019-11-29: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1061165/000106116519000017/sc13gluckincoffee.htm
SC 13G/A Filed 2020-04-03:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1061165/000106116520000027/sc13gluckincoffee.htm
INOpulse is exclusively licensed from Ikaria, Inc., a Mallinckrodt (NYSE:MNK) company.
I Hope you are right! How much do you think is the offer, considering no more Intellectual Property (revoked after losing Mallinkcrodt's patent challenge) on hand but 1 pending?
Director Hari Kumar resigned from the Company’s Board of Directors effective February 12, 2020. Dr. Kumar had served as a director since May 2017. The Company appreciates the dedicated service of Dr. Kumar.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013820000056/bivi-20191231_10q.htm
Nasdaq Listing WITHDRAWN! :(
February 13, 2020
Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
100 F. Street, N.E
Washington, DC 20549
Re: Biovie Inc.
Amendment Withdrawal Request
Form 8-A/A Filed October 2, 2019
File No. 001-39015
Ladies and Gentlemen:
BioVie Inc. hereby requests the withdrawal of its Registration Statement on Form 8-A originally filed with the Commission on August 2, 2019 and as amended on October 2, 2019.
The Company confirms no securities will be listed on a national securities exchange in connection with the offering. In the event the Staff has any questions with respect to this matter, please call either Norwood Beveridge at (212) 407-4970 or Lili Taheri at (212) 407-4160.
Thank you very much for your time and attention in connection with this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ Joanne Wendy Kim
Joanne Wendy Kim, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013820000057/bivi-rw.htm
Very Nice! Slow and Steady uptrend continues...
Seems BTI-320 Phase2 result is coming out soon. Based on the latest PR recruitment was complete last August and According to Clinical Trial, study duration is approximately 12 weeks. So... it makes sense about this unusual trading activity this couple of days ago and still going.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03655535?lead=Boston+Therapeutics&spons=Boston+Therapeutics&phase=1&draw=2&rank=1
Yeah! Strange! Been watching it until today. What gives? Phase 2 coming out soon?
So..RS kicks in this time. Why no movement yet? Pending News?
That's one thing to avoid now considering the patent challenge outcome. This completely nullified BIVI's IP and has significantly impacted its enterprise value. imo. RS is not a good thing at this time, imo. Shorts will be over this stock if it happens.
Completely surprised about the bad outcome of the IP challenge.
MNK prevailed.
"On November 13, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Board”) issued a written decision in the inter partes review (“IPR”) action that was brought by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (“Mallinckrodt”) against BioVie Inc. (“BioVie” or “Company”). In that action, Mallinckrodt sought to invalidate BioVie’s patent (U.S. Pat. No. 9,655,945, “Treatment of Ascites”) (the “’945 Patent”). In its decision, the Board determined that all claims of the ‘945 Patent were not patentable because they were either anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. The Board also denied BioVie’s Motion to Amend the claims on similar grounds. The result of the Board’s decision is that the ‘945 patent is no longer valid or enforceable. Acuitas Group Holdings, LLC was aware of this patent challenge when it purchased a majority ownership interest in the company in July 2018".
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000459/bivi-20191115_8k.htm
poor thing!
Sadly to say, MNK prevailed :(
Item 8.01 Other Events.
On November 13, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Board”) issued a written decision in the inter partes review (“IPR”) action that was brought by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (“Mallinckrodt”) against BioVie Inc. (“BioVie” or “Company”). In that action, Mallinckrodt sought to invalidate BioVie’s patent (U.S. Pat. No. 9,655,945, “Treatment of Ascites”) (the “’945 Patent”). In its decision, the Board determined that all claims of the ‘945 Patent were not patentable because they were either anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. The Board also denied BioVie’s Motion to Amend the claims on similar grounds. The result of the Board’s decision is that the ‘945 patent is no longer valid or enforceable. Acuitas Group Holdings, LLC was aware of this patent challenge when it purchased a majority ownership interest in the company in July 2018.
BioVie is evaluating the Board’s decision to determine if it will request a rehearing by the Board or appeal the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This ruling is unrelated to the Company’s Orphan drug designations for ascites and hepatorenal syndrome (“HRS”), which remain unchanged. An Orphan drug that is first-to-market typically receives 7 years of market exclusivity in the United States for the designated use(s). In addition, the ruling does not affect the Company’s rights in its pending patent application directed to proprietary liquid formulations of terlipressin for use in its planned Phase 2b/3 trial, subject to FDA clearance, which could eventually provide up to 20 years of patent coverage in each country in which the Company seeks patent protection, such as the United States, if a patent issues on the pending application according to the patent laws of each issuing country.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000459/bivi-20191115_8k.htm
PART III - NARRATIVE
Additional time is needed to update status of a proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/biovie-qb-BIVI/stock-news/81150672/notification-that-quarterly-report-will-be-submitt
Sleeping GEM <<< way under-the-radar!
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf
Watch your words! No dummies here! But FWIW, First attempt YES, everyone here is aware! But second attempt? Are you referring to second attempt? If so, can you provide the link?
PATENT CHALLENGE MNK vs. BIVI
SEC S-1/A pg.6
On April 30, 2018, we received notice that Mallinckrodt had petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of our U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 titled “Treatment of Ascites” (the “’945 patent”). Inter Partes Review is a trial proceeding conducted with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of one or more claims of a patent. Such review is limited to grounds of novelty and obviousness on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.
On August 15, 2018, we submitted a Preliminary Response to the PTAB providing a rationale as to why, in our opinion, Mallinckrodt’s request to institute the IPR should not be granted. On November 14, 2018, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR challenge after determining that there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of our 14 claims was unpatentable. On March 7, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Response and a Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend our patent claims, and Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch, MD, PhD, our medical expert. On June 26 and June 28, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Reply In Support Of Its Contingent Motion To Amend Under 37 C.F.R.§ 42.121 to amend our patent claims and a Patent Sur-Reply supported by the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch to the Reply and the Opposition to Motion to Amend, filed by Petitioner Mallinckrodt, filed June 6, 2019. On July 29, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike. On July 17, 2019, we received from the PTAB an Order Oral Hearing in response to our request of an Oral Hearing, which was held on August 12, 2019. We are actively defending the ’945 patent and we are exploring the possibility of settlement with Mallinckrodt. However, there can be no assurance that a favorable outcome will result, or if settlement is reached that the PTAB will accept it. Although the PTAB encourages settlement, in view of public-interest considerations, the PTAB may continue the proceeding to a final written decision even if the parties settle. If the IPR is not terminated due to settlement, the PTAB is statutorily required to issue its final written decision in this case before November 14, 2019 (within one year from the date of institution).
We cannot guarantee investors that we will be successful in defending Mallinckrodt’s challenge against our patent. An unfavorable decision could reduce the scope of, or cancel, our patent rights, and allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to exploit our intellectual property or develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors and/or market entrants may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage.
In addition, you should note that as of June 30, 2019, no adjustments or accruals have been reflected in our financial statements related to this matter.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000418/bivi-20191101_s1a7.htm
WHO WILL PREVAIL ? Next week, Nov. 14, 2019 <<< FINAL DECISION
If the outcome in favor of BIVI coupled with the start of Nasdaq trading is publicly released, this gem will fly. IMO. In addition, a pending start of BIV201 Ph2b/3 clinical trial is imminent.
PATENT CHALLENGE MNK vs. BIVI
SEC S-1/A pg.6
On April 30, 2018, we received notice that Mallinckrodt had petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of our U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 titled “Treatment of Ascites” (the “’945 patent”). Inter Partes Review is a trial proceeding conducted with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of one or more claims of a patent. Such review is limited to grounds of novelty and obviousness on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.
On August 15, 2018, we submitted a Preliminary Response to the PTAB providing a rationale as to why, in our opinion, Mallinckrodt’s request to institute the IPR should not be granted. On November 14, 2018, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR challenge after determining that there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of our 14 claims was unpatentable. On March 7, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Response and a Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend our patent claims, and Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch, MD, PhD, our medical expert. On June 26 and June 28, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Reply In Support Of Its Contingent Motion To Amend Under 37 C.F.R.§ 42.121 to amend our patent claims and a Patent Sur-Reply supported by the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch to the Reply and the Opposition to Motion to Amend, filed by Petitioner Mallinckrodt, filed June 6, 2019. On July 29, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike. On July 17, 2019, we received from the PTAB an Order Oral Hearing in response to our request of an Oral Hearing, which was held on August 12, 2019. We are actively defending the ’945 patent and we are exploring the possibility of settlement with Mallinckrodt. However, there can be no assurance that a favorable outcome will result, or if settlement is reached that the PTAB will accept it. Although the PTAB encourages settlement, in view of public-interest considerations, the PTAB may continue the proceeding to a final written decision even if the parties settle. If the IPR is not terminated due to settlement, the PTAB is statutorily required to issue its final written decision in this case before November 14, 2019 (within one year from the date of institution).
We cannot guarantee investors that we will be successful in defending Mallinckrodt’s challenge against our patent. An unfavorable decision could reduce the scope of, or cancel, our patent rights, and allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to exploit our intellectual property or develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors and/or market entrants may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage.
In addition, you should note that as of June 30, 2019, no adjustments or accruals have been reflected in our financial statements related to this matter.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000418/bivi-20191101_s1a7.htm
WHO WILL PREVAIL ? Next week, Nov. 14, 2019 <<< FINAL DECISION
PATENT CHALLENGE MNK vs. BIVI
SEC S-1/A pg.6
On April 30, 2018, we received notice that Mallinckrodt had petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of our U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 titled “Treatment of Ascites” (the “’945 patent”). Inter Partes Review is a trial proceeding conducted with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of one or more claims of a patent. Such review is limited to grounds of novelty and obviousness on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.
On August 15, 2018, we submitted a Preliminary Response to the PTAB providing a rationale as to why, in our opinion, Mallinckrodt’s request to institute the IPR should not be granted. On November 14, 2018, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR challenge after determining that there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of our 14 claims was unpatentable. On March 7, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Response and a Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend our patent claims, and Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch, MD, PhD, our medical expert. On June 26 and June 28, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Reply In Support Of Its Contingent Motion To Amend Under 37 C.F.R.§ 42.121 to amend our patent claims and a Patent Sur-Reply supported by the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch to the Reply and the Opposition to Motion to Amend, filed by Petitioner Mallinckrodt, filed June 6, 2019. On July 29, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike. On July 17, 2019, we received from the PTAB an Order Oral Hearing in response to our request of an Oral Hearing, which was held on August 12, 2019. We are actively defending the ’945 patent and we are exploring the possibility of settlement with Mallinckrodt. However, there can be no assurance that a favorable outcome will result, or if settlement is reached that the PTAB will accept it. Although the PTAB encourages settlement, in view of public-interest considerations, the PTAB may continue the proceeding to a final written decision even if the parties settle. If the IPR is not terminated due to settlement, the PTAB is statutorily required to issue its final written decision in this case before November 14, 2019 (within one year from the date of institution).
We cannot guarantee investors that we will be successful in defending Mallinckrodt’s challenge against our patent. An unfavorable decision could reduce the scope of, or cancel, our patent rights, and allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to exploit our intellectual property or develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors and/or market entrants may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage.
In addition, you should note that as of June 30, 2019, no adjustments or accruals have been reflected in our financial statements related to this matter.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000418/bivi-20191101_s1a7.htm
WHO WILL PREVAIL ? Next week, Nov. 14, 2019 <<< FINAL DECISION
Nasdaq bound! Not kicked in yet. Anytime today?
But in a microcap company? He must have known something?
MACIVIVA concluded with flying colors!!!
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194414/brief/en
SEC S-1/A Filed 11/01/2019 >>> BIVI Nasdaq bound very soon!
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580149/000152013819000418/bivi-20191101_s1a7.htm
Richard J Berman
Former Chairman of National Investment Managers
with $12 billion pension administration assets;
director of BioVie,Inc., Catasys, Inc., Advaxis, Inc., Cryoport Inc.
and Immuron Ltd. Previously started the M&A and
Leveraged Buyout Departments for Bankers Trust
Company.
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf <<< sleeping GEM
Richard J Berman
Former Chairman of National Investment Managers
with $12 billion pension administration assets;
director of BioVie,Inc., Catasys, Inc., Advaxis, Inc., Cryoport Inc.
and Immuron Ltd. Previously started the M&A and
Leveraged Buyout Departments for Bankers Trust
Company.
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf <<< sleeping GEM
UPDATED CORPORATE PRESENTATION Oct.2019
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf
BioVie Submits Protocol for Phase 2b/3 Refractory Ascites Study to FDA
SANTA MONICA, CA / ACCESSWIRE / October 22, 2019 / BioVie Inc. (BIVI) ("BioVie" or the "Company"), a clinical-stage company developing innovative drug therapies for liver disease, announced today that it has submitted for assessment by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") the Phase 2b/3 clinical trial protocol for using BIV201 (continuous infusion terlipressin) to treat ascites due to chronic liver cirrhosis in patients who are refractory to or cannot tolerate diuretic therapy.
more...https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BIVI?p=BIVI
Corporate Presentation | October 2019
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf
BioVie Submits Protocol for Phase 2b/3 Refractory Ascites Study to FDA
SANTA MONICA, CA / ACCESSWIRE / October 22, 2019 / BioVie Inc. (BIVI) ("BioVie" or the "Company"), a clinical-stage company developing innovative drug therapies for liver disease, announced today that it has submitted for assessment by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") the Phase 2b/3 clinical trial protocol for using BIV201 (continuous infusion terlipressin) to treat ascites due to chronic liver cirrhosis in patients who are refractory to or cannot tolerate diuretic therapy.
more...https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BIVI?p=BIVI
Corporate Presentation | October 2019
https://www.biovieinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BioVie-Corp-Presentation_website_Oct-2019.pdf
Tailwinds’ Take: the endpoints for this trial, time to recurrence and volume removed, should be easy for a well-known drug like Terlipressin to achieve. Next step for BIVI is obtaining funding. Once funded, this could be one of the lowest risk clinical trials we’ve seen.
https://tailwindsresearch.com/2019/10/biovie-submits-protocol-for-phase-2b-3-refractory-ascites-study-to-fda/
Nice!