reply by damian

will copy Damian's (CFO) reply to my query re AMRI and Biocryst below

(with his permission)


"However, let me provide you with some additional information.

The AMRI contract is for under $1m and is funded by BARDA. So on its own it so not significant, in spite of what AMRI say. It is one piece of a jigsaw. We will complete the picture at the next shareholder briefing sessions when we can update more fully on the status of the BARDA contract.

The HCV patent issue is deliberatley silent. We have been granted a patent and have reported it. The patent is from the BI collaboration, which was ended due "to uncertainty over patent issues". Now you know the uncertainty.

BioCryst continued to invest shareholder funds into a program that Biota was claiming. We stopped spending shareholder funds until we had clarity . Who do you think looked after shareholders. So BioCryst are now saying that the USPTO has made an error. We have not had recent contact from either USPTO or BioCryst and I would not expect so. We have the patent on their lead compound and BioCryst's dispute is not with Biota but the USPTO. I can assure you that no pharmaceutical company will invest in this program until the clarity on IP is restored. If the USPTO decide to go further, it could take 2-3 years to resolve this.

At this time, it is not in Biota shareholders interests to be saying much

If you have further questions , please feel free to call me.


Damian Lismore
Chief Financial Officer
Biota Holdings Limited "