BPRG already have ownership of the patents 1 & 2. SEO cannot 'give' ownership of the patents to BPRG, since they have been deemed to belong to BPRG, They have yet to be transferred I believe, but that is a technicality. The appeal is not about the ownership of the patents, but whether or not the patent was correctly issued in the first place. SEO claim is that there was prior art (only discovered by them after they lost the ownership case) and that the patent should not have been granted in the first place (i.e. when they(SEO) applied for it, the application shouls not have been granted due to prior art). The original judge rejected this 'new evidence' , presumably because the original case was based on ownership of the patent, rather than its validity, and it is the question of law ( the Appeal Court will only consider questions of Law, not of fact)regarding the the admission of the new evidence that is the subject of SEO's appeal, rather than ownership of the patent. SEO are trying to retain use of the technology without having to pay BPRG for the privilege, which of course, they would have to do if the patent is deemed to be valid.
This is my understanding. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong
Bioprogress stock quotes
Bioprogress stock charts
Follow this thread
