The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Good example Boracic. I laughed when Brandi said one of her students used a Nanoco patent as a reference source, that was really rubbing it in! Confirmation bias definitely has to be guarded against, but it's difficult to read the documents any other way than as embarrassing for Samsung. As someone else said, when are they going to reveal their REAL case - because surely this can't seriously be it?
I read that too. It is a powerfully argued point. I wonder if the problem for.Samsung is that Dr Green is showing himself not to be a POSITA?
Thanks for the link, Nanonano.
I almost got to the end before my non-scientific brain fried. Not only do the methodologies quoted by Samsung/Green seem utterly incompatible but even the end products aren't the same. Some methods produce nanoWIRES or nanoRODS but not nanoDOTS. Any end products seem to be inconsistent in size and quality and unable to be produced on an industrial scale.
On page 74, I actually laughed when I read this: âQ. And in your opinion, you didnât consider the melting temperatures of those molecular cluster compounds. Right? A. It wasnât something that I particularly paid that much attention to, no.â Other comments by Green also point to a lackadaisical approach, as if to say, Samsung are paying me to do this but really, I know it's all nonsense.
To me it smacks of Samsung's tactic all along, which is just to string things out for as long as possible, delaying what seems to be the inevitable win for NANO. IF the PTAB upholds the patents and dismisses the petition, what further defence grounds could they have in the court case? I'm trying to keep my confirmation bias in check but failing miserably.
I believe our patience will be rewarded and handsomely!
Been musing over Nano today and the more I think about it, the more of an opportunity this feels.
Risk reward is a moveable feast, and of course there is no finite formula for calculating whether the risk is worth the reward. But to me this feels better than 50/50 in terms of risk, and the reward will be multiples of current entry price based on success. I think our backers (Mintz, Lombard etc) see it in the same way.
So why has the SP remained so flat? PIs are naturally very myopic and those picking their own stocks will often give a cursory glance when âshoppingâ for a new investment and then obsess once invested. To the cursory glancer, Nano is a basket case: low on cash, not generating profit, up against a titan of electronics in a legal dispute. It seems like âbad riskâ.
But to all those whoâve done their DD, all those on the inner circle which, judging from this excellent but relatively quiet BB we have here, is relatively small, the reality couldnât be further from the picture a cursory glance generates.
I really do think we are totally flying under the radar at the moment and over the past couple of days Iâve talked myself into adding more here when funds allow. The value in terms of risk reward makes this absolutely worth the punt.
PTAB: "That's a good start Brandi, but could you give us a bit more detail?"
On the face of it, the case doesn't seem to have changed since it was presented to the court - Samsung blatantly trying it on and getting caught out pretty dramatically. Hope to see Samsung not just lose the case and pay heavily, but also get exposed worldwide as swindling charlatans who cannot be trusted.
Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 pm Eastern Time on
February 23, 2022, by video.
Thanks for posting Nanonano. Crossairtâs testimony looks very convincing.
In her opinion the teachings Samsung are relying upon either donât work at all, donât form molecular clusters, or would be discounted as ways forward by those âskilled in the artâ with plans to make a CFQD. Throughout she explains that Samsung simply does not provide adequate explanation of how they would join all the teachings they claim are so obvious to make CFQD and overcome many associated difficulties that exist with each techniques presented. In short, her recommendation is that patents are upheld and I get the feeling she thinks Samsung is just spinning a yarn. Hope so, since Samsung surely loses if PTAB agree with Crossairt.
Yes, she is our professional witness and so we expect her to fall on our side but as a layman her testimony looks rather compelling. I would be interested to hear the wires of others and will read the other document later.
Iâm by no means a master in this art but Cossairtâs declaration appears incredibly well researched and thorough.
Another master stroke from Mintz getting her on board. Itâs a real Armada of a declaration which successfully refutes virtually all of Samsungs claims.
Not sure where the greatest damage is sustained there,the credibility of Dr Green or Samsung's case. I think Dr Green may be out of his depth dealing with Dr Cossairt. I find it hard to believe Samsung think they can rely on him to help edge their case to a favourable verdict,it'll be interesting to see what they are actually going to rely on for a viable defence/strategy in the case.