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.
Hi bb. Been here also for a long time. Still hopeful contracts come before court case. If the court find in our favour, yes I’ll take some funds as a reward for my staying power. But don’t think I would empty my total share holding when they are in a strong position.
If we reach that stage I’m confident we could expand into a great British company going forward.
But we ain’t there yet. Gla
I think, unfortunately, that a lot of people will be selling huge chunks WHEN we get the settlement and the WHEN the price jumps through the roof, and honestly, I will be one of those as Nano, like many other shares has been a rollercoaster over the years.
It would be awesome if all the LTH's actually did make the effort and got together somewhere to celebrate over a coffee/beer/gold flaked steak dinner.....
I'm up for it for sure. Would be awesome to put faces to names.
I've been so frustrated with all my travel shares over the last year that I have forgotten how genuine this board is 99.9% of the time.
GLA, every day that passes is one day closer to Pay Day.
Kind words frostbar, maybe we should all celebrate a record court settlement or court outcome over a coffee or beer before Christmas!
If our lawyers have enough incriminating evidence to prove wilfulness, it should be pursued relentlessly in the court.
Surely, it would be similiar to the difference between murder and manslaughter and personally don't like the idea of a quick and cheaper settlement out of court enabling basically criminals to repeat their offences ad infinitum.
Or is that too high a moral stand to take because of the time and risks involved ?
I think it is important to be aware that US courts are able to consider and award damages for global infringement and have done so relatively recently one example being the WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations (https://www.mondaq.com/patent/1107464/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases).
Equally,I don't think any damages awarded by the court are up for negotiation and reduction by Samsung. Samsung can,and likely will,appeal any award but they will unlikely be able to use them as a staging post from which to begin negotiations with Nanoco. Also this would be a double edged sword for Samsung as yes appeal may well reduce damages,but as long as infringing sales occur damages derived from them would no doubt accrue also.
I always thought a buy out was the most likely outcome but I think things have gone past that point now and that a large settlement and decent contract is the most likely outcome or,albeit less likely,a trial with attendant appeal followed by record damages award.
Personally,I've never even considered the fact that Samsung will need to have indemnified downstream users of the technology and it is this that makes me feel that
a)a global settlement and drawing a line under the issue is the most probable outcome
b)this board is one of the most thoughtful and well researched I've encountered and I appreciate each posters contributions. I almost regret that at some point in the future we will only have boring things like new contracts and guessing future dividends to discuss!
Agreed Lord.
Let’s face it, a settlement or a court win and fat award would be awesome.
And Nigwitty, if they can pay a huge settlement and barely notice it then that’s awesome too!
I’ll go against the flow here and say I’m preferring a court award. It’s clear cut, will be large and will put an immediate shock into the SP. Ongoing royalties are guaranteed anyway as S would need to license use of the tech going forward.
A sealed out of court settlement, whilst having all the plus points mentioned, is likely to leave investors unclear as to what has been agreed and it will be a speculative detective hunt to understand the terms and value of the award. I’ve said before that any damages can be obfuscated to be in kind payment, exchange of IP, capital equipment, payment over an extended period via increased royalties etc etc.
The value ultimately returned to N will be great, but the SP will be erratic and I don’t think we’ll see the immediate inflexion that I think many investors are after.
Just IMO.
I think we all hope it will go down this route (settlement). If they don’t settle and N win in court, it will open the flood gates to other action in other territories and against partners and customers while Samsung appeal, which will be horrendous for Samsung. A settlement should mean cash now, future licence payments for several years and less uncertainty for Nanoco and investors.
It’s so complex that I suspect any settlement will be at the 11th hour, so we’re going to be biting our nails for a while.
good points Amer and Lord. I agree that any settlement will be a ‘full and final’. I guess my point was that we will never really know precisely what Samsung admit to or the terms of the deal if one is struck, the whole thing will be shrouded in confidentiality agreements. If Samsung do go down the settlement route, it could potentially protect the supply chain and other infringing parties. Go to court and that assurance doesn’t exist…Get slapped with a huge court award and you’re STILL being pursued left right and centre in different countries and not just you but your partner firms too.
Yet more reason to settle in my view!
Well said, LordWM! I agree completely.
BeContratian, I agree re a court ruling, it will only look at US sales. But if there’s an out of court settlement, Samsung will be desperate to make it full and final, to prevent Nanoco pursuing their customers & partners, which Samsung will have indemnified against such a scenario. Nanoco will only settle for known infringements, so if Samsung want to make it full and final, they’ll have to sign affidavits confirming what they have and have not done. This will likely be kept confidential, but I don’t agree that it won’t be included in a settlement.
Samsung will want to draw a line under this, for a known price, with no loose ends. That means they’re going to get spanked financially, will be big.
Realistically Samsung still seem a long way from agreeing a settlement. The worst case scenario, surely, is that they win their appeal over the PTAB decision. It is highly unlikely, but technically possible. To reach a settlement which Nanoco could accept, I think Samsung still need to be pushed much, much further into a corner than they are already, which probably means starting the trial, at least. My best guess is that they will lose the trial and a subsequent appeal, and then attempt to negotiate down from whatever number the court has awarded - it sounds bad, but it's far from the worst case scenario!
BC: I agree that even if they lose at court there is nothing compelling Samsung to admit liability or do anything further than pay whatever the court orders. Such an order will apply only to the US.
Any out of court settlement, however, is something that Nanoco can and will control in a way that will not tie their hands. Very substantial amounts of money might influence Nanoco actions. Security trading laws would force Nanoco to report all related financial and other arrangements.
Ok, taking the argument on its own terms, the only people Samsung would want to be sharing their know-how with is people in the supply chain. Our legal team, I’m sure, are taking a look at that and BT has hinted himself that this could well be the next phase. Anything beyond the supply chain makes no sense as Samsung aren’t going to willingly give away their competitive advantage just to stuff it to a UK small cap, that’s conspiracy stuff in my view.
But even so, it must be remembered that the scope of legal proceedings here, whether this is dealt with in or out of court, is to simply ascertain whether Samsung (not anyone else) used our IP for commercial gain. The courts will look no further, neither will our lawyers in pursuit of a settlement. You’re simply not going to get a confession or any commercially sensitive info from Samsung. Even if they lose at court there is nothing compelling them to admit liability or do anything further than to pay whatever the court orders.
Justice will be compensation, but I’m afraid we won’t get anything more than that. That’s not how it works.
BC: Many bloggers here seem to agree that a settlement would need to be worldwide. I am confident that Nanoco lawyers are smart enough to demand knowledge of where Samsung transferred Nanoco technology. Why is this important? Samsung customers, even within the Chaebol, would certainly have included indemnity clauses within any transaction, thus preventing Nanoco from pursuing them. Such clauses would have made Samsung liable, but would a prior global settlement then prevent Nanoco from further pursuing Samsung?
Hi Feeks, I guess you're right, I was writing from memory. I think the sentiment is broadly right, the validation work has been pretty much done, ST are taking it to market and any orders will be a game changer, hopefully annnounced by the year end.
Thanks LordWM - just being slightly pedantic, he says one material is production ready / signed off for ISO standards, and the other should have reached that stage for Dec 2022. We don't know for sure that Nanoco's QD's have been used in any prototype products but that is the implication.
I agree that there’s probably more than meets the eye with Hansol, Nanosys etc. but it’s important to play the cards we are dealt first. Once Samsung is sorted then we can begin to look at third parties etc. whether this goes to trial or not, the chances of Nanoco finding out exactly what happened and precisely who Samsung has shared the IP with we will likely never know. That goes far beyond the scope of this trial and would certainly not be asked for/given as part of a settlement.
BC: I make the assumption that Nanoco's lawyers are not stupid. Nanoco IP is platform technology. Although this does not have to be made public, Nanoco needs to know where its technology is being or has been used. I doubt that Samsung has the backbone to admit to all of their wrong-doing. I doubt that Samsung even knows all of the places where the IP went. If it went to China, the barn door is wide open.
Agree becontrarian. Settlements (like the recent VW emissions case in the UK) are usually "without liability"
‘Any out of court settlement would force Samsung to admit to all of its wrong-doing’
I read it the opposite way Amer. A trial will lay out the guilt in black and white, along with any negative publicity and reputational hazard that comes with it. A settlement is simply a financial agreement where no acceptance of liability or apologies are needed. Pre trial settlement and this all goes away relatively quietly really.
Hi Feeks, It’s at 7 mins in this interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1z-ELdRSPF8
Sigh.
September never seemed so far away :-)
Any out of court settlement would force Samsung to admit to all of its wrong-doing involving many of Samsung's 100 internal subsidiaries and external licensing and sales in which Samsung would have indemnified the purchaser. Infringement is egregious enough to require a huge out of court settlement, the risk of which does not appear on its balance sheet. This is not just infringement. Samsung obviously attempted to limit Nanoco and possibly even to destroy it. To believe in an out of court settlement may be underestimating Samsung' arrogance. BT indicated a willingness to accept a settlement but was also obliged to appear open to compromise. To seem otherwise would have been detrimental to Nanoco's case.