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.
The quantum of any out-of-court settlement cannot be kept confidential so long as Nanoco is a publicly listed company. I don't understand why some keep alluding to this as a possibility.
An out of court settlement is 100% in our interests, and probably Samsung’s. BT has stated they are open to talks and so I don’t think they will be unreasonable. Samsung however…
The pre trial conference will be interesting. Gilstrap has a good track record of getting parties to settle and I think he will tell them both how he sees it. The stats on settlement pre trial are really surprising. 95-97%! However that figure is probably so high because in the majority of cases legal costs provided a suitable deterrent. Given the stakes here, and Samsung’s deep pockets, this lowers the odds somewhat here. Nonetheless, the chances of an agreement are still more likely than not IMO.
https://legaljobs.io/blog/patent-litigation-statistics/
Steak and ale the key advantages of an out of court settlement are 1) No risk of failure at trial (and on appeal); and 2) Nancoo gets paid quicker.
The talk here is that such an outcome would be a disappointment. I fundamentally disagree. The board will only accept a settlement offer which is in the interests of shareholders, and that will be having regard to the top legal advice it is receiving.
Bit like Prince Andrews lawyers - just doing their job I suppose even though fully aware of the defendants guilt.
IMO, any out of court settlement will be at our lawyers behest and to Nanocos complete satisfaction.
Yeah, I think Samsung will challenge every angle.
Thanks BotBot. But I’d be very surprised if S don’t contest the infringement in court, especially given the knowledge they are, for example, still trying to redefine what a MCC is- which I conclude to mean they will try to argue that they are using the process, but with an MCC that isn’t covered by the narrowed definition. So I’m not at the 100% you are on that one.
Regarding the damages, I hope you are right that this is a court awarded damages amount which will give us all closure, rather than an out of court confidential settlement where S will avoid all naming and shaming and I am sure will try to obfuscate by all means possible any cash payment award to Nano.
"1. Samsung said at the start that they use the process, their defence was that its not patented properly.
2. Now PTAB have ruled, that argument is now 100% a Nano Win."
I prefer your version BotBot, but it's not what I am reading.
1. Samsung said at the start that they use the process, their defence was that its not patented properly.
2. Now PTAB have ruled, that argument is now 100% a Nano Win.
Whatever the outcome, the other exceptional news is that the USD vs GBP is very strong, so when the pay out is in USD because it's a US court, the conversion to GBP will be a lot higher.
We were at 1.45 when all this started, now we are at 1.23.
So whether this is $100m, $500m, or $1bn, that now equates to a hell of a lot more GBP.
Feeks, I’m pretty sure he said this in one of the most recent video interviews, will try to find it.
LordWM
"BT said that sensor products have been built (by ST Micro) which they're certain contains their QDs and they're sitting waiting for a purchase order, which will depend on orders from their customers"
I don't recall. When did BT say that....?
Nice way of putting it .. I bet your not far off - sounds like the Tory’s policy statement
Their only defence is they unwittingly infringed something they will claim they didn’t consider valid.
Fair enough :0) I suppose you are right, must get tiresome, but not much else to talk abour on this thread :o).. I am an oldie holder of Nano - I held these years and years ago, but walked away from AIM About 10 years ago cant remeber why i sold out.. endless delays from my ageing memory - I'm sure still have some in a old TD waterhouse Acoount but no ideas where they are now - need to look it up when i get time.. I even bought a QD TV - and part of that was a subliminal Hat Tip to Nano - I had no idea it never came off until I saw the recent update and it all came flooding back .. See it as a bit of good luck karma, but the legal david / goliath side has got me investing...I've been there.. not on this scale .. but got my victory and hate it when companies of this scale think (and normally can) use and squash the the smaller party, just because they can and they are driven by greed ...Im willing to lose money on this out of principle .. but i dont think I will .. Just love the research (sorry if youve heard it all) GLA..
This has probably been discussed too then Hawi, but it’s normal when supplying products/services that there’s a clause in the agreement indemnifying the customer should the product/service infringe another’s IP. Have Samsung been supplying CFQDs to other OEMs? If so Samsung will try to include in any settlement that Nanoco will not take action against any of their customers, and I’m guessing the toilet roll company that Samsung allegedly passed Nanoco’s Ian and know how. This, assuming Samsung think they’ll lose in court, gives Nanoco more leverage in ‘full and final’ settlement negotiations, and will make the number bigger.
A lot has changed in the last 6 weeks?
Also something else that caught my eye - motions 118&119 - where Samsung applied for summary judgement of non infringement and no damages - originated from Samsung in May 21 over a year ago -way before PTAC outcome and also the request to ignore certain witnesses , but they now seem to be in the docket as supporting documents to Nanoco - although that not certain - just seems odd Nano reference these documents within their lifting of stay to trial position to the Judge and Samsung doesn’t , but they are in the proposed docket for the trial - that’s how it appears anyway .. I’m probably miles off -GLA
Agree - £50million payout would and no evidence of Samsung prior knowledge be a “loss”, but even that would still be a “victory”to the SP - which
Doesn’t attribute much value - £30 mil max but we know how
Long ago this was raised with Samsung and Nanos attempts to resolve are well documents
"The trial can now focus on the issue of Samsung's alleged wilful infringement and the appropriate level of damages. We remain convinced of the strength of our case and that a favourable trial outcome will deliver a substantial inflection point for Nanoco's prospects and shareholder value."
Hi
Wilful infringement- infringement of the patients has been proved ?
I don't think Samsung have ever denied using the process just that the process wasn't patentable
There’s always risk in court, and I don’t pretend to know the detail, but what makes me prepared to accept the risk is that it’s not only Nanoco that feels they can prove their parents have been infringed. A very experienced legal firm, specialising in IP cases just like this, who spent a year analysing the case and decided to take it on and find the action at their own risk. To me it’s all so compelling, PTAB judgement already in the bag and locked down timeframes with a judgement and number, followed by a willfulness multiplier.
There’s always risk, but I don’t think this will even get to court, suspect we’ll have a settlement before then.
Nano still has to prove infringement
I don’t get the risk of “lose” in court - it’s now for the court to determine the “extent” of the damages based on the evidence presented and the amount of willful actions based on the evidence from both parties - margin of victory over lose at this trail ? That how see it .. PTAC issue is closed for the purpose of this trial - as per the RNS
Remember that if there's a settlement before the court date, Nanoco will insist on a settlement that covers global sales plus future sales for the duration of the patent/s period. That will be significant.
If this gets to court and Nanoco win, it will be for US historical sales plus a willfullness multiplier, and possibly an award for future sales. Two things will then likely happen:
1 - Samsung will appeal, but their risk/exposure will mount swiftly with evert TV sold.
2 - With a PTAB ruling and US court win, Nanoco will likely immediately take action in other handpicked global territories , likely Europe (injunctions halting TV sales), that will sever revenue and be hugely damaging to Samsung. This will apply further pressure to bring Samsung to the table to settle.
The only risk is that we lose in court.
And also don't forget potential upside from announcements re commercial orders. BT said that sensor products have been built (by ST Micro) which they're certain contains their QDs and they're sitting waiting for a purchase order, which will depend on orders from their customers.
Ha Ha ...Smart Harse!!!
Agree is your excellent Bookmaking skills but you didn't allow for the robbig gits to have a 120 % book.
I think i overcomplicated my point - All four senarios are good for the ST shareprice, we get a settling or we will get awarded damages (wilful extend unknown) that will be appealled over the next twelve months or potentailly settled.
I want it to go to court , just cant see it happening myself.. would open the legal flood gates if wilful intent is proven IMO
Just to tidy up your odds Sunshine:-
A) Worst Case - 30/1 = 3.4%
B) Second Worse Case - 17/2 = 11.6%
C) Next Best Case - Evens = 51%
A (I'll call it D for clarity)) Best Case - 2/1 = 33%
All are positive from the current price. There has to be a chance that Samsung don't appeal, but throw that in somewhere between A and B for the bookies profit percentage. Long term best case is likely to be C, but for those who can't wait then D should provide a reasonably swift return.