We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Henry. I disagree. It’d show up in the cash balance in the next results, or a nice juicy special one off dividend would do it…and don’t forget any settlement is likely to include a licensing agreement, details of which would be much more transparent.
Overall I’m struggling to see a settlement scenario that doesn’t put a rocket up the SP.
First trading update would reveal all.
It wouldn't be the first time a deal with Samsung has negatively affected the share price.
@Nanonano: If a settlement happens without transparency on the payments from Samsung to Nanoco this would have an adverse impact on the share price as the market would simply not know what valuation would be just.
BBD…” We need to think about what would be an acceptable settlement for Samsung too”
My point is that we don’t.We don’t have to think about that at all. Just what is acceptable to us.
Hope this isn’t too bleeding obvious.
If a settlement happens, we're unlikely to ever know the details. You'll just see a rather healthier company balance sheet.
"If Samsung don't offer what Nanoco perceive to be a fair settlement then the courtroom awaits"
With all due respect Mattyboy, that's stating the bleedin obvious, and was covered by the scenario I offered in the first post in the thread. Likewise, if Nanoco won't accept what Samsung perceive to fair, it also goes to court. However, the majority here, unlike me, have stated that they think a a settlement is the MOST likely outcome. How do they see that happening?
It does look like - that’s the route they were taking - however it’s seem’s clear from the court they are not interested in the question of validity of the PTAC .. I reckon there motion for judgement were based on that as they are trying to dismiss statements of evidence … however in lifting the Stay the judge seemed pretty clear in the
Speculative nature of Samsungs claims for stay to remain and given those dockets and motion were raised before the stay statement would suggest that they are null - and void … that’s my guess anyway
Can't see the judge going for that after Samsung requested the stay to go down the PTAB route.
How come first post, did you set up the Drones username just to comment on Nanoco then?
I have held shares in nanoco since they came on the market . I’ve seen the high and low times . One thing I can tell you all ….. for sure , our Day is coming …. Very soon .
Been ready through Docketbird .. it seems the nations for summary judgement and removal of expert witnesses were filed after the PRAC before the lifting of Stay .. if you read the joint statement it’s clear that Samsung 100%!going for the defence of trying to nullify the PTAC findings .. Even the judge called it “ speculative claim” when ruling if favour ..of Nano .. If you can’t win the argument - change the argument ..all very interesting
If Samsung don't offer what Nanoco perceive to be a fair settlement then the courtroom awaits and a potential award against them the quantum of which is beyond their control.
It's all going to unfold in the next 12 weeks.
Hansel , Samsungs toilet paper subsidiary, appear to have been on a roll.
We don't need to be taking crap from some ass holes.
Anyway, the closer we get to the end, the faster it goes.
Must go !!
My fictional scenario was mainly intended to generate discussion about the difficulties the two sides might have in getting close to a settlement. This assumes that they want to, there is no actual indication yet that Samsung do, beyond common sense.
BT's statements about getting full value do not dictate the outcome of any settlement, that is a matter for negotiation and compromise. We need to think about what would be an acceptable settlement for Samsung too, not just Nanoco, because without that, there won't be one.
Hard to get your head round - but in the lifting of the stay .. Nanoco qoute those documents as supporting evidence for the Lifting of the stay .. Samsung do not..
Nanoco prevailed over every argument raised against every claim of every asserted patent in the IPRs and the Federal Circuit is unlikely to reverse any of the PTAB's FWDs. Further extending the current stay is therefore unlikely to result in simplifying the case before the Court. Nanoco observes that the same factors that contributed to the Court's initial reluctance to grant the current stay support lifting the stay now that the PTAB has rejected all of Samsung's arguments in the IPRs. See Dkt. No. 121 at 2 ("But for the parties' agreement on the Motion, the Court would 2 PageID #: 6812 likely have denied this Motion. In light of this agreement, however, the Court GRANTS the Motion."). As the Court observed, fact and expert discovery are complete, the parties are in the process of briefing Daubert motions (see Dkt. Nos. 112-117, 120) and motions for summary judgment (see Dkt. Nos. 118, 119), and a trial date had been set and a new date may likewise be set. See Dkt. No. 121 at 2. Nanoco thus requests that the Court immediately lift the stay and that the parties work with the Court to propose a new pre-trial and trial schedule.
I suspect that Samsung files many motions in hopes that they will provide grounds for appeal in case they lose. Most of the motions are ridiculous.
Hopefully, Nanoco lawyers will call top Samsung scientists to the stand. I want to see them explain their admission of failure and subsequent begging help from Nanoco. We would also like an explanation as to how Hansel, Samsung's toilet paper subsidiary, managed to invent Cadmium Free Quantum Dots while Samsung scientists floundered.
Evening -As they are sealed its not possible to know whats going on - first mention of montion 118 119 are in responses - unless im missing something its not easy to tell who even filed these motions in the first place.. Go to be alot of pre tial chest beating .. motions galore
Could it be argued that it is a case of Samsung' throwing the applications at the wall to see what sticks in the hope it could be used to weaken nano's negotiating position and reduce any settlement figure as a consequence of this? Like the challenge to the MCC definition and the application to delay the trial (albeit only by a few days) this could possibly be part of a strategy to keep chipping away at nano's position and weaken it piecemeal.
It's very normal to apply for summary judgement, but the case against them has to be frivolous or have no reasonable chance of success. This will be rejected, nothing to worry about.
Also, this court action is for US only, Nanoco have said that they’d only accept settlement for global sales. So the numbers talked about regarding what the US court might award will be for US only, any settlement will be much higher because it will be for global sales.
If Nanoco did settle out of court, before trial, for just US sales, it would be more difficult to apply for injunction relief in Europe and elsewhere because they won’t have a court win behind them. They’d never do this, an out of court settlement will be much bigger.
@BlahBlahDo: BT has been very clear that he wants the realisation of fair value for Nanoco and if Samsung get a licence BT will insist that a license is taken out for the full duration of Nanoco’s patent duration
Nanoco: the court will likely award us $400m, so we'll settle for $300m, plus you agree to buy a 3 year license. Samsung: it's a mere possibility that the court may find in your favour, maybe $150m, so we're willing to pay you $75m as a full and final settlement. Nanoco: thank you for your interesting opinions, see you in court.