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.
S.Koreans in the main value family, social relationships and co-operation more re: Confucian ethics and that western influences had made them more competitive and aggressive regards attitudes to developing business and fighting for promotion, success etc.... as individuals.
So whatever happens, we are all to blame !!
Hope the press don't mention that Samsung were found ' Guilty ' or some will truly be upset !
Going back to the psyche of S.Koreans and Samsung, I read some reasoning that S.Koreans
@amerloque: I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately I believe a factor of times 3 will lead to a S appeal but what S did was outrageous and needs to be punished severely.
I also do hope that the press will cover this story widely in September.
dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases/
"United States: American courts use lost profits and the failure to collect a reasonable fee from a licensee to calculate a damages award. Determination of the former depends on proving notable demand for the infringed invention and demonstrating you could manufacture and market the IP as your own product or service. "Enhanced" (i.e., punitive) damages may also be awarded in cases of willful infringement, maxing out at three times the figure arrived at after standard calculation. "
"Additionally, since 2018…ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations. (This is not considered in numerous other countries.) "
My View:
Samsung needs to make Nanoco whole. If Nanoco were a huge corporation with large cash reserves, this lawsuit would have cost very little since the courts would make Samsung pay legal costs. Because Nanoco was forced to seek funding, they will automatically lose 20-50% of any award and not come close to being made whole unless the court treats the funding cost as a legal cost.
In assessing damages, will the court consider the fact that winning an infringement case is far more expensive than for a large corporation? While losing costs Nanoco very little beyond employee and opportunity costs, there is a gigantic cost to winning. In a fair world, Nanoco should receive in entirety the amount that Samsung stole times three (willful infringement and enhanced award). With the increasing frequency of David and Goliath trials, courts should level the playing field by awarding funder costs.
Way I see it, Samsung are going to be buying me a telly soon! (Possibly a small house if I'm very lucky)
Most large companies tend to abuse their power, although some are more abusive than others. Samsung are a very large company, so they get away with more. Even if Nanoco win a very large settlement, it’ll be a blip on the radar for Samsung.
Samsung own a sizeable chunk of TCL, so you can’t easily escape their clutches by buying a competitors products.
The general characteristics of S.Koreans tends to be warm, amusing, tolerant and respectful and straightforward and tough in their business challenges. Apparently modesty is highly revered and age and wisdom valued over hands on experience.
Wonder what went wrong with Samsung ?
I bought a TCL the other day. I’ll never buy Samsung anything until they pay up!!
Hi Nanonano, I have reread your post and now get it what your intended statement was. So we are on the same page.
I personally think that this board is high quality and enjoyed reading yesterday’s contributions.
I hope that S is being landed with a hefty penalty as IP theft and especially done in a calculated manner against a small company is deeply reprehensible.
It almost makes you walk to a shop and stage a protest next to Samsung TVs.
Henry, I suggest you read my post again. I said I believe a minimum amount the founder would expect on a win would be around $100-150m . Based on 50% of the lower expectation of $250m quoted by Edison for past royalties, that figure could be wildly out of course. Anything above that would perhaps taper down towards 20% of any award.
Small correction: I had meant to say “definitely not the 10%..” in my previous post.
@Screenlearner: I actually think that the picture will soon be relatively clear as I expect BT to give an Interview/Presentation to Nanoco investors shortly afterwards. BT strikes me as a man who wants to do right by his investors and unless there are confidentiality clauses he will try to be as transparent as possible.
Right now I understand that the less S knows about the litigation funding arrangements the better!
I can't remember anyone defining how a small award or a large award are defined in this context. I'm not even sure whether if it is a large award the funding partners will get 50% of the first part of the award and 20% of the rest of the award or just 20% of the whole larger award if the award is 'big enough'. There must also be some sort of sliding scale depending on the award but I suspect that is commercially confidential. Overall I think we can probably only say, they will get a fairly big sum of money, and Nanoco will get the rest. So it is not possible for us plebs to even judge the effect on the share price of a particular size of award yet. At at some stage I assume we will get to know how much Nanoco gets (assuming we win of course). This info may however not be available for some considerable time due to appeals etc and the fact the exact figure may only be deduced after the appropriate end of year accounts are produced. I am hoping for a significant re-rate of the SP if Nanoco wins at trial but I don't expect the picture to be clear for several, or perhaps many months after the trial. Do others expect the picture to be clearer sooner than that?
@Nanonano: Sorry but I think it has passed you by that the funding partner will get a significant slice, up to 50% when it is a small award or only 20% if it is a large award…but definitely the 10% you seem to imply.
I figured the backers are expected to be inline for probably a minimum of $100-150m, i recall someone mentioning the legal action is likely to cost around $10-15m, so around 10:1 ratio if Nanoco win.
I've had plenty of flak here before for mentioning high numbers but I would be surprised (having done my research as a lawyer, albeit a corporate one) if any settlement was for less than $1b.
BT has said they won't settle unless all universal sales and future universal sales are covered.
There have been over 60m global QD TV sales since the infringement. At the very very least (IMO) Nanoco could expect 1% of that revenue, so $20 per TV and over $1.2b globally.
Appreciate those figures haven't been contemplated by the market but that's why I'm all in here.
@blaustein
Was wondering if you were suggesting that also the common ground between lawyers is a total lack of morality ?
Surely the judge will rise above all the mayhem and ensure that truth will win the day.
Sorry that was poorly written. The Edison note from 14/5/20 stated 14 million units in the US over the previous five years,from memory I think they almost doubled sales during the first year of the pandemic and then had a normal sales year in 2021,that makes me think approx 2.8 million units a year since 2015 plus 2020's extra sales is approx 24 million units (including the first six months or so of this year). By the looks of it my previous numbers may have been a bit of an overestimate but I can't find any mention in the Edison notes to say the figures they used are for anything but the US market so I have always assumed global figures which may be used for settlement/ damages would be about three times that. Obviously I appreciate any input from more experienced hands than myself though,keeps my feet on the ground!
I don't think so frost.
I thought the figures in the Edison notes dealt with just the US market?
frostbar12, historical global sales at the time of the trial will be in the region of 35 - 40 million units.
blaustein, please tell me what drugs you have taken today? Or is it a case of what drugs have you not taken enough of?
Under the LFA, the Funder will fund the costs of the litigation against Samsung. The LFA removes the funding burden for the suit from Nanoco and its shareholders. In return, the Funder can expect to receive a multiple of their invested capital in the event of a settlement or judgement in favour of Nanoco. Patent infringement cases can take 2 years or more to get to trial and cost many millions of dollars to prosecute.
The Board is confident in the strength of Nanoco's IP portfolio and the suit against Samsung. Damages models indicate that the Group will retain the majority of any financial award or settlement and the Group's relative and absolute share of any award will increase with the size of the overall award.
The lawyers are not self-funding.
We tend to overlook the influence of Nano's lawyers on the eventual outcome. They are self-funding, and looking to recoup their costs, make a substantial profit, and enhance their reputation by winning a demonstrable "victory" in this landmark case.
When, in their opinion, this point has been reached, they may well advise Nano to settle, and Nano will probably have to acquiesce - they can't finance this type of litigation themselves.
As for the immediate future, I would guess that Samsung will make some pretty minimal "no-fault" offer to settle, possibly including nominal future licensing fees - Gilstrap will expect them to demonstrate "reasonableness" - but it looks to me, as a totally unqualified opinion, as though this is heading to Court (and indeed I hope so - Samsung deserve a public pasting!)
I think that S genuinely believe they can win this, aided by their lawyers who pride themselves on winning "unwinnable" cases. You can bet that they have all sorts of tricks up their sleeves, and the action may be much more close-fought than I think many on this BB may think . It is going to be fascinating.
But the weak point for S is their lack of morality - they evidently believe that they can obfuscate their way to a victory using expensively-hired legal trickery. And my take on Gilstrap is that he is not going to be fooled. And is prepared to feel insulted if S adopt this approach.
So, like most here, I envisage that Nano win the case, Samsung lodge notice of appeal - and then the negotiations get underway in earnest, with Nano threatening an embargo on ROW sales etc, and Samsung "finding" all sorts of grounds for throwing out the original judgement.
Which is where the lawyers start to find common ground......
A decent payment will be a large payment and
a decent contract will be a large contract IMO.