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.
They don't have to apply for global damages , the jury decides what to give them.
Troublesome, 'fundamentally enabling' is a phrase based in case law to mean it was essential to the product.
It shows that BT has been briefed by lawyers.
Are there any reasons why those particular words ' fundamentally enabling' were chosen from a lawyers POV (legalese) as opposed to say essential or a basic requirement.
Could there be other interpretations ?
' fundamentally enabling '
From a lwayers POV there any reason
Another point to bear in mind is that BT has said "we believe" that Nanoco's QD tech was "fundamentally enabling" for Samsung's TVs i.e. that higher end damages should be awarded.
That is not something he can say lightly (speaking as a corporate lawyer) as he has a legal duty not to mislead shareholders. Nor is it a personal opinion (unlike, for example, a director being bullish about a product), because BT isn't a lawyer.
Instead, as part of the finder's due diligence there would have been at least one legal opinion commissioned, which concluded that of all the potential outcomes the higher end damages is the most likely. That is encouraging.
That' s true progress:
Quietly and persistently without notice.
to their *making*quiet progress
I think only because the company want to keep feet firmly on the ground and might think that speculation of that sort in the marketplace is counter-productive to their market quiet progress in this case. I am not complaining as it has created a yawning gap in market valuation which I have exploited to the fullest.
Thanks, Frostbar. I think one of the reasons people aren't discussing billions in damages is that no-one in the press or analyst world has stuck their neck out for fear of getting it wrong. Edison themselves say in their research note it wouldn't be correct to speculate on higher end damages. Not exactly sure why.
Also, yes there exists precedent for global damages, but Nanoco are not making a claim for global damages in the East Texas Court.
I couldn't be happier in that case!
Incorrect re wilfulness multiplier, frostbar12.
@Sammy88 the only issues I can see are that I don't think the wilfulness multiplier can be applied to damages which aren't derived from license fees which would have been otherwise been paid. I think they would only be applicable for damages at the lower tier of the Edison estimate.
The other point is that there is precedent for US courts to award damages for global infringements which may be occur in nano's case so there is always the possibility of that happening (see 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).
Personally I agree with you that the "it would be larger than any previous award " argument isn't worth much. Once upon a time Newcastle United paid a world record £7m for Andy Cole, look at transfer fees now. Records are often surpassed and rewritten.
As for the market being wrong,I also agree that happens all the time. Occasionally the market is out and out wrong but often it is just slow at catching up. I would be happy to say that if knowledge of the case (and this discussion board) were more widespread we would see a higher price than we currently have.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the figures you've posted recently are shown to be pretty accurate in the near future.
Thanks BeC. Massive volume x low margin = $1bn+
Then we have an older example of triple damages:
https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511003152-new-ruling-triples-samsung-s-damages-in-smartphone-camera-case
“Enhancement is appropriate here to address defendant's willful infringement and conduct," Mazzant wrote in his opinion. "The court enhances damages to the maximum extent allowable under § 284 given the totality of the circumstances.”
Keith Hylton, a patent attorney and professor at Boston University School of Law, said the ability to make such changes comes thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Halo Electronics v. Pulse electronics in July. The opinion gives lower courts the power to increase damages in patent cases by up to three times the original amount.
“What Halo did was it said to lower courts: ‘You guys have more discretion now in whether to enhance damages.’ The court was able to take advantage of that in this case,” Hylton told the Southeast Texas Record."
Further, the Halo decision makes it unlikely that the increased damages could be successfully appealed.
“If court has reasonable justification for enhancing damages, it’s unlikely that an appellate court would overturn that decision,” Hylton said.
Such a large award ($1bn+), if it eventually comes to Nanoco, would not be any surprise. Nor would it be a surprise if S redoubled its efforts to settle in order to avoid the possibility of a triple whammy jury award.
That's a great example BC.
Feeks, in terms of volume, the caltech suit dwarfs this one. However, it is not tech that added as much value/margin as ours does to QDTVs IMO.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/after-winning-1-bln-apple-case-caltech-sues-samsung-over-same-patents-2021-12-03/
That calculation is misleading poppy****.
I am not aware of any jury award in a patent case where the infringer dominated with a 90% share of the world market (and with several years' worth of sales) in a high margin / premium product.
I would love to see something close to that for comparison but I doubt it exists, or else we would all know about it. If Nancoco wins this will be the case everyone talks about.
Nanoco's claim in the East Texas Court is for US sales only, not global sales.
26m Globally since the start x 3 for wilful infringement + another 26m for the next 5 years = 104m units.
104m units x $15 (avg licence) = $1.5bn. Assuming a mid license fee, and assuming a global settlement, which equates to approx, $5 per share.....ish........
25 million US? I dont think that is right.
It seems both on here and on the ADVFN board, posters seem fixated on past damages. I'm personally more interested on future payments, as I believe that will largely dictate the value of the company going forwards.
If we take the figure I believe Edison are quoting of around $13-18 per set, with 10m + QLED sets per annum plus up to 1m QD OLED sets which use around five times the dots, you're talking hundreds of millions in potential royalties every year. Any other non-display products on top, and then there is the issue of what tech other QD companies are using to supply other companies.
Feeks I agree with what you say, but to be honest it's really not mysterious. it's all in the annual results, where Nanoco say they will ask for damages based on the whole TV, and failing that the QD uplift.
It doesn't take much research to work out that could be over $200 per TV. Multiply $200 by the US total sales of around 25 million and add a 1.5 multiplier and you get a ridiculously large figure.
I've asked for technical criticism of this calculation, but have only got (1) that's way higher than the record award, and (2) you think the market could be so wrong?
Those are psychological, not technical arguments. No-one thought the sub-prime market would collapse in 2008. You can get massive blind spots in the market.
I am with you to a point BeContrarian, but these passages of the Jury instructions brought it back home to me:
"In a moment, each of you are going to be given a juror notebook, and in the back of that notebook, you’re going to find a legal pad that you can use to take notes on if you choose to throughout the course of the trial. It will be up to each of you to decide whether or not you want to take notes about the witnesses or anything else regarding the trial and how detailed you want those notes to be if you decide to take notes. But, remember, those notes are for your own personal use. You still have to rely on your memory of the evidence, which is why you should be paying close attention to the testimony of each and every witness. "
"And, as I've mentioned, in the back, you'll find a legal pad for note-taking. And in the front pocket, you should find both a highlighter and a pen that you can use for those purposes, as well. Each of these notebooks are just the same. I would suggest that in the front cover, you write your name so you make sure that you keep yours, and don’t get it confused with anybody else’s, and they don’t need to be passed around by you. "
Hi restorer - exactly - that too was my point the other day. The invalidity grounds they have raised certainly could have been raised ages ago so I really cannot fathom how it seems to be in play?
"Even in the extremely unlikely case that none of Samsung’s IPRs ultimately result in the cancellation of any asserted claims, this case will still be simplified because Samsung will be stopped from re-arguing invalidity to the jury based on grounds raised, or that could reasonably have been raised,at the PTAB."