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.
' All things being equal '
Lol - That would only give us a 50 % chance of being succesful !!
I think it’s also important to appreciate how good a job Mintz are doing. Naturally we feel worried and nervous, Samsung have arguably the best legal representation that money can buy and that can easily lead to some wondering what they have rolled up their sleeves. But I should imagine there are very very few scenarios that Mintz have not already legislated for and have answers to. The PTAB proved just how ‘in’ this case they are. They’ve done their homework.
Something I’ve come around to thinking that tips the balance even more in favour of settlement than I originally thought is that even with a massive court award in Texas, that wouldn’t necessarily be the end for Samsung as other territories would become the next chapter. The only way to assure this all goes away for good is an agreement.
Cool heads and patience is needed. If investing has taught me anything it’s that you can never rule out a black swan event. Nano have had a few of those in their time. But all things being equal things should go better for us this time.
Sorry Hawi, but on this point Nigs is corect. Every individual case has a different probability of being settled due to it’s own peculiarities. The probability for the individual case is impossible to know. Your 83% overall probability of settlement is based on all cases. It is measured at 83% based on the empirical evidence, and this is an estimate for the average over all individual probabilities. However it cannot be deduced that the individual probability for Nanoco is 83%. Nanocos probability is based on the complexity of the case. You would be better off looking for the % settled out of all of Samsung’s cases, or better than that restrict it to the Samsung cases where the plaintiff has already won the PTAB. A small sample no doubt.
My most recent post was a reference to research on Trial Date July 25, 2022: file notice of request for daily transcript or real time reporting.
Thanks, Sunshine. I imagine they will use realtime transcription/reporting:
indreporters.com/benefits-of-realtime-court-reporting-services/
"What are the benefits of realtime reporting? ...Instant Access to the Transcript"
It seems likely that the party with the best case and better off-site experts could dominate over the pure garbage spouted by Samsung.
"During the discovery, trial, hearing or arbitration, counsel can view the transcript instantly on a laptop or tablet and follow along during the deposition/trial. This allows for efficient questioning of the witness and the ability to review any previous questions/answers/testimony given if needed.
While viewing the live transcript immediately as it is being taken down, counsel, board members, or the presiding judge can better know if they need to ask follow-up questions or further questions on earlier testimony."
"Sometimes having a large team on-site is impractical. With internet access from the main proceeding room, IR can provide remote access to co-counsel, paralegals, support staff or expert witnesses to participate from their own office. The remote text stream can be text-only or we can also add streaming video and audio."
Feeks, the reference to PTAB was pretty late in the day, almost too late to delay the trial. It might be said to have been perfectly timed to achieve delay. Appeal of the PTAB decision had to be made within a certain time period, so not much scope for delay there. My gut feling is they do seek as much delay as possible, as most litigants who are not confident of the outcome do, in the hope something will turn up, a financial rock to sink the plaintiff, the litigation funder becoming tired of waiting, a new research discovery so they can cease using the disputed tech before having to pay a licence fee, etc.
But as we cannot influence anything, so we wait and see and trust our team to foil their schemes.
Gonna get busy now .. Alaot to get thorugh over the next 4 weeks - unless anything changes - only 9 weeks to trial
next deadlines: (thanks to HAWI)
- July 14, 2022: serve pretrial disclosures (witness list, deposition designations, exhibit list
- July 21, 2022: serve objections to pretrial disclosures
- July 25, 2022: file notice of request for daily transcript or real time reporting
- July 28, 2022: serve objections to rebuttal pretrial disclosures, file motions in limine
- August 9, 2022: File joint pretrial or (joint proposed jury instructions, joint proposed verdict form responses to motions in limine, updated exhibit lists, updated witness lists...)
- August 12, 2022: notify court of agreements reaching during meet and confer: parties are ordered to meet and confer on outstanding objections and shall advice the court of any agreements reached latest by 1 pm
- August 15, 2022: if a juror questionnaire is to be used, an editable questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the deputy clerk in charge
- August 18, 2022: pretrial conference: August 18: 8 at 10.30 am and August 19: 9 am before Judge Gilstrap
- September 12, 2022: Jury selection 9 am and show time!
Also worth remembering as we get closer to the court case the share price will move higher to reflect chances of an outright win in court.Would suggest they will be nearer recent high of 47 p
Just wondered if there was a common reason why 17% of cases ended up in court i.e. an out of court settlement could not be reached.
Of course if the correct conclusions can be drawn from statistics there isn't a problem and it makes it much easier for the truth to be arrived at.
Lets hope for the best given the present circumstances.
Incorrect. The document you are referring to is Nanoco's proposed Court Order.
Has anyone else read document 173? It seems to say that Samsung's motion for reconsideration of the courts' claim construction,the only claim I'm aware of samsung challenging was the definition of MCC's,was denied by the judge on 6/7. Document 173 states it is in reference to document 84 which is part of the Markman construction verdict.
I know some here were worried that this may have seriously damaged nano's case if Samsung had been successful.
Spot on Hawi.
Isn't the simple point here that the stats show the vast majority of cases settle. That's an undisputed fact and it takes account of cases of all different kinds. The reason cases (of all kinds) generally settle is the weight of litigation risk on both sides, and hence, the pressure to compromise before trial. The same factors are present here. For both sides, nothing is guaranteed and so like every other case it is more likely to settle than not.
One final observation, especially to those who believe Samsung is solely intent on dragging things out for as long as possible, at all costs. Samsung did not delay its petition to PTAB, or submission of its appeal, so the evidence speaks otherwise.
Statistics are much like a drunk uses a lampost for support, not illumination.
Each case should be judged on its individual and unique merits.
Nigwit it is abundantly clear that you are scarred by nanoco’s past, your own investing past, or both. It would be more helpful if you could simply admit this, rather than trying to project your naturally pessimistic bent as having some basis in fact when it is abundantly clear that in this specific case it does not.
The facts are correct.
Lets hope they lead to the truth.
People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe.
Rather than a full hearing, maybe it’s a red herring! ;-)
Gimme, is this a response to the request to change the definition of a MMC?
Nano response Attachment contain the following.
AN INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.
OVERVIEW OF NANOPARTICLE SYNTHESIS METHODS (about 10 Pieces of evidence ref)
PRPOPOSED GROUND FOR REJECTION (About 12 referenced QD Therum documents)
THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS OF PROVING CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
CONCLUSION (cant be seen)
TABLE OF AUTHORITES (Legal Case studies and PTAB Cases)
Agree - but unusually you can open the attachment with the response - quoting their head line - technical arguments and referenced case studies .. only the titles with defence but there’s a lot in there ..
They are just the attachments I believe, and not the full text setting out Nanoco's argument.
If you click on attahcments - look like the full responce is accessible (barring the attached eveidence, ive cutnpaste it into work but wouldnt post it..seem that Samsung are thriwing all efforts into stopping the trial and Nanco have a long detailed responce why the judge shouldnt ..
Does anyone have access to Nanoco's full response to Samsung's motion for reconsideration re [84]?