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.
Far more communictions between the parties from their six year collaborative working relationship, not to mention the NDA(s).
Not sure, that’s from the PTAB filings “EXHIBIT 2016”. But surely they’re going to run though the background on why/how Nanoco came involved with Samsung.
Amazing, thanks Morbox.
Do we know if this has been submitted to evidence?
Feeks, I had a copy on my notes:
Dear Nigel, Greetings,
I am a research scientist in Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology.
And, I believe that we have met before when you gave us a lecture at our place.
Dr. Byoungryong Choi forwarded me your mail after he came back from quantum dot conference. Since I have been involved in quantum dot research project, I understand your concern.
Samsung business units have their own position to handle new types of materials, and there are many matured technologies supplied to them for initial free test.
As a central research unit in Samsung, we are interested in developmet of new technologies.
We are currently interested in color converting material from blue to red, and blue to green with high efficiency. Since Cd is one of the most limited materials in industry, we try to find more environmentally friendly material. From literature suvery, we know it might be possible to produce some III-V semiconductor nanocrystals. However, they still need improvement in efficiency and stability.
We are interested in your Cd-free quantum dots, and would like to know the status of your developmet project. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Eunjoo
Eunjoo Jang
Senior Research Staff Member, Ph.D. ------------------------------------------
Display Emission Material Project Team Saumsung Advanced Institute of Technology
Ps. Someone ought to post copy of "that email" again, as not everyone who is now invested will be aware of it. When all is said and done, after counsel for both sides have waxrd lyrical to the jury with their highly technical legal arguments about the strength of the evidence in this case, it is likely to be somehing that will reasonate very strongly with a jury of lay people above all others. They will be struck by the significance of the fact that several years ago Samsung went cap in hand to Nanoco asking for its help how to make Cad free quantum dots because it was important to Samsung to do it but they could not have done it themselves.
Interesting to see that N have narrowed it down to 3 of the 5 patents. Also that there is a residual validity ground - that's a bit surprising as it seems to be a simple argument that could have been raised before, and hence I don't see how it is not excluded.
Hi JBongo, it because docket 227 is and joint submission. 227. 08/09/2022SEALED PATENT DOCUMENT. Joint Submission of Jury Materials
In some ways they're more interesting than the final outcome because they show the battlegrounds being staked out. It's interesting to compare the two competing versions of arguments.
Oh, I must take care to read more thoroughly.
Why would Nano include statements by Samsung that they disagree with in their proposed instructions?
Yes, as proposed by Nanoco.
I read that one as being what judge Gilstrap would advise jurors before proceedings?
These are instructions as proposed by Nanoco. They are not the final Court issued instructions.
"apart from another leg " ??
Doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on !
Groan...
Interesting read Hellojello. Thanks. It seems a lot more real now I've read that document.
Samsung don't seem to understand the table example very well. The judge says that the table can have other aspects that what is claimed in the patent. Samsung then say "apart from another leg". Seems at odds with what the judge is saying
The notes from the judge make it sound like the issue of validity can still be argued by Samsung as well (although I'm sure they agreed to be bound by the PTAB result). He doesn't mention the PTAB in the jury instructions, so it will be up to our lawyers to put that to bed early on
The attachment.
238?
Just had a quick look through Docket 238: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038 which has just been released to non-payers. See the Attachments.
It contains draft instructions to the jury, and is very interesting as a case summary. I've only looked briefly so far - a job for the evening - but I've already spotted one glaring inconsistency in the Samsung text. I won't specify it here (and recommend others are equally circumspect), for obvious reasons, but if this is Samsung's A Game, they really need to up it...