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.
83 final result same result Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
The last two still not published, but signing off for tonight. See you here tomorrow 7:00 RNS and 8:00 opening. Cheers to everyone.
Now all flagged as “final decision” just need to wait for the documents ffs.
What an amazing day. I won’t regale your with my take of woe but also some really promising news with my SNG investment.
The nerves were jangling here but a small band of us were absolutely convinced from the get go. Im so pleased to see justice served.
Early days but absolutely pivotal news today. Well done all. I shall enjoy a drink tonight and will raise one to us all!
Samsung's defence is the patents were not valid. By adopting that defence they are admitting they have infringed the patents. Therefore Patents deemed valid equals Samsung are guilty.
Me too. I can barely contain my excitement and relief. We do of course still await the trial itself, but whilst it is always sensible to be cautious this court result really does represent a milestone moment which ought to see a huge turnaround in Nanoco's fortunes from here. The PTAB hurdle presented a very serious risk to Nanoco being eventually successful. It is a victory of epic proportions and all the pressure is now on Samsung.
Thanks Feeks, I’m so glad that the three that have been published are “clean” wins and not split.
I wonder when the 14 days start? After all are published or the first one is published. I still think they’ll come tonight.
Morbox - let's not forget they have until COB on Thursday so perhaps the other decisions are more nuanced split decisions. To win the other two would truly be the icing on the cake because this news is already momentous enough. Thank you for keeping us all updated and good luck and well done to all loyal shareholders who will now be rewarded handsomely.
I’m very surprised as I’ve been following other cases to see which database was the best at reporting and every other cases I’ve seen, all get published together. Maybe it’s from another office doing the paperwork!
I wonder if Samsung may have won the other two, or they're split decisions and that's why they're being published separately? Hope not and there's some other reason for the separation
Yep,no split decisions. Just wondering why the other two aren’t published, but hey we only needed one ;-)
So, what's the overall - 3 published, 3 wins?
I know, that’s great, A bit of a white wash (pun intended)
Ok, I am in now. Lo and behold, even the 0068 "Emulsion" patent is a success:
Conclusion
Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’068 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Dubrow and Nelson.
Hmm, you should see these 5 records and 2 old ones. What browser are you using
IPR2021-00182
11/09/2020
05/19/2021
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
14460008
9680068
1700
Nanoco Technologies Ltd.
Final Written Decision
IPR2021-00183
11/09/2020
05/19/2021
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
11852748
7588828
1700
Nanoco Technologies Ltd.
Trial Instituted
IPR2021-00184
11/09/2020
05/19/2021
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
11579050
7803423
1700
Nanoco Technologies Ltd.
Trial Instituted
IPR2021-00185
11/09/2020
05/19/2021
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
11997973
7867557
1700
Nanoco Technologies Ltd.
Final Written Decision
IPR2021-00186
11/09/2020
05/19/2021
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
13267532
8524365
1700
Nanoco Technologies Ltd.
Final Written Decision
Type Nanoco into the “Party Name” field and do I’m not a robot
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
I've not found one....!
Have you found them Feeks, only 3 out of 5 published.
2 old 5 Samsung
Hi Morbox - I've done that but nothing showing on my screen apart from the 7 old cases.... !?
Feeks
Type Nanoco into the “Party Name” field and do I’m not a robot
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
I cannot find this yet... but sounds like GREAT news!!!!
Wow! Fantastic news. A major step forward in the success of Nanoco's case. Let's hope for a big jump in the SP tomorrow and congrats to all holders.
Here is a copy and paste from the end of the document for 186:
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that any challenged claim is unpatentable
based on any challenge stated in the Petition.
It is
ORDERED that claims 1–23 of the ’365 patent have not been proven
unpatentable on this record; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
Thanks
Good NEWS Hope tomorrow Nanoco price above 70 p
IPR2021-00185
All in Nanoco’ favour
It is
VI. ORDER
ORDERED that claims 1–6, 16, and 17 of the ’557 patent have not been proven unpatentable on this record; and