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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Samsung will use every tactic possible, especially the proposed $17B plant in Texas, to overturn the PTAB final decision and any eventual Texas court decision. The Samsung CEO just met with failing President Biden at the plant being used as the model for the Texas facility. This is no coincidence.
I very much doubt any real consideration was given at Samsung whether to appeal or not, it will be the standard operating procedure irrespective of the merits, if the relatively junior executive dealing with this minor (for Samsung) piece of litigation had not lodged an appeal he would likely have faced difficult questions from his superiors.
So far as the trial is concerned, am I correct the jury decide on infringement, the judge then fixes the damages figure, or do the jury also set the damages figure? If so does the judge set the uplift?
No amount of guilt can change the past and no amount of worrying can change the future. Every guilty person is his own hangman. IMO - There's nothing to fear investing here - it's just things moving closer to the truth.
Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster. I am long a modest amount in NANO but tempted to extend that position. I am optimistic with regards to both the Samsung case and the more general commercial prospects of the company, either of which could justify a significant increase in value. Re Samsung my main reservation is around the jury trial. I note that it is limited to 5 days which I regard as a positive but remain skeptical around the presentation of potentially complicated arguments to a jury, and the fact that the trial is due to take place in Texas where I understand Samsung are building a new plant. I would welcome people's perspectives on this...??
I don’t think this is material. It’s just an effete delaying and negotiating tactic that won’t amuse Judge Gilstrap. Once he’s awarded damages later in the year Samsung will appeal them anyway and they’ll also apply for, and likely get, a stay of execution pending the outcome of that appeal. The PTAB appeal will be decided before the court appeal so it’s not on the critical path to payment of damages.
Nanoco’s response should now be to up the ante again by instituting proceedings in other jurisdictions where they can obtain an injunction since this will focus Samsung’s collective mind on realistic discussions.
Can't envisage Samsung gaining any extra stay on the trial date. The judge was none too impressed at delaying proceedings last time, with 47-0 verdict at the PTAB, there's little justification in delaying further regardless of any appeals.
As ‘expected’ as expected gets, and fair play to Samsung for at least not waiting until the very last day to appeal it and drag things out even more. Looking at it from their angle the show really is over if they don’t appeal, but 47-0 is a forlorn hope, I just can’t see them overturning much, if any.
Could this provide a little pull back? The price action from PTAB was so muted I really doubt it, but if it does I’ll be adding again.
I’m quite relaxed about it now the initial decision of the PTAB was in our favour. Mintz know the play book as they do the same. It’s like Chess, getting the pieces in the correct place. S failed on the 1st and 2nd move, hopefully the court case will be taken forward and they will fail on the 3rd move. A long way from checkmate, but happy to hold and add if the price is right!
This is a good resource to view other cases that are in appeal, decisions come as “ Affirmed”, “ Affirmed-in-Part” and the worrying one “Reversed”. If I get time today I’ll have a look at some S cases that they’ve already had an appeal decision.
It's a bit better than that Hawi. S has to go into the trial in Oct/Nov without being able to question validity on the same invalidity grounds or anything it could have reasonably raised at PTAB and that doesn't alter by appealing the PTAB verdict. The submissions around Fintiv essentially cover this (it was agreed between S and N that this was the basis for a stay in the trial and I believe tbe point is backed up in judge-made law were it not for the unequivocal agreement between the parties as that issue is raised too). The way I would assess it now - but DYOR - is that S will desperately need to succeed in putting the trial date back - but that it will fail in that mission - and we will know this very soon. That will leave S weak at trial and so ultimately it will need to win a lot of ground on PTAB appeal just to stand any chance with an appeal against a trial result in N's favour. I'll be happier if we get a trial result rather than a settlement as N has nothing to fear and it will give visibility to N's losses, finally.
No one will probably seriously believe that a majority of the 47 claims will suddenly be declared invalid. It would present the PTAB as incompetent. Nanoco will now select the 5 claims that are completely undisputed and use them in the court process. It's actually a pretty straightforward game when you have 47 players and you can pick your top 5. Nevertheless, the jury now has to be convinced. The best players won't do you any good if the team isn't well managed. But fortunately we also have an excellent team. Mintz knows what it's doing. I'm watching the whole thing with great interest. The match David versus Goliath is more even than many ever dreamed of.
Probably none of us seriously expected that Samsung would not appeal. Samsung had to appeal otherwise any legal process would be absurd. Samsung also knows it won't get away with it. But S can use it to argue in court that it has appealed against the decision of the PTAB and that the decision is still outstanding. The trial is in the fall. The appeal process now lasts about a year, well beyond the court process. It won't change the outcome, but Samsung doesn't care. It has an argument for the court case. No more and no less. However, they will also probably lose the court case and appeal against it. However, Nanoco's legal team will not simply stand by and watch. They will position their weapons as well. Maybe a sales ban in other areas like Europe? Will be exciting the next few months.
Good that the process is gathering momentum, let's get on with it! I wonder if Samsung could sneakily use the opportunity to introduce something they can use at the trial, i.e. some actual justification for thinking the patents were not valid, and not mentioning that to the owners, rather than the feeble BS they have come up with so far
It might come as a shock to a few on the ADVFN board judging by some of their comments over past few weeks. It only made sense for S to appeal regardless of the merits and whether or not S intends to go into the trial
I suppose it was inevitable, not least because they will want the stay on the court case to be maintained and if they did not appeal what reason could they give. I don't really understand how it's so easy to appeal the ptab process. Just say they did not consider it properly and that's it?