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.
I see where you're going with that t, but I would have picked Maxwell Smart and Ironside.
Thank the Lord, I mean M'Lud - it was beginning to seem like a mix of Columbo and Perry Mason on here.
GLA
On page 10 exhibit 7 demonstrates a substantial likelihood that , at least defendants QLED TV,s. We’re made using nanoco’s patented process.
So that’s we’re that unverified statement came from,
Now it’s properly verified, great work gonebroke. That all now makes perfect legal sense.
GLA
Gonebroke that was kind of you to download that for all of us here, it makes for a great read to understand a lot of this case, brilliant sir. Thank you so much .
GLA
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00038/195566/1
Download the court filing
31. As Samsung explains, its premium TV sales have a “large business impact, accounting for 20 percent of sales revenue and 40 percent of profits.”
54. Nanoco has suffered and is continuing to suffer monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ past infringement, together with enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs
WE SAY A PRAYER FOR RELIEF! Amen
Trying to catch up here on latest developments. What are the odds i post about patent infringement on the Thurs last week and we get a lawsuit on the Monday. lol. Good find gonebroke.
M.E. said in April we believe big folks have stepped on our IP and are engaged with discussions with them. He also said Nanoco's QD's are better than the dots Samsung are able to produce internally...makes you wonder.
Would Samsung be uneasy about having to reveal their manufacturing processes? Just a thought?
I'm still waiting on any in front of my eyes proof from anyone, other than, I seen that, no links can be opened by me, and absolutely no one has as yet produced that proof right here and now, I'm not saying anyone now is wrong, I'm simply requesting the proof of what anyone is saying here, and no one has came up to that standard of proof as yet.
All that isn't a really that important now.
IP Man your post is most informative, and gives us all a detailed insight into what's required to proceed with a lawsuit. Thank you kindly for that information, it all makes perfect sense .
Our lawsuit probably will not proceed as I'm sure samsung will know it could kill it's chances of securing our takover, and putting a early stop to this fiasco for themselves, if they choose they could delay our case for 7 + years of they wanted, but time is not on there side, it's on ours, they either pay up very soon / FSP or China will own nanoco very shortly, that's my reasonable assessment of this pantomime..GLA
If we weren't up for sale , then the risk would go up for nanoco, and remember we have current tentative bid proposals already on the table for a takover, and I believe Samsung is one of these proposals, that's why they are at the moment sitting tight, one wrong move from them and it's goodbye to our 753 patents. And they still get a lawsuit to deal with, all this could be over with the correct offer from Samsung, I'm happy to wait a we while to secure this takeover.
GLA
Nanoco claim in the Factual Background (point 19) "the unique capability to scale up from lab to volume production".
I suppose they are essentially challenging Samsung to demonstrate in court that it is not unique. If Samsung are actually able to prove that, there would be no reason for delay?
It seems counter-intuitive that a defendant should be given the onerous task of proving a negative, but as you point out, IP-man, "Patents are negative rights." Takes a while to get your mind around that one. ( :
Yes. Civil litigation only needs 51% likelihood. And you can shift burden if a method claim is being infringed. You can open up a product off the market to see if its infringing a product claim, but its not that straight forward when a process claim is involved. A single patent can have 4 kinds of independant claims - process (or manufacture), apparatus, product and use claims. You can read the patents for free on patents.google.com and see how the claims are written.
Ah, I see IP_man, so what you're saying is that transferring the burden of proof is actually normal practise in a patent dispute, and the "substantial likelihood" is normal too, because, they have no way of knowing for certain? Thanks, that makes things much clearer.
Having a patent yourself is irrelevant. Patents are negative rights. It doesnt give you the right to do what is patented but only the right to stop others from using ur patented claims. For eg. A patentee of the bicycle can only stop others from making the bicycle. A guy who has a patent on the wheel can stop the bicycle manufacturer, despite the latter having a patent on bicycle manufacture. Its just a hypothetical example. But i hope u get the point.
So when a claimant has a patented a method, or has a method claim in the patents, then he can shift the burden to the defendant. This is because the patentee (nanoco) may not have access to the defendant's plants. In that case the defendant has to prove it isnt infringing. It would otherwise be unfair on claimant who has no access to a manufacturing plant.
I think what we all need to watch out for is, is Samsung filing a counterclaim for patent invalidity. Almost always in an infringement suit, the defendant files a counterclaim of patent invalidity. This means the patent is invalid due to novelty or inventive step issues etc, and that it should never have been granted. If this is filed, then until invalidity has been disproven, the infringement case cannot proceed. Well, except in German speaking countries (of which there are two), where it bifurcates. If the patents are declared invalid, infr8ngement case collapses. If samsung are interested in buying or licensing, then they may not risk burning a bridge they themselves hope to cross in the future.
Thanks IP_man, so the burden of proof IS normally on the claimant, yet Nanoco say in their court submission, part 89 for example: "the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on the Defendants, to the extent that they assert that it was not so made.". So just like I said, Nanoco are seeking to shift the burden of proof.
Also, Gonebroke was spot on with "substantial likelihood" and he deserves an apology for anyone doubting his word for no reason whatsoever.
Many thanks to balman for the link.
I could open it. ddubya and Gonebroke are correct in stating that the wording is "substantial likelihood" and that Nanoco are attempting to shift the burden of proof to Samsung...
Nanoco has made a reasonable effort to determine the process used by Defendants to produce, at least, QLED TVs containing Quantum Dots. Exhibit 7 demonstrates a substantial likelihood that, at least, Defendants’ QLED TVs were made using Nanoco’s patented process. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, at least, Defendants’ QLED TVs should be presumed to have been so made, and the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on Defendants, to the extent they assert that it was not so made.
In civil litigation, the standard of proof is "more likely than not" or "substantial likelihood". Basically you just have to prove that there is a 51% chance that infringement occurred. The standard of proof, "beyond reasonable doubt" applies only to criminal litigation. Patent infringement is a tort (civil) and not a crime. Also, the burden of proof is on the claimant and except in certain kinds of cases, the defendant doesnt have to in theory prove he is innocent. The claimant has the job of proving the defendants guilt.
I can't open any of these links at all !!!
If there's any other way of verifying what's been stated / likely/ substantial likelihood etc, I would be very much appreciative, but for now I will just stay with the PPE 11.36 posting, as that's the one I've read already, and that's directly from nanoco, but thank you all for trying.
GLA
Try this instead:
https://gofile.io/?c=2TM0OT
Posted the link at the same time, but paywall pops up again.
Google it and you can have access to the documents, at least first time round.
Try this link. Freely available on internet
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--20-cv-00038/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._et_al/1/
Here you go ladies and gents, no need to fight:
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--20-cv-00038/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._et_al/1/
So do those who have accused us of making things up think that Nanoco are accepting the burden of proof, and claiming with certainty that they can demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt? If so, what is your recollection of the court submission, in terms of the burden of proof, assuming you actually read it.
Gonebroke thank you for that sir, so what your saying is that you can't verify what you said,/ substantial likelihood, in that case wouldn't it be better going with what we can substantiate, as in nanoco's own statement below, in PPE LAST POST AT 11.36.
GLA