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.
Lobo. Do you consider the fact that NANO has not not modified any claims might flow from the ‘pressure testing’ Mike Edelman identified was undertaken, prior to the Third Party funder’s decision to take this case? If so, the absence of change might simply reflect meticulous planning and continued faith in both NANO’s claims and the nature of Samsung’s infringements?
There is likely more to this change of direction than meets the eye, as you suggest. However, if the IPR does not go Samsung’s way (as we hope), what substantive points would remain to be determined by jury trial, other than For example ‘wilful’ infringement? In event of a favourable Patent Board decision, are you aware of any circumstances that might allow Judge Gilstrap to rule on the balance of points without need for a full jury trial, hence shortening the determination process?
If Samsung is in discussion regarding a settlement that would of course be good news, but is it not more likely they would avoid engaging until the point their case has (hopefully) unraveled in the Patent Board review?
Thanks again for sharing your views on the Board - it is clear others appreciate your input as much as I do.
My past research showed that Nanoco would not have to grant licenses to a competitor. Samsung has certainly been a competitor who cannot be trusted. Samsung could source quantum dots from Nanoco, Dow/Dupont or other licensed company.
Having read all the recent posts,I suspect that this stay was inevitable from a legal perspective.
As Tenner said, we have to win PTAB and in Texas.
There is no point in winning in Texas in October and then PTAB subsequently (potentially) pulling the rug from under us and then a retrial as a result.
The upside to all this is that Samsung have now banked everything on PTAB as they have rescinded the right to challenge patent legitimacy in the Texas court which as far as I am aware was their only defence.
Anyone have a timeframe for the PTAB's decision?
Lobo please keep scything through the legalese for us laymen please.
Re the suggestion that Nanoco are hinting at self sufficiency at last, i think that may be premature.
Although the STmicro contract appears to be progressing as planned, we're still at Phase two of the contract. However we should know before too long where we stand with projected revenue from that contract as the next phase should kick in towards the end of this year, fingers crossed.
NIDGM; I think nano would have to offer Samsung a license under FRAND legislation that would be fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory so as to allow competition between companies downstream of itself. Personally I would like nothing more than to see Samsung absolutely hammered with a licensing agreement it would have to accept in order to compete with its market rivals but I think we will have to rely on the courts in that respect.
Personally,like BeContrarian, I am leaning towards the view that by agreeing to something which at first glance appears to disadvantage them, nano appear to be in the driving seat at the moment. I'm hopefull that ddubya's insightful point below may be the reason why.
Thanks to Lobo for the always appreciated points he always brings and thanks to all posters on this board. I watch many boards and have yet to see one which matches this one for its quality and insight no matter the SP.
I wonder if this development is also intended to send a message to Samsung that NANO's circumstances have changed and it is not afraid of the 'long' it at least longer game, and hinting it may have other at least one income stream to see it through the balance of litigation and appeals?
To clarify: the beginning of the end of this whole legal saga (in a good way) not the end of Nano!
Brilliant analysis as ever Lobo, many many thanks. Thanks to all contributors today.
My first (layman’s) reaction to the docket is that you have Nano steamrolling towards trial and then, all of a sudden, agreeing to a stay. Clearly something fundamental has shifted behind the scenes: whether that be strategy or talks between the two parties.
Either way the ball was very much in nano’s court regarding a stay and therefore, as I see it, clearly to their benefit somehow. Precisely what that might be is yet to be discovered but a settlement would be great news.
It may be another twist in what’s been a right rollercoaster, or, dare I say it, beginning of the end.
Remaining cautiously optimistic as ever.
A question, perhaps stupid. Could Nanoco, if it were to win in court/PTAB, could it decide not to give Samsung a licence to use the patents? Could the possibility/threat of this be used to bring Samsung to a settlement? I recall reading that Samsung may even try to argue the licence costs in a Chinese court.
Serious question, thanks.
Hawi,
You could also be right. I had the same initial thoughts this morning, but I am not hear to sell dreams or pump a stock. Yeah, maybe Samsung and Nanoco looked at the IPR decisions and saw how balanced they were and then Samsung said 'heck, we are going to lose on at least some of these asserted claims and we will then definitely lose in front of a jury, so let's convince Nanoco to stay this and iron out a global settlement'.
It was odd for Nanoco to file replies to the original motion to stay and then go back a week later to the judge and say 'Hey, we won't be prejudiced by a stay'. Both sides also agreed as part of this motion that they can no longer depose witnesses or pursue any further fact discovery, so I believe all previous challenges are moot, such as the claim construction challenges, but I would need to check further on that.
I am of the view that Nanoco believes, we aren't going to get paid by Samsung on a first instance judgement in the EDTX, certainly not without an appeal, and definitely not without the IPR process completing, so we might as well simplify this and let Samsung hang themselves at the PTAB before trial.
I will start to follow the PTAB proceedings more closely. Our three judges are:
Christopher M. Kaiser (Former Kirkland & Ellis IP litigation partner)
Erica A. Franklin (Not a whole lot written about her)
Grace K. Obermann (Trump appointee for the Federal claims court)
I have been looking through some of their decisions and track record, all look well balanced so far.
The simpler the case put in front of a jury the better. Nanocos prospects on the patent case appear very good. If they win that has to influence the jury. And Samsung have undertaken not to reopen the patent issues. The case remains a gamble. But, in my view, a very good one. The handling will be decided by the lawyers and financiers of the case rather than Nanoco.
Yes - it is hard to see a near term pop in the share price that is related to the litigation proceedings, so we will need to wait. For companies in a similar positions, there is usually a run up in the share price ahead of trial or an arbitration outcome, led by short term punters. I don't think there is a huge amount of that type of money in this name at the moment but I could be wrong.
You guys know much more about the organic side of the business then I do and I follow your lead on the STMicro front.
Also, one other point. Do not disregard that as the case narrows through the IPR proceedings this can also drive settlement - IPRs are regularly withdrawn and settled. Keep in mind that if Samsung fall here, their experts can be struck from the civil case in relation to all claims and they are purely relying on experts to back their invalidation argument. It is a high stakes game, no doubt.
Thanks for the insight Lobo.
No doubt Mintz considers a joint motion to Stay is of benefit to NANO’s case and represents the best available course of action. Perhaps Mintz feel that Samsung will receive short thrift in the IPR review, which will demonstrate to jurors that Samsung has been playing foul all along?
I can’t see it will help the near term SP at all, which is a little disappointing, but then we could receive ST Micro news to provide cheer between now and the court case?
In Mintz we trust.
Sorry Ecclescake, I don't quite understand what you mean. The burden to prove the infringement would be on Nanoco, not Samsung.
The motion to compel is under seal, so we won't know what it relates to. It could be info related to many different things; info that Nanoco deems to be privileged, info showing Nanoco delayed to file (knew they were infringing or should have put on notice earlier), info trying to show Nanoco knew there is prior art in some of the patents, etc, etc, etc. We don't know and won't ever know.
Samsung's outstanding motion may have been asking Nanoco to produce information regarding the wilful infringement aspect. If the prove the infringement of the patent the next step would have been to tackle the wilful aspect.
Hi all,
This one comes as a surprise to me and it will be interesting to see what we get from an RNS but I have provided my initial views below.
Samsung and Nanoco have filed a joint motion to stay the case until IPRs are completed next year and I suspect it will be granted. I don't see any reason why Gilstrap would deny such a motion. I am trying to read the tea leaves as to why Nanoco would have changed stance in agreeing to stay the proceedings. Fact and expert discovery is closed and aside from Samsung's outstanding motion to compel Nanoco to produce information - we don't know what the exact information is - and updating financial information for alleged infringed products, we were on to pre-trial motions. When you consider what Gilstrap's track record is like when it comes to staying cases that are so near to trial where patents are subject to IPR, there is little doubt that we would have gone to court in October.
One important point from a legal strategy perspective is that is that in the IPR petitions, Samsung said that if the IPRs are instituted, they wouldn't then try to invalidate the patents in district court based on the same grounds raised at the board or grounds that it reasonably could have raised. Putting this more simply, this means Samsung is bound by stipulation not to argue invalidity if the PTAB says the patents or asserted claims are patentable. Samsung would have otherwise argued invalidity at trial, this was always there plan as we know, but they won't have this option if they lose at the PTAB. In gambling terms, Samsung are putting all their chips on black at the PTAB - they have gone all in.
This will all have the effect of simplifying the case and making sure a judgement holds if and when we get one. If Samsung cannot argue invalidity - although they can still appeal the IPR decisions - then any claims we assert that are found to be patentable are highly likely to bring us a judgement. What is quite peculiar about this case so far is that we have not modified any of our claims, either individual assert claims or specific patents, as the case has gone on. On one hand, that is not surprising because producing quantum dots is a chemistry process and the patents (and individual claims) are linked, but on the other it is because usually these cases get narrowed.
Keep in mind that if we were awarded damages on any claims which were later found to be unpatentable, I imagine we would likely end up with a retrial, so from our side we also want to see the path to a judgement streamlined via the IPR process.
I can only guess as to what is going on and why, but there must be more to this. We probably won't get a whole lot from management on the change in tack for obvious (confidentiality and privilege) reasons. What Brian Tenner has said all along is that we need to win at the district court level and at the PTAB and he is right.
That should’ve read example not definition
The definition looks rather good also.
Examples of Joint Motion in a sentence
Within two (2) business days of any the following documents being filed, the Settlement Website will also be updated to include copies of the Named Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, Named Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Award, any motion filed by Defendants seeking reimbursement for costs , all notices and memoranda and exhibits submitted in support of the Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval, and any further Orders issued by the Court, including any Final Approval Order and Judgment.
It does sound rather promising, but as someone has already said will wait for the confirmation from lobo87.
I found this be law which gives a definition
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/joint-motion
I can only see nano agreeing to something beneficial to the company, especially given what we have seen regarding the strength of their case. Although given Samsung's track record a settlement negotiation may end up being strung out to as long as a court case would take. I'm sure Mintz have this all in hand though. On the balance of probability this looks promising...
Maybe some form of settlement being discussed?
Docket update overnight, 06/24/2021Joint MOTION to Stay by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
You can read the attachment (proposed text?), it states that it’s a “Joint motion” but usually the text would state both parties, hmm. I think another one for lobo. One again we really appreciate your input.
Samsung tried a similar tactic with Solas before their court case as well. It was denied "...Judge Gilstrap reminded that district courts “typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage, including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay will likely result in simplifying the case before the court.” He said that the motion for stay was not approved because the case is in an advanced stage, and a stay would prejudice Solas who has already taken a financial hit during the proceedings."-a quote from Gilstrap himself.
https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/intellectual-property/judge-blocks-ipr-stay-in-samsung-patent-case/
Nano could probably make the case that points 2 and 3 are fulfilled,I have no idea about point 1 but I can't see granting stay as being anything but negative to Nano (financially anyway).
The feedback I got was that Gilstrap rules pretty quickly on these things and its usually around 2 weeks (give or take) from the filing of the sur-reply (filed on 14th) to get a ruling. We should get something at some point next week.
I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything further on the Judge’s decision to stay proceedings or not.
I wonder when we will hear more on this?