Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video 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.
Very helpful for sure. On Bad Faith/usually restricted to the date of notice, Hargreaves notes ‘In the lawsuit, Nanoco alleged that each of the defendants had "wilfully infringed" its patents’ I guess “wilfully infringed” is Bad Faith? Nanoco were naive on Samsung and US companies and how these biz behave - as described in IP ramblings on the limits of IPs. Glad they got real at last.
"This story might even make a great movie--"The Samsung Syndrome"."
If Nanoco give them a haircut it'll be Samsung and Delilah?
You really are troublesome. Funny!
Love it amerloque
Their core was always a bit fragile and the fallout might prove devastating for them as a result.
Watch the trailer on the big 8K QD-LED screen.
BoL
Thank you, IP-man, for the clarification. If Samsung is smart, they will want to avoid the huge PR hit of robbing and consequently destroying a small company that has fought so hard to provide viable alternatives to cadmium while most others were placing commercial and personal greed above the interests of the planet and its people. Boycotts can be very costly. This story might even make a great movie--"The Samsung Syndrome".
How long is the defendant (Samsung) allowed to file a defence or raise an objection ?
Seems its 15 days in China - below are some possible defence pleas :-
https://www.managingip.com/Article/3795601/Tips-for-defendants-in-patent-infringement-cases.html
It is good to have an insight of someone involved in Intellectual Property IP man so thank you for posting.
If NANO is successful in Texas, it will be because it successfully has demonstrated that IP has been infringed. Lessons learned in that action would help inform the right arguments to win in other jurisdictions and receive whatever damages and costs the courts would award, I would expect? Samsung would continue to market products that rely on the same infringements (if that is what they are) worldwide until NANO was able to make it too uncomfortable to do business.
Can you help answers this question. If the court also made an award for losses incurred to the point of the decision, would it also be possible for it to place an injunction that prevented Samsung selling such products in the US for the balance of each Patents lifespan of at least a lengthy period. If it were that would be a powerful tool but if not I wonder what disincentive there is to prevent the poserful, like Samsung, from taking what they want?
Thanks for clearing some of the smoke IP_man.
IP MAN thank you very kindly for all that learned knowledge around IP infringements, most generous of you to share all that sir.
GLA
Hey all you guys, been following the chat for a while now and I've got a wee bit of Nanoco Shares... a really wee bit. However, I've been troubled by the vast speculations around the patent infringement front and thought I'll provide some basic Patent knowledge. I am a IP professional based in the UK, not far from the birthplace of Nanoco.
1. People usually go to the Eastern District of Texas court for litigation as this is known to be a patentee friendly court.
2. Judgements by a US federal court (as above) are only binding on US courts and not any other jurisdictions. This plays along with how patents works.
3. Patents are territorial in effect and are only relevant to the territory in which they are granted. You cannot, with exception of the Importing bit, infringe an American Patent in say, China.
4. 2 and 3 mean that if the alleged infringer is found to be infringing on one or more of those patents listed (which are all US patents, you will see), any judgements and damages are only relevant to products;
a. manufactured in the US
b. sold or offered for sale in the US
c. imported into the US ( i think there is a bit of extra territorial power that kicks in here, being the US and bigger navy diplomacy)
d. used in the US.
5. 2 and 3 also mean that courts elsewhere, say European countries, UK, etc. are not bound by the US judgement and will judge any future cases on its own merit as per their national patent law. European countries interpret things rather differently to the US and also, patent claim scopes are also different across countries. Again, their is no unified EU law when it comes to patents (just yet), so they will have to sue in more or less each and every country they wish to claim damages in.
6. Now, a US win for the claimant can put the defendant in a tricky place, because he may not be able to produce different products for different markets, so they may seek a licence in all patented countries.
7. Unless there is bad faith, say the alleged infringer had good reason to know about the claim scope of the US patents, damages are usually restricted to the date of Notice. Just saying. Also, this is how things usually work in the UK and I wont say much about EDT law. However, a company with the IP specialism of Samsung will usually know what patents they infringe. They do have huge IP departments and external counsel that do the work.
8. All this is quite common. The defendant may feel that the costs of litigation and likelihood of winning are not favourable enough, so may opt very easily for Alternate dispute resolution. They may buy the Claimant off, or get an Exclusive licence with back costs paid, etc. The options are limitless.
These are just based on my work knowledge. These are free ramblings and not professional advice or recommendations. it is not for likes of (you and) me to ponder on the workings for Samsung and Nanoco. Please carry out your own DD or get your own legal advice before investing.