Scancell founder says the company is ready to commercialise novel medicines to counteract cancer. 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.
By no means is that certain! As much as NigWitty will leap on it and say I told you so, there is no chance Samsung won't be making some level of offers. I would view that as fighting talk by BT.
But today's news is fantastic. If our experts had been excluded that would have radically altered the picture.
Of course BT said "we're going to trial" - he's hardly going to say the trial is only a bluff!
With all these motion rejected, samsung hasn't got a leg to stand on, these idiots should just settle this ASAP to limit the damage, if its possible now
I can only see the SP start t tick upwards now as there is more chance of a positive outcome. The anyone want to by a Tenner for a couple of quid gang will all start to place their bets ........
See what I did there .......... ;o)
“The Judge Rejected the motion for Samsung to be allowed to kidnap Nanoco’s Lawyers on the way to court”
"The judge did however, accept a revised motion from Samsung for Nanoco lawyers to be given sleeping tablets during the trial."
Does anyone else feel a bit conned by the summary judgement of non-infringement? I'd have liked us to go to court with both red and green
NigWitty - you still don't know that and nor for the matter does BT. The Directors will surely not be tempted to cash in at a low price now given that almost every single part of the pre-trial litigation has fallen in their favour so far. I discussed things yesterday with a UK litigation partner for a top US firm who confirmed that, invariably, the propsect of a settlement is on the cards right up to the day of trial - it is an inherent part of the litigation process and he said cases may settle for all sorts of reasons.
In my view this case will undoubtedly settle if Samsung offer the right amount to justify Nanoco Directors not putting matters to the jury. But I'd be surprised if S's tactic to date was to offer more than a few tens of millions, whereas by now Nanoco must hold a minimum base level expectation of walking away with >$200m. The damages model can hardly produce any less.
That said, I think the Nanoco Direcors will reasonably think the litigation value is well over $1bn, and that they won't be inclined to settle for anything less. The ball is in Samsung's court as to whether they want to encounter the substantial risk of doing very much worse at trial than a $1bn damages award, and then negotiating down to settle from a worsening position.
For me, the most significant parts of today's update which give plenty of reasons for optimism of a big trial win or high value settlement are these:
1) Further comfirmation of the vital significance of the MMC order ruling in Nanoco's favour. As you know I pointed out the significance of this issue myself right from the start, and since you have repeatedly sought to query my motives please consider that I chose to inform the board of this point rather than keep that important information to myself. Go check my posting history.
2) Confirmation that Nanoco's damages experts will be able to speak to the higher economic damages models which will be explored at trial. That means if Nanco's not unreasonable argument that QD's enabled Samsumg's Quantum Dot tv's then the damages figure per monitor could easily be >$100m. That is a realistic outcome and is something relatively simple to understand. What else is a lay jury to make of all the extravagent "QD" marketing material that S produced which they will be hearing about?
Feeks, thanks for this, I completely agree with your sensible analysis and your lawyer friend's experiences tally with mine. No lawyer is ever closed to the possibility of settlement, nor is any level headed litigant. It just needs the right offer to be forthcoming. Though I would be mildly surprised if such an offer did materialise in this case!
There may be cause for optimism, but its a very dangerous state to get into. I'm just optimistic enough not to sell out, but pessimistic enough to lose the odd bit of sleep now and then!
I'm actually with Nigwitty on this one, I think it's very unlikely there will be an early settlement. It's not how Samsung appear to be approaching this
FlyingHigher, they'd have to be pretty stupid to "approach this" in any other way! Of course they'd say that.........Like I said, Bring it on, either way.
It seems that the viewpoint that this case cannot settle or won't settle (being "very unlikely") is difficult to shift.
Its a viewpoint that is impossible to reconcile with the statistical data. Those who say settlement is excluded are just plain wrong. The facts of this case will be no different to many of those that do settle - i.e two parties who have fallen into seemingly irreconcialable dispute. There is no evidence that Samsung has a policy of not settling disputes.
One factor I do seriously consider about the prospects of settlement in this case is that because S is a 'Big Tech' company it will be frequently in the driving seat and able to use its bargaining power to crush smaller opponents into submission when it comes to making low ball settlement offers, and had it won something at PTAB that strategy would be working strongly in its favour now.
But this case may need to go to trial so that N gets fair value given that other factors are not conducive to N accpeting a cautious settlement.
One thing to remember is that Samsung are one of the most litigated companies in the world.
They will have a set process on dealing with a case. They will look at all the circumstances and work out their settlement starting point and the max they are willing to pay before the risks of a trial do not outweigh the cost of a settlement.
It's silly to think that they have reached the end of that process already. Even if they've had their max offer rejected (unlikely that they've made it already) they will continue offering it until the day before trial because that would be better than going to trial. If they have made that offer maybe Nanoco would actually take it but are trying to squeeze out more, not knowing it's their max.
So many permutations here, you can't look at in a binary fashion.
I appreciate your comments Sammy. My only concern with the red dots is how it affects any eventual award. I wonder if this indicates that Nanoco will not base their award demands primarily on QD quantity. Thoughts?
I don't know amerloque. But it wouldn't make sense for Nanoco not to oppose it if it affected damages.
Yes, reat assured Nanoco lawyers know how to run their case - and Directors will be sensible in relalion to their duties when it comes on whether to accept or refuse offers to settle.
nice posts, Sammy. one thing i'd take issue with, related to pi's:
'So many permutations here, you can't look at in a binary fashion.'
this relates to the court proceedings and the machinations running up to it but, as far as being invested in the company, the result IS binary, in that, the case will favour #NANO or it won't. similarly, the BoD have apov about the future which they will take and we will have to accept it. at this point, there's little we can do regarding assessing the numbers that might or might not be thrown about. the only other option folk here have is, if the sp rises before a conclusion, whether to take the profit or hold for something other.
as you said, Samsung have a playbook that must have been repeated so often as to be humdrum.
the only open question i have, assuming all goes in NANOs favour is what is the true value of the company and would ownership of the ip make Samsung consider a buyout, should they look to be losing and see the possible fine as a downpayment on owning the company and its assets in its entirety and would BoD contemplate it if it meant not having a job at the end of it.
daresay it's been discussed here endlessly over the past months but if anyone wants to throw some considered ballpark numbers to save me scrolling back through thousands of posts... : )
gla.
Katstrangler, firstly on the takeover possibility I said yesterday it's a non-starter now because it couldn't complete until after the court case, at which point no-one would want to sell their shares for anything less than the damages awarded. So basically no benefit to Samsung.
Yes, it is binary in that Nanoco will settle or they won't. But I cannot see any plausible reason for there to already be no potential for settlement now with 3 weeks before the trial. Samsung have plenty of cash and they will have analysed the risks.
BT's comment "So we're going to trial" should be viewed as fighting talk to make sure Samsung know they're willing to go all the way, rather than some kind of admission than a settlement won't happen.
I see that you had a post removed that was rude and did not contribute contribute anything whatsoever to the educated discussion. Stick to the rules is my advice
NigWit, you are probably referring to the post I reported for abuse. It added nothing of value that you haven't said many times before, ad nuaseam, and you accused someone of being a fake, without cause or justification.
Your posts are becoming rather boring.
How would BT even know if they're definitely going to court? He has no idea what Samsung will do. Maybe they'll make a really generous settlement offer. Maybe they won't. No-one, not even Samsung or Nanoco know what's going to happen. Try to understand this, it's how litigation works.
Nigwitty - as most people here have already spotted, your posts on settlement are totally dismissive and not conducive winning anybody over . In my view it displays an almost irrational conviction, and certainly a lack of sensible judgement, about the reality of the current situation. BT does not have any reason to say anything else publicly than what he had done today. This is seemingly obvious to just about everyone here but yourself, which is surprising given your extensive experience of litigation (which you repeatedly lost without settling ). I'd be amazed if your lawyers never discussed settlement with you before trial, or maybe they did but you did not listen?
BT has no reason to settle for a low offer, and what he said is exactly whatv pe woujdl ecpect him to say. Anythng else would be remarkabkle and neglgigent too.
Nigwitty if this case does not settle before 12 Sept. it won't make you right. It will simply mean that the case has not settled.
People who have been banned before ought to have learned their lesson about what is acceptable, and surely ought to have a little more humility, but it is extremely difficult for a leopard to change it's dots.
It's good to see BT retaining his level headed caution while outlining the multiple significant reasons for optimism. I think Feeks offers one of the best analyses on the board, free of arrogant certainties, condescension and insults, and highlighting the most telling issues. I like his range of possible outcomes from a trial of $200m-$1Bn+, it is sensible and realistic, imo. After 5 years of obstinate deceit, I doubt Samsung will finally do the right thing and settle, but it's obviously possible. Given the failure of Samsung's central defence and the wholesale rejection of nearly all their technical "opinions", a settlement probably now requires a figure considerably higher than the bottom of that range, and the SP seems to reflect that.
We should, like BT, retain some caution, but it is difficult.