Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
The only two things I’ve found for the PTAB process is this link below which I try to check every morning (or late at night). Not sure if it helps as I’ve not seen one where a rejection happens. Batch run overnight for previous days decisions. Interesting stuff last week a Samsung one where they settled.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Petitioner,
v.
SNIK LLC, Patent Owner.
IPR2020-01427; IPR2020-01428; IPR2020-01429 Patent 9,769,556 B21
Before KIMBERLY McGRAW, GARTH D. BAER, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
TERMINATION
Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial 37 C.F.R. § 317; § 42.74
1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order for all of the above captioned proceedings. The proceedings have not been consolidated, and the parties are not authorized to use this caption format.
IPR2020-01427; IPR2020-01428; IPR2020-01429 Patent 9,769,556 B2
I. INTRODUCTION
With the Board’s authorization, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
(“Petitioner”) and Snik LLC (“Patent Owner”) (collectively, “the Parties”) filed in each of the above-identified proceedings a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (“Motion to Terminate”). Paper 12.2 In support of each Motion to Terminate, the Parties filed in each proceeding a corresponding Confidential Settlement and License Agreement, Ex. 2012 (“Settlement Agreements”),3 as well as a corresponding Joint Motion to Treat Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential and Keep Separate Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), Paper 13 (“Joint Motion”).
II. DISCUSSION
In each Motion to Terminate, the Parties represent that Petitioner,
through its parent company Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Patent Owner have fully executed a settlement agreement in writing that resolves all underlying disputes between them, including and jointly seek termination of the above-identified inter partes review proceedings. Motion to Terminate 2, 4. The Parties further represent that the Settlement Agreement resolves all currently pending Patent Office and District Court proceedings between the Parties involving Patent 9,769,556 B2. Id. at 4. The parties also represent that, aside from the Settlement Agreement
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/decisions
Probably, but given the way the market is behaving, maybe not. There is a long time (for markets) between the end of May and the trial date. I would expect the price to be much higher (just) before the trial itself, but the path it takes to get there is anyone's guess!
Win that and then you will see sp rise , still surprised at sp but I think you are right already priced in to a certain degree
Expected this month, but no definite date given, so could be any day now. All beyond Nanoco's control, government departments move at their own speed
When are the PTAB results confirmed; sorry if this has already been posted
"I am concerned that Nanoco is still living from hand to mouth."
That's why the share price is where it is. Nanoco remains a cash burner reliant on selling equity to maintain cash flow. One contract would be enough to turn things around, a second or third would back that up.
Having said that, if the PTAB result is positive, I don't think they'll have any problem raising cash going forwards, assuming that might be required.
Personally I'm not worried about my investment at all. We've had a lot more visibility about what has been going on in the past twelve months or so, and he mystery of what happened to the Samsung dots has been solved. I believe that Nanoco could possibly be in a monopoly situation if what BT said was accurate about anyone making Cd free QD's beyond laboratory scale is potentially using the molecular seeding process and thus infringing Nanoco's patents.
Another negative thought(sorry having a bad day) , I think Nanoco's financial year ends at the end of July, so are we sure that a cash runway to calender H2 2022 is DEFINITELLY good enough to avoid a qualification in the accounts for the year ending in two months time?
Hi ddubya, I admit I had wondered whether there was a hint we might be spending more than planned - which might be one reason behind the latest SP drop. Was the latest RNS just a little disingenuous maybe?We will have to wait and see, but I think we all need to keep our senses about us and not just assume everything 'will be alright'. I am still not at break-even until 31p (yes I know a lot here are now well in profit, but I really am a LONGterm Nanoco holder) so I don't want to go back to the old days where I was really underwater. All the best to all shareholders.
"Is that because the deal is with ST Micro and expectation of we Stage 2 income had already been bagged"
That's the way i see it. i recall in past updates cash to H2 2022 was dependent on present contracts being honoured, but that contingency plans were in place should the contracts be ended earlier than expected.
In effect Nanoco would probably revert to a skeleton staffing level as a patent holding company. That would be worst case scenario I think.
Hi SL. As you say, we need to demonstrate viability in order to avoid a ‘going concern’ qualification in the accounts. Having said that NANO has been on that line most financial YE and BT in particular will know if funds are required, of how otherwise to manage that discussion with our accountant.
I found it interesting that even with new money expected from the Stage 2 development, the cash runway remains of the same length. Is that because the deal is with ST Micro and expectation of we Stage 2 income had already been bagged, or are we spending more than anticipated?
Either way it looks like LOAM is committed to this investment, although we cannot rule out risk of further PI dilution.
Hi Botbot, If I remember right you sold here to buy Rolls Royce. RR doesn't seem to be benefiting from the gradual release from lockdown yet. Are you sure you wouldn't have been better staying with us doggedly stubborn Nanoco holders?
I'm not an accountant , nor am I particularly knowledgeable about these matters but I thought at the financial year end companies need to have enough cash or a likelihood and expectation of business for the next year to pass the "going concern" test in the accounts. If Nanoco couldn't past that test wouldn't it be in the realm of raising more cash. So if Nanoco hadn't got the new business would it have had to have another fund raise sooner rather than later. I am concerned that Nanoco is still living from hand to mouth.
WOW.
So I look at the board, and all the same names are still here.
I'm glad that everyone has held. I'm still in, did reduce my holdings down from my dizzy heights.
Hope all is well, exciting times still to come, this time next year Rodney, we will be Millionaires.!
Good weekend all.
Lots of people seem to be assuming we are going to win and are jumping ahead to what comes next! But those sayings about "twixt cup and lip" and "crossing bridges" come to mind. For the moment at least the market does seem to be assuming any win. AlthoghI am optimistic even I noticed in the RNS yesterday how short the cash runway is even after the announced new business. Anyone else notice this with a hint of concern?
Any licencing agreement could and should have an clause allowing access to audit, usually independent.
To my mind, Samsung has demonstrated its business model is dishonest and that it cannot be trusted, full stop. Unfortunately, there is not much to be done about that without the international will to sanction them from government contracts, and/or enforcing injunctions on sales where they infringe.
Mintz and NANO have have a working estimate of the total no of displays sold, so we shall need to make do with those yardsticks for now, and if we win the case to negotiate a licensing deal that allows for minimum manipulation.
Despite being up 300% from lows, the SP is still a little disappointing given the fast improving prospect of success in both litigation and the 'new' sector of sensors. It is no longer just about Display, so if the Patent Board can please oblige by saying No to Samsung , we should see a decent uplift. Most important of course is to win at trial. However, with each step won our prospects of doing so improve greatly, and at some point the market will factor those prospects in the SP.
Well can anyone be trusted to play it straight in business, big or small? I guess the answer is some will, some won't. IF we win the Samsung dispute, the big difference will be that Nanoco will have some serious capital, and that makes you far less likely to be messed about with.
Yet, Samsung will need QDs, and Nanoco or a licensee would presumably be the logical source if they possessed sufficient means. Can we even trust Dow/Dupont given their remarkable silence when Hansol became the supplier.
Is it possible that Merck might become the new supplier and even be the electronics company referenced in this new contract?
"Can they be trusted to pay us licensing fees for every QD they produce?"
Probably not, and further legal action may be required. Nanoco are under no obligation to provide a license to Samsung and/or Hansol however.
NGR: Click on Nano Share News on the LSE site. The news report states:, "The project extension moves the phase 1 development work to the next stage. Nanoco says it will continue working on a range of materials for a number of potential applications." Nanoco has previously stated that it has been working with other companies.
I disagree that my comment regarding the Samsung factories is out in left field. This is an issue of justified concern. If we don't do something about the current factories, can we trust Samsung not to cheat? Can they be trusted to pay us licensing fees for every QD they produce? They must not be allowed to continue producing CFQDs. Nanoco needs some way of verifying that they are not producing QDs. If they need CFQDs, they need to buy them elsewhere. Why not from Nanoco?
Appreciate that Nanonano. It was amerloque who was talking about taking over ownership of Samsung factories to supply Samsung QD's
Wasn't referring to Samsung with regards to supply from Runcorn, was referring to supplying STMicro, which is totally in context with the original post by frostbar12.
With regards to who the RNS relates to, I agree that it can't be anyone other than STMicro, and the recent reluctance to name them (they were coy about naming the company in their most recent update in April) I suspect might be down to customers further down the supply chain e.g. Apple.
Amerloque maybe it's just me, but isn't this all a little bit left field? Surely it's a case that there would be a simple licensing agreement put in place for Samsung to continue to manufacture dots in the existing factories without any upset to the supply chain?
As for the RNS today. Where is the original RNS stating a new customer project started in May 2020? The fact there is only one RNS in May in relation to a supply agreement and that relates to STM means that unless the other one you refer to is so secret it can't be announced, then there is a breach of the rules as that is market sensitive information.
Earth to Mars: Runcorn is much too small to supply Samsung, much less meet non-Samsung demand. Are Dow/Dupont trustworthy (have not demonstrated so thus far)? Besides the fact that Dow/Dupont have been a huge disappointment, the status of the Dow/Dupont factory is unknown, and the licensing fee would need to be adjusted significantly upward.
It would take years to build the plants needed to supply Samsung. Yet, we need to make sure that the Samsung factories are no longer under Samsung's control. Besides, forcing Samsung to turn over plants (that it had no right to build) to Nanoco seems to constitute reasonable punishment.
LOL, what on earth for?
Nanoco have capabilities themselves to readily supply QD's in bulk from their Runcorn facility, plus Dow/Duponts mothballed facility in Korea, originally built to supply Samsung (situated directly next door to one of their factories).