The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
If samsung have moved 30 million units in the US to date,accounting for 1/3 total sales we could feasibly say that globally they have sold 90 million worldwide. We know nano favour a global settlement to end this. Edison assumed $14-18 per unit in license fees. A back of a cigarette packet calculation would suggest that a settlement based on license fees (at the lower end of potential outcomes) would be in the region of $1.26-1.62bn. We know Samsung will favour a settlement at the lower end whilst nano will obviously want one from the upper end of outcomes (a share of total profit for the market-from the Edison notes). Given the strength of nano's results so far (Markman outcome,ptab outcome,Samsung's failure to have MCC redefined) I would say that we may feasibly be in with a chance of seeing an outcome in Edison's middle damages bracket (a proportion of the profit uplift gained from the quantum dot component of the product) and something in the upper half of this range at that,after all the display is a large part of the value of a tv-software/hardware may contribute but they are bit part players supporting the star of the show,a TV without sound is still a TV,without a display you have a radio.
The question I'm interested in right now,apart from size of award/settlement,is whether we will see a large payment with a decent contract or a decent payment and a large contract. I'd be interested to read some alternative views.
Caution! China, Russia, Iran, their allies, and probably the Democrat party (as a way of solving the debt crisis) are intent of destroying the dollar. There is strong possibility that they will succeed. Although I would prefer a trial, I am not against a settlement as long as the agreement punishes Samsung for its wrongdoing and protects Nanoco from dollar decline and runaway inflation.
Don't forget if there is a deal only worth a few hundred million then Nanoco would probably have to pay about half of it to its litigation backers. Thus the worth of such an agreement to Nanoco would only be maybe double it's share price maybe less, especially as the current share price is probably artificially high based on the chances of a litigation award. I fully realise I am probably in the minority but I think N would be daft to settle for anything less than a billion and I would hope (but I admit not expect) double that maybe more. I can hear the laughs from some people as I write. Ha Ha. The proof will be in the pudding.
So long as both parties come to the table in good faith, then every chance of a settlement is still very much alive. We know that good faith exists in Nano’s case, and, given the cards we now hold, this certainly raises the prospect of settlement so long as Samsung make an offer half way to reasonable. Both parties are, thanks to mediation, well aware of the expectations of the other, so the time for silly pot shot offers is now over. I agree with Feeks that it’ll be 11th hour agreement, not because of any brinkmanship, but simply due to the complexity of any agreement and the careful due diligence that will need to happen.
This is just pure speculation on this matter, but if I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Samsung don’t have an issue with paying nano what nano deem fair, but they differ on the manner in which that payment will manifest.
Samsung will be pushing for as minimal (as close to 0 figure as possible) initial damages award and instead, offer Nano a more attractive future licensing agreement which, over the course of the life of the patents, will equate to a handsome sum. The reasons being it allows Samsung to easier hide their ‘guilt’ in the figures through a legitimate licence agreement and there won’t be an ugly multimillion stain on the books that will need explaining. Nano, on the other hand, will naturally have trust issues and be pushing for an initial high damage award and a more reasonable licence agreement. That initial damage award will breathe life back into the company and Tenner will want there to be recognition of the damage that has been done. As we all do.
It surprises me that anyone can reasonably hold the view that Samsung won’t be bothered about settling or not. If this goes to court, and we win, I would humbly suggest our legal backers will be more than happy to put their hands in their pockets to chase Samsung up and down every jurisdiction known to man. We aren’t some two bit patent trolls trying our luck in Texas. Samsung knows that we are well backed, and the situation will simply snowball if an agreement isn’t made and they lose in court. As I keep saying, the fact that this is their opportunity to make this all go away for good will not be a fact lost on those advising Samsung on their legal position. And whilst they are free to be as pig headed as they like, they will surely not turn down an opportunity to potentially save millions and come to a fair agreement. The alternative? Getting dragged through court with a sham defence, racking up damages bills as they go. Or worse yet, injunctions. A few hundred million, even a billion, settlement is NOTHING compared to losing the ability to sell your product in Europe, and the loss of market penetration that you would endure for years afterwards. Yes these are big maybes. But they are maybes that any half decent risk assessment would reveal, and have colossal implications for Samsung.
So I remain confident as ever in settlement. All IMO of
Feeks, 100% agreed,
and not forgetting, a small offer from Samsung in real terms is a gigantic offer to Nano.
If they settled for lets say $300m, that's nothing to Samsung, and as long as Nano got the "future" licenses then Nano is set.
Whether this is 100m, 300m, 1bn, 3bn, 6bn, all of those numbers literally change the face of Nano forever, and Nigel with his 11m+ shares will be set for life.!
It seems that the strength of Nanocos case just keeps getting stronger and can't really think of any reason why that shouldn't continue. Maybe the judge and others see this as a great opportunity to give Samsung the biggest spanking ever to ensure the IP security of small developing innovative high-tech companies in the U.S (and around the world ) while inevitably protecting themselves from the ever increasing bad practices of those wielding most power.
But paradoxically the wider gap between the two valuations, the more reason each party has to settle. One of the crucial factors is therefore how one assesses the strength of one's own case. For Nanoco it is also the risk of not taking the opportunity to secure the company's future when a large offer is made.
Thanks for trying to answer my question restorer and NIDGM. It was something I spotted in an earlier document, not the recent Docket 213 for suspension of mediation. I'll keep looking as I've freed up some time for reviewing Nanoco -v- Samsung pleadings next week :-)
I agree with you on settlement GIVEMESUNSHINE.
If it does settle pre-trial the parties will need almost every single day up to the date of trial itself to finalise commercial terms. It is highly unlikely to happen more than a small handful of days earlier than mid-September.
Anyway, if they settle it will only mean both sides have compromised and neither of them get what they wanted.
Personally, I hope that Nanoco have set their bar very high so that they will achieve what they deserve.
Maybe they could try meditation instead.
Or even arbitration ?
I personally disagree - only time something will happen is after Next friday - both parties will know thier position with all evidence on the table... then have a clear month.. judge will want them to use that time to reach agreement IMO and will probably instist on medition to continue..
The only time we will get something, if it happens, is next Friday, or maybe Monday the following week, after the "come to Jesus meeting" with the judge, which is on Thursday and Friday next week, if nothing happens then, it's not happening, end of.
and then it's the court date, so then it will be potentially Monday 19th September.
Unless an agreement is suddenly reached, is anyone expecting any significant litigation news before the trial? I'm not! I would have thought we have now had all the key pre-trial decisions and info. Although the SP may move up, down or sideways I suspect we now just have to be patient and wait for the trial result before any really big move (unless an agreement is reached of course) ... then the judges deliberations/decisions etc. ... then the appeal, if any. Even if everything goes in our/Nanoco's favour I'm not sure when the SP will reflect what we believe is the true value of the company. Obviously we also have the possibility of good/bad news relating to the organic business which could itself be transformative in terms of value..
should get some updates over the weekend on docket bird
Deadline today August 12, 2022: notify court of agreements reaching during meet and confer: parties are ordered to meet and confer on outstanding objections and shall advice the court of any agreements reached latest by 1 pm
- August 15, 2022: if a juror questionnaire is to be used, an editable questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the deputy clerk in charge
- August 18, 2022: pretrial conference: August 18: 8 at 10.30 am and August 19: 9 am before Judge Gilstrap
- September 12, 2022: Jury selection 9 am and show time
Docket 213 is the suspension of mediation. Can't see any reasons specified
About a week ago there was talk on the board about the announcement that the mediation had been suspended, and speculation as to why. Don't know if that helps.
I might have got this totally wrong but a couple of weeks ago I saw a docket which contained a footnote, or passage towards the end, where it seemed to indicate that mediation talks would be ceased for a temporary period whilst the court resolved other disputes between the parties. I have tried to re-find it today without success. Is there someone who can shed some light .....? My interpretation was that there would be a temporary pause until the motion to reconsider claim construction had been dealt with, which of course it now has. But I was reading on my phone and now cannot verify.