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.
You think I have no frame of reference NigWitty? How do you know that, or was your remark directed at someone else....?
The easy bit not the wash bit haha
I agree with a lot of what is said there Feeks. I think the market is struggling to attach a value to any possible award, such is the range of possible outcomes on offer. What I would say, is that the lower end figure, to me, has no basis in reality and is just a figure plucked at random rather than applying any meaningful method by which that sum is calculated. As soon as you start applying even the most conservative lost revenue calcs, you end up at 500mil plus. A few of us here quietly believe that there might be grounds for a pretty colossal award but it’s not something oft repeated for fear of being called a ramper. Regardless, the volumes are huge in terms of Samsung’s QDTV sales and if damages are calculated by traditional means, the figures could be multiples of current market cap.
But we aren’t there yet. I’ve been chewing over the court case and to me there will be two key battlegrounds for our lawyers:
1) to establish a clear and simple narrative of collaboration between S and N, that was then cut off and followed by QD production shortly after (the wash bit)
2) to prove that nano’s tech resides within the Samsung devices to such an extent that the jury, on balance of probabilities, believes nano tech was used (more difficult)
Battleground 2 is going to be tricky as it’ll rely on expert testimony, and will be countered by the expert testimony of Samsung. It’ll be important for Mintz to keep hammering 2 or 3 lines of enquiry here, and not get sucked into a game of semantics with Samsung, which has been their sole tactic thus far.
We need both points to win this case. A compelling narrative of collaboration is nothing without establishing the patents at work within the tech itself. The expert testimony is going to be absolutely essential and IMO why Samsung has moved to strike virtually all our experts.
Anyone would find that difficult, should they all end up comatose !
I don't see how Samsung can run any cogent invalidity arguments given the ptab result. Docket 86 which was their motion to stay the trial stated
"Even in the extremely unlikely case that none of Samsung’s IPRs ultimately result in the cancellation of any asserted claims, this case will still be simplified because Samsung will be stopped from re-arguing invalidity to the jury based on grounds raised, or that could reasonably have been raised,at the PTAB."
Further
"Samsung has also stipulated to Nanoco’s counsel that it will not pursue invalidity challenges in this court based on the specific grounds that were raised in any instituted IPRs or on any other grounds that could have been reasonably raised in these IPRs, placing those anticipation and obviousness grounds squarely before the USPTO."
Can't even try to bamboozle the jury
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry......
No, I am saying that the final outcome of a complex case will be swayed by the balance of other human factors and that Nanoco will find it easier than S to win the hearts and minds of the jury.
@Feeks
Are you suggesting that the jury will be basically '******' which will favour Nanoco ?
' No deal is better than a bad deal ' ?
Ps. In broad terms I think the current share price only (barely) reflects the lowest possible award on a victory, or settlement. What I can say right now is what I have said before - that in my opinion it is certainly not out of the question to believe the damages value could be in the range of 10x higher than the sort of sum which has been touted in the analyst forecasts for a ‘low end’ award. Others have dismissed this, which is itself wrong, as it ultimately depends on what legal valuation method is settled upon and there is plenty of scope for varying sized awards which end up in the very high category.
One of the arguments used to deny this here (on this BB) was the broad-brush / possibly knee-jerk response that the market cannot be wrong but, in fact, the market has been rising of late due in part to a gradual realisation that it takes a bit of time and effort to interpret what is truly going on, just as it has done at various other times. I am also sure in my own mind that this ‘educated’ Board has been ahead of the game on some things for quite some time because, to give a recent example, when the 232 Order was published on 10th August a few people here commented on the crucial significance of that decision (myself included) and the market barely reacted at first. Not so now.
My overriding feeling is that aspects of this case are intricate and complex case to solve (not so much the law but due to the difficult science involved) but this holds no fear because at the end of a long week what jury members will tend to remember – and will be eagerly reminded of – is a few startling sound bites (such is the world we live in now!). If that consideration did not tend to play fully into Nanoco's hands the company and its funders would never have chosen the apparent lottery of a jury case.
So, leaving aside for a moment the legal arguments and the evidence, I believe the basic "narrative” is a very good one for Nanoco to tell jury members:
1) Small tech being ripped off by mega corporation.
2) The tech battle between Far East v West.
Here, the general political climate in America is highly conducive to Nanoco winning the minds of jury members because, I imagine, that a few die-hard Republicans Trump supporters do live in Texas ;-)
Added to that, we also have:
3) The smoking gun email and other evidence of 6 years of S&N working together before S left N high and dry.
4) Samsung’s public marketing effort which relied upon selling its new “quantum dot” technology to the masses. This was not just some irrelevant widget, but a chief selling point.
Weighing against that narrative Samsung has a dry, purely technical argument to run which will likely send jury members into a coma. I conclude that any half-decent lawyer has a great story to tell a jury – and with Mintz we have much better than that, as they have already shown. I’ll keep backing them to succeed.
No problem if not to hand mate!
I did look just now but at present, unfortunately, I can't seem, to find it .. ! It might need to wait until next week but I will try to do it sooner.
Feeks could you share your damages research if you get a mo? Much appreciated.
I've looked at this Order. It is a tidy up of the court case (unopposed) now that Nanoco has dropped the 068 and 557 patents from its claim - see my post of 14 Aug 2022 @ 15:11.
24008/15/2022ORDER granting [229] Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 41 and Rule 12; finding as moot [115] Sealed Patent Motion; finding as moot [117] Sealed Patent Motion; finding as moot [118] Sealed Patent Motion; finding as moot [119] Sealed Patent Motion. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/12/2022.