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.
It is not possible to provide a link, as the document sits behind a paywall. The wording is taken from the Nanoco court submission.
No-one is disputing that Nanoco have evidence, or how likely it is that infringement occurred. All I said was "Nanoco themselves in the wording of their accusation don't claim to know for certain that Samsung have infringed". That doesn't mean Nanoco are uncertain of their case, it is merely that they don't claim to be able to demonstrate absolute proof, but instead seek to shift the burden of proof onto Samsung. Just an observation of fact, not really any reason for a whirlwind of defensive hysteria.
the big players do not always take out Ip's...see CPX who have Maxwell in court of infringement of their IP..CPX aadvised Maxwell they were infringing and Maxwell ignored them and carried on producing ,CPX have the global IP that TDK etc have all signed up for..... now Maxwell are in court for infringing.....Samsung appear to have a similar approach here and NANO have the global IP :-)
PPE following on from your last to the point and not the mail on the head great post, that's exact right, I suspect that from last March nanoco have asked Samsung to show them how they make there CFQD also were is there patents in the patent system to prove this, Samsung couldn't prove anything, patent or otherwise, and nanoco and it's lawyers smelt infringements here, if Samsung have invented something different they would patent it, they haven't, and that's at the core of this fiasco,
Nanoco's lawyers have seen it all before and they know what to look out for, and that's why they are pretty sure of a serious deliberate wilful infringements here, and thus this our courtcase. I'm not that concerned as Samsung will not want to rock the boat to much as they might get sidelined in our formal sales process. That bid is coming ok , but from Samsung or China that's the big question.
GLA
It seems that that there is a substantial likelihood that is highly likely on the balance of probabilities.
Think the ion cluster evidence as mentioned by Basscadet may prove to be damning and can't be hidden.
You’d hope that Nanoco’s top boffins would have pulled a fair few Samsung QDTV’s apart in search of Ion clusters ahead of filing the claim. Without any such evidence they’d struggle to convince a jury/judge?
Seems likely to me that the wording would be "likely." It's probably impossible to know for sure. For all the speculation it sounds like the case comes down to finding ion clusters in Samsung's dots. Nanoco say that they can't be there without using processes they have patented. But, Samsung have huge departments of very talented and experienced scientists. Nanoco might be extremely confident but I don't see how they can be 100% sure.
So, Nanoco allege it's not possible to have those artefacts in Sumsung's finished product without infringing their IP. Now, over to Samsung to prove it is.
Gonebroke is it possible you could show a link to what you said, as in "substantial Likelihood", that would be very much appreciated sir. As it seems to go against nanoco's own court submission.
GLA
BBD you are correct. There is uncertainty and the court will decide in due course. Nanoco are trying to change the burden of proof so that Samsung need to prove that they did not use Nanoco UP.
Failing to recollect the exact word, is completely different from invention. Discussion is difficult when people feel the need to make false accusations and then don't have the decency to apologise. I stand by my original point: Nanoco are seeking to shift the burden of proof onto Samsung, and the wording does not claim absolute certainty over infringement.
Sounding a bit like the Likely Lads on here.
Substantial likelihood sounds more than likely to me !!
You did invent the word Likely BlahblahDoh sir.
Thanks Gonebroke, so I didn't just invent it. In any case, no-one is disputing what the case is about, it's about the burden of proof. As I said in the first place, Nanoco are not claiming they can prove it, they use "substantial likelihood", rather than, say "beyond reasonable doubt" or "with absolute certainty". So the court needs to be sufficiently convinced about the likelihood in order to transfer the burden of proof.
Gonebroke is that the actual wording, because that looks far more a substantial accusation . That's the kind of wording I would expect to hear coming from a lawsuit, " likely "is a very weak accusation in a court case. Now that could make more sense to me sir.
GLA
in the RHS 17 2 2019 Nanoco say
'In the lawsuit, Nanoco alleges that each of the defendants has wilfully infringed the Company's patents and seeks a permanent injunction from further acts of infringement and significant monetary damages.'
The wording is "substantial likelihood"
BlahblahDoh. the word Likely is not a word you launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit with, it's just not, your actually accusing the other party of infringement or not, well it's likely your honour!!! doesn't stack up at all, that's not how a lawsuit gets launched, that's how you yourself gets sued, it's weak and can't be substituted. It's like you saying it's likely you seen that in that wording, you now can't say well it was likely to have been in it, because you have nothing to go on. It's heresy or likely, not a definite .
GLA
Did you forget already PP, the document is now behind a paywall. Besides, I'm not the one falsely accusing people of inventing things.
It's a shame people didn't read the document carefully when it was freely available. When it comes to invention, I can't claim to being clever enough to make up such a tiny detail. If you really think I'm mistaken, I believe the site has a "free trial" offer, so you can check for yourself.
BlahblahDoh the word Likely, indicates a weakness in your lawsuit that's why it doesn't stack up for me. I reiterated I don't believe the word Likely was used, but I'm happy to be proven wrong here sir.
GLA
PP, you seem to be "wilfully" misunderstanding the point I was making. Nanoco did not state "we are CERTAIN they wilfully infringed and can prove it", they said the infringements are "LIKELY" and want the court to adopt the stance that Samsung have to prove they didn't infringe. Legal cases usually work the other way round, with the defendant innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lying with the plaintiff.
blahblahDoh, I remember you inserting that word before in another of your post sir, the word " LIKELY " INFRINGEMENT,
I might be wrong here in fairness to you, but that word I don't recall reading in that l lawsuit submission, that's something I would normally pick up on very quickly, nanoco's wording was very strongly put, wilful direct infringements, in legal lingo that's insinuating the other party are doing something that's been premeditated and knowingly dishonest. Nanoco would have taken very serious council on staying that, because it's highly libelous.
I remember following a lawsuit in a UK company that she'd a American company, and there accusations and wording were near enough the Same as nanoco's, this case was settled out of court in the uk companies favour. that company was aortech.
Samsung knows it's in the wrong here, and they also will settle out of court, though that may be sooner than they would like , a
As we will sell nanoco from under there nose if they don't settle this quickly.
GLA
" Where did you invent that from have you actually read their legal claim?"
That's your invention, not mine PP, I was referring to the wording of their accusation as contained in the original court"complaint" document which Gonebroke provided a link to. Unfortunately that link has now changed, and the relevant document is behind a paywall: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32355906/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co,_Ltd_et_al
My recollection is that it stated that after careful examination, and in the light of multiple exhibits, they think it is "likely" that Samsung infringed on their patents, and for that reason they insist the onus should be on Samsung to prove that they haven't.
Hope Nanoco aren't committing suicide.
Regards message boards, my view is if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
The whole idea of celebrity status and associated wealth linked to people with a modicum of talent has become so prevalent and IMO is just another example of the americanisation of our general way of life over here, it should concern everyone. Not least those who take their lives through lack of proper health and mental care or unnecessary inflicted financial pressures.
GLA
We currently have several interested parties indicating a possible purchase of nanoco, I believe/ strongly suspect one of the parties is samsung, and the other ,very possibly a Chinese based proposal, we have a very valuable iP estate, Samsung would want our IP estate ok, it's just the price I believe needs to be agreed, the very thought of another party snapping nanoco's IP estate would have Samsung sweating profusely if they buy us , or China buys us, and we can still keep our lawsuit against Samsung After a Chinese bid. Our shares will be all over the place until our bid comes in. Hopefully that shouldn't take to long.
GLA