Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. 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.
I have addressed that point before. Once a verdict is given, allowing the claim, one will be left to judge the appeal prospects from the advantageous position a share price will be sky high. I might choose to top slice at that point.
As for timing in that intel case, it looks like they brought the case in Oct 2019. So about 1.5 years to conclude the case.
Just going from what I read here Nanonano...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/intel-hit-with-2-2-billion-patent-judgment/
"The case isn't over. Intel may ask the judge to find that the jury misapplied the law. If that fails, Intel will then have the opportunity to appeal the case. If the ruling is upheld, it would be one of the largest patent judgments in US history."
My understanding was that in the US, the Judge decides on points of law, the jury delivers a verdict based on facts?
There are some cautionary points for us to take from the case as well. The $2.18 billion is seen as a huge payout. One of the largest in US history. The other one is that Intel now has two further options to delay. Firstly, to ask the judge to delcare that the jury misapplied the law and following that to appeal the judgement.
Apparently intel forbid employees from checking available patents on record to allow them to use the wilfull blindness defence if they are ever challenged on it. Cheeky. VLSI didn't provide any evidence to support the claim of pretrial wilfull infringement so the nature of the infringement couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hopefully nano's submitted timeline should help us out on that one and get us some decent damages,if we can't secure some of the "unjust profits" calculation method.
NANO 's favour (spell check again :))
It'll be interesting to see the method/s chosen to calculate damages and the outcome of Intel's appeal as well. I'd take $2bn tripled for willful infringement happily.
There is a lot to be said for a Court that sets record damages Borasic. If the Eastern Texas District could stretch it just a Little further in BANK's favour that would be nice.
Definitely some parallels there. Good find! Here's to our 2 billion.
An interesting new headline, where Intel has been told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial :
Intel Corp. was told to pay $2.18 billion by a federal jury in Texas after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making, one of the largest patent-damages award in U.S. history. Intel pledged to appeal.Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI Technology LLC, the jury in Waco, Texas, said Tuesday. The jury found $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.The patents had been owned by Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors Inc., which would get a cut of any damage award, Intel lawyer William Lee of WilmerHale told jurors in closing arguments Monday. VLSI, founded four years ago, has no products and its only potential revenue is this lawsuit, he said.VLSI “took two patents off the shelf that hadn’t been used for 10 years and said, ‘We’d like $2 billion,”’ Lee told the jury. The “outrageous” demand by VLSI “would tax the true innovators.”
Federal law doesn’t require someone to know of a patent to be found to have infringed it, and Intel purposely didn’t look to see if it was using someone else’s inventions, he said. He accused the Santa Clara, California-based company of “willful blindness.”
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, to up to three times the amount set by the jury.
On this board we've speculated at length what Nanoco's award could be if they won. Perhaps this could give us an inkling, as it's another Texas case?