Member Info for amerloque

he Pfizer CEO who has had quadruple vaccinations just contracted Covid. I read that this CEO once claimed that the vaccine is 100% effective. Is Pfizer part of the Samsung Chaebol?

Thanks, Picador for the link to a belated Samsung patent. It will be interesting to identify any additional steps that Samsung might have added.

I would think that Nanoco could present a video illustrating the process and following the steps described in the patent. The jury could then decide if any missing steps are relevant to a POSITA. The question is "Was Samsung seeking to understand or torpedo the patent?".

I do not understand how Nanoco's CEO can claim that the PTAB IPR validated the patent if it did not consider sufficiency. The IPR included a lot of very bright judges with heavy chemistry backgrounds.

Nor do I understand how novelty and absence of prior art can be validated without indirectly validating sufficiency. When the lawsuit was first filed, I remember Sufficiency discussions in which Samsung claimed a missing step in Nanoco's description. Supposedly, Nanoco failed to describe a by-product of the procedure. Nanoco maintained that this by-product was automatic (something that just happens) and did not require description. Perhaps it had something to do with the MCC definition which was heavily debated. Since Nanoco won on this issue, they perhaps feel this was enough to prove sufficiency. I do recognize that Samsung is desperate and filling the air kitchen sinks.

You have never been a bad guy, Steak. Your posts are always reasonable and insightful, the result of having real legal knowledge. However, I don't understand the point you addressed to me. What were you referencing?

I don't find any Samsung QD synthesis patents. Are you aware of any?

To my knowledge, Samsung has never applied for a cadmium freed QD patent. One must ask why Samsung, which claimed a breakthrough discovery, would not protect its discovery unless they knew that a valid patent already existed. Seems a bit of a smoking gun!

Samsung requested real-time transcripts, while Nanoco did not. I understand that they will use real-time transcripts for both parties if one requests it. These transcripts will be instantly available off-site as well and thus enable legal support from outside the courtroom.

Yeah, Troublesome; My comment had no legal basis. Obviously, the jury would give no consideration to shareholder dilution Opportunity value should be considered.

As Sammy and others have implied, the Nanoco will gain most of its value not from the award but from (1) profitability and (2) high growth rate (Price Earnings Growth). Beyond QD sales, and other lawsuits, Nanoco could grow at a phenominal rate if STM is successful applying their Infrared QDs. Analyst claim that STM and Sony will dominate the SWIR market.

Fairness would dictate that any award takes into consideration:
1) Samsung quantum dot pricing did not incur traditional research costs.
2) The jury should not base award on the cost of QDs between companies within Samsung/
3) Award pricing should recognize that Nanoco was forced to compete against stolen IP.
3) Had Samsung not infringed, Nanoco would have received immediate payment and would not have been forced to fund the company by tripling the number of shares since 2012 and also borrowing money. This has greatly impacted shareholders, who need to be made whole. This has reduced share price by 3 not even considering that Nanoco would have been profitable.
4) Whatever value the jury assigns to Nanoco's QDs must recognize that Nanoco never received this price at the time and is only receiving it now. Dollar price inflation since 2015 is ~25%

I would feel better if the jury were held incommunicado.

Thanks, Intrusive. This is promising for Nanoco and STM.

"witness to a bunch of grown adults (presumably) behaving as if they were in the playground."
More insults offering nothing of value. NGR1616 now added to my filter.

I don't imagine that Nanoco would take such a step at this time in Germany unless they a expected to receive a significant supply contract in the near future. Such a contract would substantially raise Nanoco's credibility.

Automatic injunction upon judgement for patentee, right?

After a decade on this site, have just created my first filter (NW to the dustbin). He lacks the legal background he claims and wastes my time. More than that, I dislike the bickering he evokes.

The RNS is great news! Nanoco funder doubles down. Injunction is now moving from threat to reality. Thank you, Mintz, funder and Nanoco.

@Nigwit:
Unable to offer a reasonable explanation?

@nigwit:
I find this to be an amazing board full of very intelligent posters positively seeking to better understand Nanoco prospects for victory. Insulting them every time you disagree is not justifiable. A while back, you admitted that you had no legal training, but had been periperally involved through your company in considerable litigation. Though you profess wide expertise, one of your recent comments illustrated that you failed to recognize that a USPTO IPR trial is limited to contesting prior art. Please help me and others on this board understand how and litigation expert such as yourself would not be aware of this fact.

I believe that I no understand why insufficiency was not addressed during the IPR. Apparently, inter partes review can only address prior art issues.
https://fishpostgrant.com/inter-partes-review/

"Inter partes review became available on September 16, 2012, as a procedure to challenge the validity of patent claims based on patents and printed publications. Inter partes review can be initiated immediately following issuance (or reissuance) of patents examined under the first to invent rules (i.e., patents filed prior to March 16, 2013), since post-grant review is not available for these patents. "

Post-Grant Review must be done within one year of the granting of the patent. Samsung scientist's emails to Nanoco requesting help might have been part of a sinister plot to claim insufficiency. I can not imagine that Mintz would not be able to refute Samsung's claim of insufficiency. Hopefully, they can present a video illustrating how a POSITA can use the patent to manufacture QD's. It can't be too difficult if a toilet paper company can produce CFQD's.