Member Info for amerloque

The sufficiency and enablement argument is not new and was discussed long ago on this blog. I was surprised that Samsung did not raise the issue during the PTAB IPR hearing. I took it for granted that the PTAB would have considered sufficiency in declaring the patent valid. However, I am confident that Mintz is fully prepared to address this argument. Mintz lawyers are very competent (and not bozos as someone else on this blog recently implied).

https://www.fr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Q2-Guide-to-Patent-Litigation-in-Federal-Court-final.pdf

The verdict does require unanimity, but:

"Post-Trial Motions
After trial, the losing party may file post-trial motions asking the judge to overrule the jury verdict,
either because of lack of evidence supporting the opposing party’s case or because of errors in
the conduct of the trial. If the jury has returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may also file
post-trial motions seeking orders that bar the defendant from continuing its infringing activity or
provide for a mandatory royalty for future infringement (if an injunction is not possible), increasing
the amount of damages to account for willful infringement, or awarding attorneys’ fees."

"Appeal
Once the district court has entered judgment and has ruled on all post-trial motions challenging
the verdict, the losing party may appeal the judgment. The appeal is commenced by filing a short
notice with the district court. In most cases, this notice must be filed within 30 days of the entry of
judgment, or within 30 days of the resolution by district court of any requests by either party to
modify the judgment, whichever is later."

@Gonebroke, how does this relate to the Samsung-Nanoco lawsuit?

I don't mean to imply that have caught up with Nanoco. However, Nanoco lost a lot of opportunity. It is doubtful that Samsung or Nanosys have the ability to make CFQDs in volume. Nanoco's infrared dots also appear to be very promising. I have no intention of selling.

https://www.ft.com/content/47cae7c6-1492-11e2-8cf2-00144feabdc0
This URL points to a Financial Times article discussing Nanoco's outlook in late 2012 when Nanoco's future looked the brightest in many different markets. The share price soared to nearly $3 and analysts were predicting a 10 bagger. The price of a kilo of quantum dots was ~$2M. Samsung pretended to have an interest for the next 2+ years and then shot out the lights. Nanoco continually adjusted its goals downward in its battle against Samsung competition (yes, Samsung is a competitor of Nanoco!). Nanoco should not base its award demands on where Samsung competition forced them to go. No one else could scaleably produce CFQD's at the time. Deprivation by Samsung prevented Nanoco from attaining high expectations in many markets and allowed others to catch up.

I appreciate your comments Sammy. My only concern with the red dots is how it affects any eventual award. I wonder if this indicates that Nanoco will not base their award demands primarily on QD quantity. Thoughts?

I think that Hawi intended to post the following URL, which I commented on:

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F48

Correction: that DOES NOT sink

Hawi
So refreshing to see a reply that sink to arrogant pontificating.
Thanks! I notice that the IPR appeal by Samsung fails to reference 'lack of description' or 'enablement' issues as invalidity grounds. This new issue is not surprising. When Samsung requested the IPR hearing, they stated that they would not contest validity on the grounds specified in the IPR request. It now looks like they always intended to raise this issue in the court trial. They apparently did not want the PTAB to address this issue. Is this a trap? As Gilstrap warned, Nanoco needs to tread carefully and not risk opening Pandora's box. Note that the Brown University expert has credit for two nano technology inventions of unknown value.

On what grounds did Samsung base its Nanoco IPR final decision appeal?

www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/ongoing-royalties-for-patent-infringement.pdf

"Section 283 of the Patent Act provides that, to prevent the ongoing infringement
of a patent, courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of eq-
uity.” If the court decides that the issuance of an injunction is not appropriate, it
may direct the parties to negotiate a royalty for the infringer’s future use of the pa-
tented technology. When such a negotiation fails, the court will impose an ongoing
royalty that the infringer must pay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir-
cuit has clarified that the calculus for an ongoing royalty differs from the calculus
for a reasonable royalty typically awarded for past infringement, but it has not pre-
scribed any particular methodology for a court to apply when determining an ongo-
ing royalty. I conduct an empirical analysis of the courts’ decisions on ongoing
royalties, which shows that a court-awarded ongoing royalty typically exceeds the
jury-determined reasonable royalty imposed for past infringement."

@Screenlearner: "... validating our products in H1 of FY23, ahead of expected visibility of production orders shortly thereafter. "
As Screenlearner implied, this comment probably applies only to Cadmium Free Quantum Dots. Since the trial happens so soon, it probably does not matter much. If Nanoco wins, it should receive a slew of orders from Samsung and its customers. As previously indicated, STM sales are dependent on STM receiving orders from STM customers.
Moreover, Nanoco's infrared dots are probably created using the same patented QD process and are thus protected. Can anyone confirm this?

Well done, Mobile. This very positive article from an investment firm will likely attract more investment.

Barbon: With the commitment that STM is making to infrared dots, I would expect STM to have a multiple suppliers. I don't know who else could compete with Nanoco. The fact that STM continue to advance thru multiple stages and extend contracts gives me hope that Nanoco will finally succeed. Having been invested since before the Dow contract, I have experienced many disappointments, most of which I attribute to Samsung applying various pressure to Nanoco partners. Samsung's success with Nanoco product testifies to Nanoco ability to produce quality product. Although Samsung's influence now appears to be greatly reduced, I recognize that Nanoco has not yet commercialized its product. A commercial order would produce enormous value.

@Screenlearner: The Asian prospect is still a secret, but STM is has significant contracts with Volkswagon Group (2nd largest auto group in the world) and Tesla. They must also be working with Ferrari, as they recently hired a top STM Engineering Executive as CEO. They will use infrared sensors for automated driving and to monitor passengers (seat belts) and driver (sleepiness, distractions, inebriation). Expect STM infrared TOF sensors to be very successful in consumer wearable goods, industrial manufacturing and robotics, health, and agricultural quality control markets. STMicro is also very strong in the home robotics market where improved vision can offer huge improvements for robot vacuum cleaners, mops, lawn mowers and other home devices.

Settlement with Samsung will necessarily involve contracts with Samsung and/or with companies that Samsung are currently supplying. I doubt that these companies could afford to have their supply lines disrupted.

dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases/
"United States: American courts use lost profits and the failure to collect a reasonable fee from a licensee to calculate a damages award. Determination of the former depends on proving notable demand for the infringed invention and demonstrating you could manufacture and market the IP as your own product or service. "Enhanced" (i.e., punitive) damages may also be awarded in cases of willful infringement, maxing out at three times the figure arrived at after standard calculation. "
"Additionally, since 2018…ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations. (This is not considered in numerous other countries.) "

My View:
Samsung needs to make Nanoco whole. If Nanoco were a huge corporation with large cash reserves, this lawsuit would have cost very little since the courts would make Samsung pay legal costs. Because Nanoco was forced to seek funding, they will automatically lose 20-50% of any award and not come close to being made whole unless the court treats the funding cost as a legal cost.

In assessing damages, will the court consider the fact that winning an infringement case is far more expensive than for a large corporation? While losing costs Nanoco very little beyond employee and opportunity costs, there is a gigantic cost to winning. In a fair world, Nanoco should receive in entirety the amount that Samsung stole times three (willful infringement and enhanced award). With the increasing frequency of David and Goliath trials, courts should level the playing field by awarding funder costs.

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.

Pedantic.

Thank you, Feeks, for correcting, clarifying and expanding on my comment. You have always given so much to this board.