Member Info for amerloque

Point well made if we were in a courtroom, Barbon, and in a polite way. I do find the term, guilty, to be appropriate. Although I took a Business Law course in college, I have never claimed to have a legal background--unlike Nigwitty. It would be extremely pedantic to require that everyone on this board speak in legalese.
The definition of 'pedantic' follows:
"Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter."

In order to refresh the memories of other posters, I will try to clarify my understanding of the importance of Application 84 being denied. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer. I welcome any corrections.

Application 84 was Samsung's response to Nanoco's Docket 173 in which Nanoco explained their position regarding the MCC. As far as I could discern, Samsung's counter-response to Nanoco's Docket 173 response exposes their intention during the PTAB IPR to trap Nanoco into terminology needed to protect their patent while enabling Samsung to claim that their process used different materials and thus did not infringe. In what seems to be a huge victory for Nanoco, Nanoco lawyers defeated this effort. The court denied Samsung's Application 84 request, which seemed to be the basis of Samsung's case.

Thanks, Intrusive. This is dynamite. Excites me even more.

Nigwitty: I hate having to respond to a mean, incorrect comments.
2,180,000 Google results returned to "patent infringement guilty". Some results shown below. Are we all legal illiterates? My advice; preface you comments with a little research.

Patent Infringement: Everything You Need to Know - UpCounsel
https://www.upcounsel.com › patent-infringement
The patent owner is responsible for proving patent infringement. It's similar to the concept that a criminal suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

J&J's DePuy Synthes found guilty of infringing orthopedic ...
https://www.fiercebiotech.com › medtech › jjs-depuy-s...
DePuy Synthes faces a fine of $20 million after a jury found Johnson & Johnson's orthopedics and neurosurgery device business guilty of infringing a patent ...

Patent infringement case will cost Apple $300 million - 9to5Mac
https://9to5mac.com › 2022/05/19 › apple-patent-infrin...
May 19, 2022 — After the second trial, the jury found Apple guilty of patent infringement and awarded Optis with a $300 million verdict against the tech giant.

35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent
https://www.law.cornell.edu › ... › CHAPTER 28
Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. (c). Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into ...
Google found guilty of patent infringement for using Linux
https://www.infoworld.com › Enterprise Applications
Apr 21, 2011 — Bedrock sued companies that use Linux claiming that the Linux kernel infringed on its patent for search technology. Bedrock's patent covers a ...

Apple found guilty of patent infringement, faces possible $862 ...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com › ...
· Translate this page
Oct 14, 2015 — Washington, Oct 14 (EFE). —. A U.S. federal jury has found Apple Inc. guilty of infringing on a processor patent held by a foundation linked ...

Google Found Guilty of Patent Infringement - GH IP Law
https://ghiplaw.com › google-found-guilty-patent-infrin...
Google Found Guilty of Patent Infringement. Jury Form (Marshall, Texas – Tuesday, January 18, 2014) Earlier today, a jury returned a verdict against Google ...

Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly ...
https://appleinsider.com › articles › jury_reaches_verdic...
Aug 24, 2012 — Samsung jury handed down a sweeping victory for Apple, finding Samsung infringed on all but one of Apple's asserted patents while the iPhone ...

If Samsung is found guilty, they will have certainly earned a maximum award and multiple. I look forward to Nanoco's trial testimony,

The press should provide extensive coverage of this Nanoco-Samsung trial. Samsung's behavior is characteristic of many huge corporations whose enormous vertical and horizontal tentacles are overwhelming smaller companies. This needs to be a wake up call to honest world leaders. The court needs to set an example and multiply the verdict by the maximum amount.

Good point, Ecclescake. The jury needs to decide willful? Perhaps, an appeal would have less chance of success if a jury trial takes place??

The following site describes procedures specific to IP Infringement cases.
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-intellectual-property/pages/2-5-pretrial-procedures

"In recent years, most patent cases are resolved on summary judgment and only a handful go to trial (about 100 per year throughout the country). The primary reason for this phenomenon is the advent of the claim construction (Markman) hearing and the decision by the court, before trial, about how the language of the asserted claims must be interpreted. The court’s claim construction decision resolves most of the uncertainty in a patent case, because what the accused products or services are, and how they operate, is rarely in dispute by the time discovery concludes."

Nanosys claims to be working in many different fields. They also claim significant progress in electroluminescent QDs. I suspect that this claim is premature and may qualify as vaporware.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/electroluminescent-quantum-dots-are-coming-sooner-than-you-think.3164041/

Right, Feeks. We have to wonder why a company as successful as Nanosys claims to be needs to circumvent traditional IPO methods. Is disclosure an impediment?

Samsung have made multiple investments in Nanosys and, inexplicably, touted Nanosys' Cadmium technology--more than a little hypocritical! Promoting Nanosys seemingly benefited Samsung's long-term goal of blocking Nanoco success. Samsung frequently referred to Nanosys as a 'partner'. Did Nanosys also steal Nanoco technology?

Remember that Nanoco's is a platform technology and likely included in many different product, not just TV. The Samsung Chaebol includes ~100 different companies, many of which could eventually use QDs. We cannot trust Samsung. Perhaps, the answer is to require that Samsung purchase quantum dots from Nanoco or a Nanoco licensee such as Dow/Dupont.

Hawi: McEldowney seems to be a very successful litigator.

Thanks, Hawi. Again, great research. Would greatly shorten the trial if Gilstrap granted all of these motions. He might as well issue a summary judgement in Nanoco's favor.

I agree, Barbon. Thanks for the explanation.

Barbon, Hawi: I have never said that Nanoco or Samsung would negotiate a settlement for the US alone. Please do not insinuate that I did. By the way, BT said very clearly that Nanoco would be willing to settle. I have always said that I don't want a settlement prior to the trial. Nor do I believe that a Samsung buyout is possible.

Barbon, Hawi: Don't know how I could be clearer. There has been much discussion here regarding a possible early settlement. I was simply agreeing with some that settlement will happen only after the trial. Perhaps you have a point in criticizing my comment?

Brilliant analyses by LordWM and SteakandAle. As LWM said, "the stakes are potentially very large for Samsung, considering global TV sales to date, future TV sales, display sales to other OEMs and anyone in their supply chain they've engaged to infringe N's patents." Any settlement prior to the US trial would have to be global. This would expose all of Samsung's wrongdoings and be too complex to reach in the short term . Samsung would not want to admit everything prior to the US Trial. Yet, they would want to avoid a global injunction. I think we could expect Samsung and Nanoco to immediately begin final global negotiations if and when Nanoco wins the US lawsuit.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Agreed, NGR. Just suggesting that Nanoco should expect Samsung to remain in character and apply subtle but strong pressure in Texas. It would be naive for Nanoco to assume that all jurists would follow Gilstrap's instructions. I hope that US funding reduces the danger, but I recognize that Samsung's greed has shown no bounds to date.