Member Info for amerloque

World first 0.5Mpixel 3D TOF sensor.
STMicroelectronics brings transformative change in digital vision with 0.5Mpixel depth image sensor
Timeline fits perfectly with Nanoco announcement.

It's arrived and available!!
https://www.manufacturingtodayindia.com/sectors/stmicroelectronics-brings-transformative-change-in-digital-vision-with-0-5mpixel-depth-image-sensor
With this STMicro announcement, we will certainly be moving up.

I.E, the 300mm wafer plant will cost multiple billions of dollars.

If I read the Edison release correctly, this increase relates to the remainder of Financial 2022, which ends on July 31. Edison provides no estimate for 2023 which begins on Aug 1, but it seems reasonable to expect much more if commercialization is successful. Apparently, this is dependent on successful integration by the end user (Apple?). The samples don't seem to present any problems. Edison states that the Runcorn plant could produce $20-30M in the first full year if it runs a single shift 5 days a week. News releases from STMicro indicate that they may stamp out the chips on 300mm wafers (possibly in a partnership with Tower Semiconductor), costing billions of dollars. This constitutes a major investment and would only be done if they expected significant demand,

Looking forward to Financial Calendar Q2 earnings release on April 12. Should have much more info.

The threat of hyperinflation must be taken into account when determining the eventual award. One possible scenario is that the jury awards Nanoco a significant amount, that is soon destroyed by inflation (such as Germany in the early 1920's), especially if Samsung drags the case out. Nanoco is then left with very little. I don't know how Nanoco can be protected, but this could be addressed in the trial. One possibility would be for the award to be made in shares to be specified by Nanoco. This could be Samsung or other shares. In this manner, Nanoco could be protected from the downsides of high inflation. I hope that Mintz gives consider such a solution since it would also protect shareholders.

Nanoco's technology is a platform that has an endless number of applications. Samsung knows this and has committed heavily to it and distributed the IP throughout its Chabol. For this and the following reason, I believe that Samsung will attempt to buy Nanoco.

An arrogant Samsung has almost certainly supplied its Cadmium Free QDs to internal and external companies and included patent indemnification clause in the sales agreements. An existing indemnity clause determines which party bears the brunt of infringement risk. Such a patent indemnity clause would include the obligation to “defend” and/or “hold harmless” the other party. Samsung could avoid the consequent, huge legal costs by buying Nanoco, but the cost would be multiple billions of dollars. Having had its research capabilities limited and essentially had its future stolen, no amount of award can repair the damage Samsung has inflicted. Any decision to sell, would depend on how Nanoco sees its future. I have previously expressed a concern for jobs in Great Britain, but I must also recognize that GB and European politicians let Nanoco down with regards to enforcing RSOH commitments. Living up to these commitments would have been game changing for Nanoco.

Allowing Samsung to buy Nanoco would be wrong. First of all, it would enable Samsung to benefit from its disgraceful behavior. Let's also recognize that Great Britain, in the interest of creating jobs at home, has repeatedly helped keep Nanoco afloat. How can Great Britain ever gain technical strength and create more jobs at home if its allows promising startups to be repeatedly acquired by foreign entities? A Samsung acquisition is out of the question.

I keep advising traders never to buy or sell US OTC shares at Market price. If you do so, the market maker will give you ridiculous prices. The OTC offers no protection. Just today, someone apparently sold shares at Market and received a price around 14 cents although a fair price would have been around 27 cents.

Samsung's top scientist admitted to being unable to create cadmium free QDs. Perhaps, Samsung needed to hire a POSITA.

True, Feeks. But it gets worse. Despite allegedly stealing Nanoco IP and then committing to cadmium free QDs, Samsung inexplicably took extraordinary measures to promote Nanosys cadmium QDs. This must have been for the purpose of making Nanosys more competitive against Nanoco. And, it worked. Moreover, they carried on a pattern of behavior that could repeatably block any chance Nanoco had of achieving success. Samsung would never allow Nanoco to grow big enough to afford to sue Samsung. As the world's largest cartel outside of China, Samsung were in a position to use bribes, preferential pricing, influence over lawsuit outcomes, and blackmail to influence negatively potential Nanoco customers.

Assigning an APIX "B " value means that the patent has greater than a 50% chance of being validated, more specifically somewhere between 50% and 84.1%.

"emulsion" is defined as a fine dispersion of minute droplets of one liquid in another in which it is not soluble or miscible.

Good input, JBongo. If I understand APIX correctly, the assignment of an "A " value (to what appears to be the most important patent) states that the patent had a 50% chance of being instituted (already occurred) and a validity probability somewhere between 84.8 and 97.8%. We have almost completed the institution stage.

The 'emulsion' term seems to be an issue, but this latter patent never included the term. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Feeks: Your positive attitude now comforts me. Many years ago, you were the most rational person on this board, constantly warning us against unreasonable hype. I also now trust the judges. Regarding which lawyers were the best prepared, I doubt that Samsung ever had a chance against top notch lawyers. Can't fault their lawyers who were forced to tilt at windmills. Making a case against Nanoco's IP appears to have been an impossible task.

Hawi may be correct in suggesting that we could see and early resolution. The judges' expressed appreciation for the clear communication of both lawyers, leading me to suspect that this clear testimony will accelerate the final decision.

Nanoco's future now looks very promising:
(1) STM product delivery related revenue already in the current quarter ending April 30;
(2) continued product delivery in the 4th quarter ending July 31;
(3) a PTAB ruling in Nanoco's favor in April or May;
(4) 2nd Quarter Earnings release in mid-April which should include an STM and PTAB update;
(5) additional prospect sales details once Nanoco's patents are confirmed by the PTAB;
(6) Texas lawsuit award plus triple damages in October;
(7) complete restructuring of Nanoco to take advantage of new opportunities;
(8) follow on licensing and lawsuits against infringing companies.
(9) spiraling share price

Thank Hawi. I, also, am no expert, but I can recognize a well prepared presentation. Nanoco's lawyer (Newman) effectively countered every Samsung (Mizzo) point and seems to have gained board agreement that Samsung had introduced arguments that were never in Samsung's initial petition. Newman even reference a PTAB case that outlawed the introduction of such new claims. Newman also illustrated how Samsung and its lawyers had failed to understand prior patent technology they had referenced as prior art.

Samsung's presentation was clearly a mishmash of somewhat unrelated technology. Toward the end, I kind of expected to see a reference to Coca Cola's secret formula. I cannot imagine that the patents would be overturned.

The judges commended both parties for having done a very good job. One lawyer deserved the commendation.

Thanks, Hawi. My earlier comments were based on the following URL, https://www.uspto.gov/page/oral-hearing-transcripts, which stated:
"Generally, all oral hearings are recorded by court reporters. Mailing and posting of the transcript to PAIR (or PTAB E2E for AIA proceedings) usually occurs around 2 to 3 weeks after the hearing."
I do not understand the discrepancy.

According to the USPTO PTAB web site, the court recorders normally produce transcripts within 2-3 weeks. Therefore, we can expect these transcripts this week and then gain some oversight into what judges are thinking. Though I have previously expressed concern, open transcripts containing questions and answers could protect Nanoco somewhat. I doubt that these judges want to look like idiots.

The USPTO web site states the following:
"Generally, all oral hearings are recorded by court reporters. Mailing and posting of the transcript to PAIR (or PTAB E2E for AIA proceedings) usually occurs around 2 to 3 weeks after the hearing."

I found the following site informative. Judges will be asking questions, and these questions and answers will help us analyze the ultimate outcome.
news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/five-things-to-know-for-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-arguments

"Almost always the questions are a beautiful pathway to exactly what is going to stand in the way of you winning or not,”.

Carmichael, who founded Carmichael IP PLLC and now represents inventors and patent challengers at the PTAB, said an active bench is more valuable than a silent one. Attorneys need to listen to the questions and give a thoughtful response, he said.

“The most valuable thing that’s happening at these oral hearings is you’re getting input from the judges and what they think is important,” Carmichael said.