Member Info for amerloque

Btilliant comment, Frostbar. Thanks.

This clarifies everything. Exactly the kind of cogent comment I was seeking.
I began investing in Nanoco in 2011 and am finally above water. I intend to continue investing.

PP: I did refer to this as a rumor, propagated in the "Touch Display Research" report produced by someone who has been reporting on the QD market since 2008 and has interviewed hundreds of companies. In this instance, the author interviewed 131 companies in depth.

I admit to being somewhat confused regarding the trial date. I had seen the approximate date of the trial, but never an exact date. It was only after the Markman Hearing that I first heard that a definite trial date had been set. I welcome any clarification on this matter. I suspect that they choosing a jury prior to setting a court date is highly unlikely.

Yesterday's rise is likely due to rumor that Apple will commit to quantum dots within a year and, to a lesser extent, the positive feedback from the Markman Hearing. It seems also that, following the Markman Hearing, the judge set the date for the jury trial. If true, this would indicate a positive trial outcome. Had Markman not been positive, it is doubtful that he would have set a final trial date.

Nanoco's share price has almost tripled on speculation of a favorable outcome in the Markman Hearing and eventual trial. It is all very promising, though unlikely that we will see huge increases prior to tangible results in sales or the trial. Here in the USA, shareholders seem unwilling to sell. Purchasers will need to pay a premium to participate in future gains.

PPE: Do Samsung have IP patents for CFQD?

It seems to be self evident. How did Hansol gain the knowledge?

Any eventual settlement should take 'violation of nondisclosures agreements' into consideration. There can be no doubt that Samsung violated the agreements by passing knowledge to Hansol and Samsung Venture group, who include in their mission statement the goals of passing knowledge along to Chaebol members and to funded companies.

BTB: As cadmium free quantum dots are projected to be so important in the future, Samsung has not choice but to invest in QD based products. Having benefitted from early experience in QD products, they have a head start in applying QDs to end products.

Even if they lose the case, they will be able to source QDs from Nanoco or other vendors. Nanoco cannot refuse to sell QDs to them at fair rates. However, because they are competitors (supplying QDs to other companies within the Chaebol) and have behaved so badly, Nanoco could possibly deny them the right to use the Nanoco process.

Some on this blog have suggested that Samsung might buy Nanoco. This seems to me to be an extremely unlikely scenario. Why would Nanoco, finally possessing large cash reserves, relinquish a platform product of huge value at a time when they are sitting in the catbird seat. On top of that, how could they do that to employees who have worked so hard and to Great Britain, which has given them so much funding.

No one can deny Samsung's inherent dishonesty. I understand from https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/IDEA/idea-vol49-no3-chapman.pdf
that Nanoco, if it wins the lawsuit, could seek 'Retroactive settlement' licenses grant. Under such licenses," the licensee does not receive permission to use the patent in the future and is expected to cease its infringing activity after the agreement is executed. From a practical perspective, such licenses eliminate both the need for infringement litigation [because the parties have agreed to appropriate compensation] and the need for future litigation, assuming the licensee ceases its unauthorized use of the patent-at-issue." I believe that such retroactive settlement is justifiable because Samsung is competitor of Nanoco. This would prevent Samsung from using the Nanoco process and prove appropriate as it would grant the alleged infringer (Samsung) authorization for its past use of the patent-at-issue in exchange for compensation to the patent holder (Nanoco). This also prevents the Chinese courts from setting license fees while still giving Samsung access to cadmium free quantum dots. Samsung could purchase quantum dots from Nanoco, an approved Nanoco Licensee such as Dow/Dupont or Merck, or a cadmium free source outside of Nanoco. The ideal settlement would be to further include a long term quantum dot sourcing agreement between Samsung and Nanoco licensees.

Scampy: Are we to believe that your legal experience and knowledge surpasses that of the parties funding Nanoco's lawsuit? I look forward to Samsung claiming that intellectual property rights are no longer relevant. FYI, Samsung has already established its 'modus-operandi'. Just 'follow the IP'.

One very cautious Cowabunga, JBongo! While Quantum Materials Corp might have gained valuable partners, they have produced no financials for years. They have apparently managed to survive by ramping up share price and then paying bills with shares. Cowubonga!

As Screenlearner pointed out, Scampy, the judge in the Markman Hearing determines legal issues surrounding the patent, thus greatly reducing juror responsibility. Jurors will focus on the facts surrounding Samsung's behavior. If Nanoco passes Markman, Samsung likely gets to visit Styx and it's friendly boatman, who might not be so friendly upon discovering that they have no coin to pay for the ride.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_hearing
'Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3][4]" '

Frostbar12: Your research and comments have added greatly to this board.

Samsung is probably very confident that the Chinese courts will set a low licensing fee. Judge Gilstrap should take this into account when setting the Nanoco award (if they win).

I agree with much of what you say, Basscadet, but it is dangerous to believe that something could never happen. It seems to be a fact that Samsung has attempted to use ther Chinese courts to set licensing fees worldwide. We must not let this continue.

I, also, have worked with many Chinese. Some are very good friends. We cannot deny that the majority in any culture are influenced by the culture in which they grow up. We all live in a kind of mob morality, in which our mores constantly change to conform with the current culture. How else could Nazi Germany have occurred? China promotes nationalism and imperialism, and places spies in our universities and our governments for the purpose of stealing IP and national secrets. Indoctrination is a way of life in many societies. China dominate world trade and are using their new found riches to influence companies, governments and media around the world. Do not believe that it cannot happen. Freedom of speech does not exist in China and is in danger of disappearing around much of the world.

The USA government and tech companies, all of which are bowing down to China, are not much better. They have created invasive spy apparatus that threatens individuals everywhere and then taken on the task of deciding what speech is acceptable. A US president once admonished us that loss of freedom is only one generation away. We may be even closer. There will be no joy in saying, “I told you so”, since it would mean that Samsung has won.

Right on, PiratePete and Dubya! Governments around the world need to intervene in united fashion. This cannot be resolved by a single government. The Samsung Chaebol is once again asserting its enormous power to block competition. Of course, it would seek help from a bigger Chaebol--China, which has discovered a new way to steal IP. Chinese companies also need cadmium free quantum dots and would thus also benefit from low licensing fees. Nanoco can anticipate Samsung using similar tactics to minimize licensing fees when they win the Texas lawsuit. Like you, I personally boycott Samsung and Chinese products and urge others to do the same. For me, this is about political systems, not racism. I find Koreans, Hong Kong citizens, and Taiwanese to be generally good people. They respect and appreciate personal freedom. China does not.

Literature confirms that the Eastern District Texas Court is popular because it comprises hard working judges who are knowledgeable and committed to understanding and expediting cases.

https://ccbjournal.com/articles/eastern-district-texas-magnet-patent-litigation
Why is the Eastern District Texas Court so popular? “They set trial dates and, likewise, make them stick. The certainty of the dates along with the hardworking judges make the Eastern District a magnet for patent cases…. They...expedited the litigation process. “

https://docketreport.blogspot.com/2015/08/motions-to-stay-district-court-cases.html
Even if the PTAB institutes an IPR, it seems that Rodney Gilstrap will issue a stay in only 9.5% of cases. US Supreme Court hearings as to the legitimacy of PTAB judges could diminish the likelihood of a stay. Samsung's court behavior and EDTX Court past history indicates that, even if an (unlikely) IPR is instituted, this case will proceed if the Markman Hearing proves positive for Nanoco. It would not be surprising to see a quick decision in the Markman Hearing. Mintz and Ward seem well prepared.

BTB: Samsung have had strong leverage over almost every Nanoco partner that ended up bailing. This is just too much of a coincidence. Samsung Ventures raved over and invested in a company (Nanosys, which was not a competitor) that made cadmium quantum dots while Samsung, themselves, avoided cadmium quantum dots in their own products. Assuming that Samsung stole Nanoco's IP, it makes sense that they would go all out to prevent Nanoco's success. Weo would be naive to believe otherwise. Even if Samsung were to win the lawsuit, they are certainly guilty of violating non-disclosures by transmitting confidential information to Hansol ( unless you accept that a company with no related background can accomplish what took Nanoco's world class scientists many years to do). Remember that their top scientist admitted failure after trying for three years to solve the problem and ultimately called Nanoco in to get help.

Don't know why you are here, Scampy. Can only suspect. Nanoco are not just pie in the sky. They are millions of pies in the sky for the price of a few--definitely worth a punt. They are the off-shoot of Nobel Prize winners and comprise a group of brilliant scientists who have constantly been blocked at every turn by a dishonest and greedy Samsung. South Koreans are good people. Those that don't wear blinders must be ashamed. Texas judges and juries have eyes wide open, will see through the many discrepancies in Samsung's specious defense, and will decide in Nanoco's favor.