Member Info for amerloque

Please excuse the grammatical errors, due to not having properly reviewed last minute corrections. The basic content is nevertheless valid. Institution of an IPR is already questionable. In addition to the reasons stated by Mintz lawyers, the Supreme Court hearing as to PTAB' judicial legitimacy renders IPR assignment at this time irresponsible.

Although Mintz lawyers would never make the following statement, I will make it for them. I am not a lawyers, but it is common sense that, given that the US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that questions the appointment legitimacy of the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board judges (see below), it would be irresponsible for the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes review. Depending on the Supreme Court decision, many hundreds of patents could end up being reinstated. Furthermore, one of the major reasons for creating the the IPR in 2012 was to reduce patent trolling. Nanoco is certainly not a patent troll, since its patents are based on proven products. Defying common sense, the PTAB seems to see IPRs and AIAs as a useful tool for training patent lawyers, thus forcing monetarily strapped patent holders and their funders to spend substantial sums of money to pay for their education.

blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2020/10/supreme-court-will-decide-whether-ptab-judicial-appointments-are-unconstitutional.html

"On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this important case focusing on administrative power of the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board. PTAB judges have cancelled thousands of issued patents — that judicial role (with little direct control guidance from the USPTO Director) suggests that the PTAB judges are “Officers of the United States” that must be appointed by the President. Although PTAB decisions are not directly reviewable by the USPTO Director, the director has substantial authority in controlling panel selection, rules of practice, and job performance. All those suggest that perhaps the judges are “inferior Officers” that may be appointed by a Head of Department – such as the Secretary of Commerce. If the Principal Officer theory prevails, the potential result is that a substantial number of PTAB Decisions will be rendered void."

To my limited knowledge, law firms work at a fixed rate or they agree to receive a substantial portion of the winnings. If I accepted all of the costs, I would not be willing to give my due earnings to anyone--especially to people who have already received a substantial payment. Though unlikely, the funder still might have agreed to give them a small portion of the settlement as an incentive. Winning should be incentive enough, since it leads to more business.

I suspect that Mintz WILL be financially motivated to continue to trial, since they would earn additional legal fees. Only the funders, not Mintz, are risking money. As Mintz is a reputable firm, they would hopefully advise Nanoco and funders regarding prospects for victory without concern for financial gain.

Note:
(1) The Markman Hearing judge might delay a decision until 3-4 weeks after the hearing.
(2) Terminology seems to be at the root of Samsung's defense. Yet, many Koreans seem to have difficulty with the English language. I suspect that Nanoco would benefit if the judge were to take this common deficiency into consideration in reaching a decision. The Patent Law Enablement Requirement "means that the specification (the written text and drawings) teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the invention. 35 U.S.C. §112." Although not mentioned, we can assume that such person should also be skilled in the English language.

Rambling, incomprehensible article. I doubt if it made sense in the original language.

Thanks, Ecclescake and Barbon. I greatly appreciate your efforts, since am tied up for the next three weeks. Your analysis is comforting. Regardless, I am in it until the end.

Thanks, Lee. Promising!

As I have said previously, we would be naive to believe that Samsung would not have friends and supporters on this board. Most recent investors on this board don't need to be told that this could be a long process. While Samsung will drag this out, wins at the Markman Hearing and the trial later this year will cause the share price to surge.

Good points, Mattyboy. Samsung seems to have no ethical boundaries. Their misdeeds against Nanoco date back more than a decade. We don't know who committed the 10 million, but Nanoco did pay someone to pressure test the lawsuit. We have seen nothing to damage Nanoco's case. Mintz' most recent response to Samsung appears to me, an uninitiated, to be brilliant. I would love to hear an opinion from a patent lawyer.

Possibly too many "is's" in one sentence, depending on the meaning of 'is'. I need to confer with Bill.

Perhaps, I am missing something, BTB. Why is the Markman Hearing, in which the judge upholds the patent validity or not, is not tangible?

No news might be good news. Scale up was anticipated at the end of Financial Q2 2021, at the earliest. Q2 ends on 31, January, 2021. Thus, we could legitimately expect an update. Like it or not, it would be smarter for STMicro to await the Markman results before scaling up. STMicro is already sitting in the catbird seat for delivery of Nanoco dots because it was willing to make an inexpensive bet. Why should STMicro assume further risk until after Markman unless Nanoco were to offer extremely low pricing? Conversely, why would Nanoco offer such low pricing if it felt itself in a strong position vis-a-vis Samsung?

Be wary of buying Quantum Materials Corp Shares. QTMM have surged considerably lately (and then fallen), apparently due to joint ventures within the health industry using QDs to detect coronavirus and other diseases. They even claim infrared capabilities. This appears to be very similar to the problems Nanoco have been seeking to solve with Innovate. It sounds promising, but QTMM is a master of vaporware. To my knowledge, they have not produced a quarterly or annual report since March 31, 2019. Even then, I have doubts that it was properly audited. From my investigations many years ago, their QD IP rights belong to Rice University and others and licenses will have expired without them making very large licensing payments. Their 2018 Annual Balance Sheet showed Current Assets of 1.67 and Current Liabilities of 6.15.

Moreover, the larger trades seem to be on the 'sell' side. Make your own judgement, but take care. They seem to have survived over the years by ramping their share price and then paying debts with shares. Given QTMM's extremely limited R&D funding and in house skills, I don't see how they could have accomplished much. I would need to see more details as well as legitimate financials. There also remains the issue of patents. Are they infringing on any patents?

It makes sense that shares included in IG's set list would experience a small drop, since they would need to be sold by 29 March. Although I don't like trading on margin, I am not sure that now would be a good time to sell, given that the Markman Hearings start on March 26. I would want to sell by March 26. As someone pointed out, inclusion in this list could be a positive, since IG's objective is almost certainly to reduce risk. Game Stop could have something to do with it.

Great work, Hawi. Borac's comments are spot on. I am not a lawyer or a scientist. Nor do I know what I do not know. I can however tell the difference between as sound argument and a specious one. Nanoco and it lawyers have shown that Samsung's IPR institution petition is unjustified and that its claims against Nanoco's patents are a mishmash of unrelated prior art and misleading statements.

As Nanoco's response states:
"Notably, at the time of Nanoco’s invention, Petitioner [Samsung] was still trying to solve the problems associated with producing cadmium-free quantum dots, but they were not having much luck. Petitioner was able to create cadmium-containing quantum dots, but not cadmium-free ones. Indeed, Samsung’s research lead, Dr. Eunjoo Jang, expressed publicly that Samsung found developing cadmium-free quantum dot technology “to be quite a challenge.” Ex. 2005, at 3 (Quantum Dot Artisan: Dr. Eunjoo Jang, Samsung Fellow). As she further stated: At first, we could not even imagine a Cd-free quantum dot, but in Samsung’s commitment to being a globally responsible manufacturer, the vision was to make it work. I was able to relatively quickly complete a cadmium-containing quantum dot, but I wanted to do something that no one else had. So, I worked another three years on Cd-free quantum dot. "
....
"Case No. IPR2021-00186 U.S. Patent No. 8,524,365 35 1001 at 5:28-29. Previous methods were unable to produce commercial quantities of high-quality quantum dots, while the claimed cluster-assisted method was—even for the notoriously difficult cadmium-free quantum dots. VI.CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Claims in an IPR are construed under the claim construction principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); 37 CFR § 42.100(b). “Petitioner does not believe any claim terms need to be construed to resolve the prior art issues presented” in its petition. Petition at 19. A.Molecular Cluster Compound The term “molecular cluster compound” appears in all asserted claims of the ’365 patent, and is described as being an “important feature of the invention.” Ex. 1001 at 5:5-9. Because of this importance, the patentee chose to expressly define the term to ensure its clarity. The ’365 specifications states: ‘Molecular cluster’ is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of 3 or more metal or nonmetal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular mass. "

Nanoco's response makes a strong case that 'terminology' used in its patents, such as "molecular cluster compounds" and "seeding", are core components of its patents and that their defintions must not be ignored.

Thanks for the update, Botbot. I am always happy to hear of Nanoco progress. I suspect that commercialization could occur very soon after the project termination. The below link is positve; my apologies if you have already seen it:
www.bing.com/videos/search?q=VIVODOTS&docid=608002992848830999&mid=AF75B21AAEF4B23D8E72AF75B21AAEF4B23D8E72&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Frostbar is right. Samsung's defense does not indicate earlier patents. Nor had Hansol ever demonstrated skills needed to invent such technology. Samsung's lawsuit seems to depend largely on an 'Enablement' claim--i.e., Nanoco's patent failed to disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention. Samsung apparently clais that Nanoco omitted a step that occurs automatically during the process. If it occurs automatically, why would it need to be documented? It is ironic that Hansol scientists, possessing questionable related skills, were able to carry out the claimed invention.

The Edison report is 5 years old and has proven blatantly false. It was a marketing tool that benefited Edelman and other Nanoco executives by helping to maintain share value. Second sourcing was a hoax perpetrated on a Nanoco executive group shamefully void of basic sales skills. How could Edleman lend credibility to such a report? I do believe that Nanoco will prevail now that they have replaced Edelman's leadership with valid business skills and are finally defending their IP.

Intrusive: (1) I would like to know how much Hansol spent on Q Dot R&D. (2) Hansol's profit from cadmium free dots should be added to the final penalty and multiplied by three.

Note that the "transition into scale-up activities in the second half
of FY21" could occur very quickly, since the second half of FY21 ends on July 31, 2021. Following the Markman Heariings, Nanoco needs to issue an RSN stating the likelihood of this happening within the originally stated time frame.