Member Info for amerloque

Upticker: Verizon management face a real risk of embarrassment and loss of jobs when they wake up one day to learn of an injunction against Samsung telecom products. That's the price of sleeping with dishonest companies.

Patents can be overturned. Given Samsung's track record and Nanoco's solid funding and strong legal team, I doubt that this will happen. I suspect that Nanoco never intended to sell. Certainly, they would never reward Samsung by selling them the company. Perhaps, they might accept a minor investment.

I am not an expert, WDIK12, but when looking at Samsung's original defense, I inferred that Samsung were claiming initially that the second stage was well known prior art and that Nanoco would never have received a patent had they documented this step. I don't believe Samsung initially claimed that the patent failed the enabling test. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know the details of Samsung's updated claims, but if Samsung is now claims that the patent was insufficient and thus failed the enabling standard, It would seem that they are desperately grabbing at straws while changing horses in the middle of a stream. Kerplunk! Regarding Edelman's alleged secrecy comments, I imagine they are open to multiple interpretations.

Your comment that Samsung probably violated nondisclosure and trade secret laws is insightful and probably accurate. This issue, however, would have to be handled in a different court.

I don't know anything about Edelman's comments (and I even doubt their veracity). I had understood that the missing stage was an automatic byproduct of the process and that its non-documentation would not have prevented the patent's implementation. I had further understood that Samsung was contesting the patent on the basis that Nanoco had omitted documenting the step in order to avoid prior art claims.

Great find, ddubya! This bodes well for Nanoco, given that Samsung press releases earlier this year announced, "The company is investing billions to build a new plant to produce quantum dot-based TV screens that rival LG’s OLEDs, and will end LCD production entirely by the end of this year." It appears that Samsung has decided to self impose a temporary kibash on QD TVs before the courts do so, thus hoping to avoid very public embarrassment. If possible, Nanoco lawyers should push to extend this halt by any additional time that Samsung takes to settle this lawsuit beyond the start of this lawsuit, not just for TVs, but for the use of quantum dots in any future electronic components.

As the song goes, "It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...."

That Nanoco is already negotiating the potential next stage is very promising. Reaching a point that enables such negotiations means that STMicro has passed the proof of concept stage and is ready to create viable products.

This may be unrelated, but https://evertiq.com/design/49185 (November 27, 2020) states that
"Semiconductor manufacturer STMicroelectronics, is teaming up with Chinese provider of agricultural and construction machinery YTO Group to establish a joint lab which will focus on R&D of electronic solutions for engine, vehicle, and agricultural controls in tractors. "

“As the first producer of tractors, road rollers, and cross-country trucks in China, YTO has a long history of success as a leading provider of agricultural equipment,” says Lei Jun, Assistant Director of YTO’s Research Institute of Intelligence and Information, in a press release. “This cooperation combines ST’s cutting-edge technologies and application-specific ICs with our solutions, to continue to innovate and to ensure outstanding quality and performance.”

"ST is set to provide the joint lab with its latest automotive-semiconductor technology and solutions, including SPC5x 32-bit microcontrollers and Smart Power ICs such as motor-control, power-supply, and general-purpose high- and low-side actuation drivers. "

I strongly suspect that Samsung influenced the RoHS delays in banning cadmium. Why would they not if doing so blocked Nanoco's success and eventual ability to protect their IP. We should applaud Nanoco for having turned the tables on Samsung by securing backing to sue. Certainly, Samsung never expected that Nanoco could ever afford such an expensive lawsuit. Nanoco has made many mistakes, but this lawsuit was masterful. I look forward to benefitting royally in the not too distant future. Samsung's attempts to stay this trial 'to review patents' is likely indicative of Nanoco's positional strength.

Nanonano: For what it's worth, it is my opinion that Samsung disrupted the QD world and delayed its development by promoting cadmium solutions while simultaneously blocking Nanoco's sales efforts and monopolizing the cadmium free QD market. There is certainly circumstantial proof of this. What other explanation would account for Samsung being so successful in its use of Nanoco's CFQD's while every Nanoco pursuit resulted in eventual failure. Samsung possessed both motive and sufficient influence to divert sales away from almost every large Nanoco prospect. In almost every instance, Samsung was carrying on timely direct or indirect dealings with these prospects. These dealings included takeovers of unprofitable subsidiaries, lawsuits, and huge product purchases or sales discounts. It is unlikely that these dealings were all coincidental. Today, companies can always claim these to be business as normal. Pardon my soapbox, but If we are ever to limit this behavior, we need to break up the huge trusts and cartels, whether they are in Korea, China, the USA or anywhere else in the world.

(1) My recent comments regarding Nanoco's patent were made in ignorance of Edleman's alleged comments regarding Nanoco's desire to not give away too much information within the patent documentation. This is possibly why Edelman was replaced. Nanoco should have put him in front of a firing squad. This comment seems to support Samsung's stance that the patent was not enabling. However, the fact that Samsung was able to build an entire cadmium free quantum dot plant without Nanoco's assistance or knowledge contradicts this premise. Moreover, Nanoco has epeatedly demonstrated a willingness to license the technology to other companies.

(2) There is a way to compute lost opportunity instead of lost revenue as a measure of compensation. Had Samsung honored Nanoco's IP, Nanoco would almost certainly have achieved a position of strength, even dominance in the cadmium-free quantum dot market. Historically, a 35% market share is considered a position of strength and a 60% market share a position of dominance. The global Quantum Dot market is valued at 2426.4 million US$ in 2020 is expected to reach 13740 million US$ by the end of 2026, growing at a CAGR of 27.8% during 2021-2026. I choose not to make the calculation here, since we must limit the calculation to only that subsection appropriate to Nanoco's cfqd's. I believe it to be very substantial.

I agree, Nige-W. If the undocumented step was so obvious, why weren't other companies employing this Substantially more efficient method of production? Why did Samsung disguise its intentions for so long? I believe that Nanoco will win a substantial award, tripled for willful infringement, and that Samsung will have to pay legal costs. A Nanoco investment is risky but the huge potential upside justifies the investment if one can afford a small loss. Samsung's track record, alone, almost justifies the investment.

CORRECTION (IN CAPS) TO PREVIOUS COMMENT:
“It is the judge, not the jury, who determines Inequitable Conduct issues. Evaluating inequitable conduct requires answering two factual questions: whether 1) the undisclosed information was material to the patentability of the invention, and 2) the patentee (or representatives) intended to mislead the USPTO by not disclosing the information. [Amerloque comment: This seems to be a key issue in the Nanoco-Samsung lawsuit, since Samsung appears to claim that that Nanoco intended to mislead the USPTO by failing to document an intermediate step in the patent. It is pretty clear that the first point was met. I would imagine that this would be settled during the Markman hearings. IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PATENT, AS IT STANDS, ENABLES A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART IN THE FIELD OF THE INVENTION TO MAKE AND USE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION. The question is whether the USPTO would have granted the patent had Nanoco included this step.]

A party to a patent case may also recover attorney fees in “exceptional cases.” Whether a case is exceptional is a question of fact. However, whether awarding attorney fee is warranted by the exceptionality of the case is subject to the court’s discretion.

You are correct that the judge in a patent infringement case has more power than in a traditional jury trial. The following web site clearly addresses these issues.
https://www.oblon.com/A11960/assets/files/News/256.pdf
“The U.S. may be the only country in the world that uses juries to decide patent disputes.3
“The present jury system for patent cases is thus based on the federal jury system.
“The general rule that defines the jury’s role in patent cases and other civil cases in general is that the jury resolves questions of fact, while the judge resolves the questions of law.16 Exceptions to this rule exist. Certain questions of fact are part of an overall issue that is deemed to be “equitable in nature” (which addresses the doctrine of equivalents).
“The literal infringement determination, whether properly construed claims read onto an accused product or method, is a question of fact.” If the accused infringer’s device, method or product does not literally meet one (or more) limitations of the patent’s claims, the jury then inquires whether the accused infringer’s device method or product incorporates an equivalent of the missing limitation. Equivalency is established using a ‘tripartite test’ which sets out three question of fact… the jury must determine whether the accused device includes something that 1) performs substantially the same function as the claimed element, 2) in substantially the same way, and 3) to give substantially the same result.
“It is the judge, not the jury, who determines Inequitable Conduct issues. Evaluating inequitable conduct requires answering two factual questions: whether 1) the undisclosed information was material to the patentability of the invention, and 2) the patentee (or representatives) intended to mislead the USPTO by not disclosing the information. [Amerloque comment: This seems to be a key issue in the Nanoco-Samsung lawsuit, since Samsung appears to claim that that Nanoco intended to mislead the USPTO by failing to document an intermediate step in the patent. It is pretty clear that the first point was met. I would imagine that this would be settled during the Markman hearings. It is pretty clear that the first point was met. The question is whether the USPTO would have granted the patent had Nanoco included this step.]
Damages:
A patent owner in entitled to “damages adequate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer…. Determination of the amount of damage is a question of fact for the jury…. In certain cases, the patent owner can be awarded up to three times the damages.88 The question of whether the circumstances of the case warrant such increased damages is subject to the court’s discretion.89 However, one important factor for awarding increased damages is whether the infringement was willful, which is a question of fact for the jury.

Other than the outcome of the Markman hearings and insuring a fair trial, I don't expect that Judge Gilstrap will influence the trial. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the Jury that will deliver the verdict and specify the award amount. Nanoco will only need a majority of the jury. If this does go to a jury trial, Samsung is doomed.

From Patent Rules (Texas Eastern District) Rule 4-1: As part of a patent invalidity claim, "Invalidity Contentions" must contain "The identity of each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious."

IF THE NANOCO PATENT WAS SO OBVIOUS, why did Samsung lead Nanoco on for so long, pretending to have interest while knowing full well that Dow was building a quantum dot plant next door? This, alone, attests to Nanoco's patent not being so obvious. Samsung conducts themselves more like a crime syndicate.

Correction: I would have sold with the intention of buying at a lower price. I have always believed in Nanoco's long term future.

Feeks: My comment was intended as a compliment to you. I never believed that you had an agenda other than to warn us, nor did I ever criticize you. I did not want to believe you. All of the news from Edelman and others seemed so positive. Had I been able to trade on the London market, I certainly would have sold. My initial purchase was on the London markets, but the US goverment forced my broker to move my account to the US OTC market, which is simply too illiquid to enable timely trades.

Glad to see Feeks being positive (post indicates ownership of Nanoco shares). I Seem to remember that he/she was the most negative poster on this board for years, irritating many other posters. I wish I had listened to him/her.

Don't rule out the possibility that relatives and friends of knowledgeable Samsung management are buying Nanoco shares. Such illegal transactions would seem to fit the modus operandi of Samsung execs .

Morbox, Nanonano: Thanks! Just making it to the Markman Hearing indicates positive expectations and would thus be positive.