Member Info for amerloque

SL: Without your original post, I would not have been able to look further.

Thanks again, Screenlearner--very helpful info. Nanoco's Mintz based lawyers have very specific skills helpful to this case. Some of these could during settlement and beyond. Renau and Wodarski both have considerable Section 337 experience. The primary remedy available in Section 337 investigations is an exclusion order that directs Customs to stop infringing imports from entering the United States. In addition, the Commission may issue cease and desist orders against named importers and other persons engaged in unfair acts that violate Section 337. Expedited relief in the form of temporary exclusion orders and temporary cease and desist orders may also be available in certain exceptional circumstances. Wodarski and Renau have also work with clients to strategically manage portfolios and generate substantial revenue . They use strategic acumen and business savvy to successfully drive worldwide enforcement and monetisation programmes, which have helped clients to earn returns of more than $1 billion. Michael C Newman is an inter partes review specialist. Inter Partes review is a trial held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that determines whether a given patent is valid.

Samsung Electronics Co. won a 7.9 trillion won ($6.6 billion) order to provide fifth-generation wireless solutions to Verizon Communications Inc. in the U.S., a big win for the electronics giant’s networking gear business.

Gigantic trusts keep getting bigger. Anti-trust laws have become meaningless.

I agree, NanoNano. According to Investopedia, "Apple is Samsung's biggest customer for several reasons, some of them strategic. Size means getting first crack at supply, which means that in times of high demand Apple can increase its orders with Samsung and let smaller competitors worry about where to find parts.Jun 25, 2019".

Because component availability and profit are critical to Apple, Samsung has huge influence over Apple decisions. The bond is strengthened as they become partners in crime. Yes, "collusion is illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to antitrust laws, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place."

Is Apple's culpability is much less than Samsung's? Less, but not much less if it gives them substantial unfair advantage, harms small companies like Nanoco and enables the Samsungs of the world. Given Nanoco's contribution to a cadmium-free world, Apple would also be guilty of massive hypocrisy.

I re-post this excerpt because it relates to Samsung Electronics, where Samsung set out to build its cadmium free quantum dot factory in 2012. The article's author voiced the opinion that a son of Jo Jun-ung, the Special Prosecutor of this case, was hired as a section chief at Samsung Electronics in 2012 one of multiple bribes to get a future Supreme Court Justice to support suspending a conviction of Samsung's President. I wonder if this was the quantum dot section.

“The story of “too big to jail” found root in “judicial favors” granted to Samsung Group’s founding family. “

“Lee Kun-hee was indicted without detention and received only suspended sentences twice in 1995 and in 2009.
“Lee’s 2009 trial is a real shame in South Korea’s judiciary history, to say the least. In his trial, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the High Court decision and delivered Lee Kun-hee a guilty verdict on the issuance of Samsung SDS bonds with warrant. However, in a later sentencing trial, Seoul High Court acknowledged Lee’s guilt but did not change his sentence, thereby confirming the suspended sentence.
“This judicial favor paid off for this trial’s head judge, Kim Chang-seok, who was appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court in 2012 during the Lee Myung-bak Administration (Lee Myung-bak, who was South Korea's president from 2008 to 2013, was accused of ... In return for the bribes, Mr. Lee did favors for Samsung executives). Moreover, after the trial ended, a son of Jo Jun-ung, the Special Prosecutor of this case, joined Samsung Electronics as a section chief. Given the fact that it takes a new recruit at least eight years to reach this position, Jo’s insertion at this level of management despite having no work experience raised suspicions and public criticism. Eventually, he resigned.
“… early-retired judges typically join legal teams of chaebol firms or law firms whose big clients are chaebol firms. When particular families control a significant portion of a country’s economic resources, judges with career concerns are likely to make distorted judicial decisions, which may be beneficial to the private interests of these families.”

Nanoco's scientists are highly regarded. If Nanoco were in great danger, we would see their more skilled employees leaving to join competitors. Yet, they seem to be very loyal.

Good info, SL.

Low volume.

https://promarket.org/2020/04/15/too-big-to-jail-how-powerful-korean-executives-escape-indictment-or-conviction/

“The expression “too big to jail” typically refers to failures to prosecute big corporations such as Wall Street banks. However, the same expression has mostly been used for failures to prosecute the founding families of chaebols, large business groups controlled by founder families in South Korea. The failure to hold these founder families accountable for crimes of embezzlement or breach of fiduciary duty undermines the rule of law and the corporation system, which are foundations of the market economy…

the expression “too big to jail” indicates the fact that the founding families of chaebols typically escape indictment or conviction of crimes.

“The story of “too big to jail” found root in “judicial favors” granted to Samsung Group’s founding family. “

“Lee Kun-hee was indicted without detention and received only suspended sentences twice in 1995 and in 2009.
“Lee’s 2009 trial is a real shame in South Korea’s judiciary history, to say the least. In his trial, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the High Court decision and delivered Lee Kun-hee a guilty verdict on the issuance of Samsung SDS bonds with warrant. However, in a later sentencing trial, Seoul High Court acknowledged Lee’s guilt but did not change his sentence, thereby confirming the suspended sentence.
“This judicial favor paid off for this trial’s head judge, Kim Chang-seok, who was appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court in 2012 during the Lee Myung-bak Administration. Moreover, after the trial ended, a son of Jo Jun-ung, the Special Prosecutor of this case, joined Samsung Electronics as a section chief. Given the fact that it takes a new recruit at least eight years to reach this position, Jo’s insertion at this level of management despite having no work experience raised suspicions and public criticism. Eventually, he resigned.
“… early-retired judges typically join legal teams of chaebol firms or law firms whose big clients are chaebol firms. When particular families control a significant portion of a country’s economic resources, judges with career concerns are likely to make distorted judicial decisions, which may be beneficial to the private interests of these families.”

Could Nanoco also file a US Rico lawsuit for criminal IP infringement (triple damages) against Samsung, which has a long history of criminal behavior? Edelman was based in the USA. Following are excerpts from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/business/dealbook/harvey-weinstein-rico.html

“Unlike most criminal statutes, RICO contains a civil component that allows it to be used to turn ordinary business disputes that would be filed in state courts into federal cases. Proving a violation results in the award of triple damages plus attorney’s fees….
The statute requires proving that an “enterprise” engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of federal criminal laws over a substantial period….
Those statutes make it a crime to engage in a “scheme or artifice to defraud,” so proving deceptive conduct can be the basis for a RICO lawsuit….
In many cases, one side claims it was misled in ways involving mail or wire communications, such as emails or bank transactions, that formed a pattern of racketeering activity… there must be three structural features to establish this type of enterprise: “a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose”…enough evidence in their complaint to show the “association in fact” that was more than just a loose agglomeration of individuals….”

Good information, Screenlearner. Kirkland & Ellis are a good fit for Samsung. With Toys R Us going down the tubes, Kirkland showed up at the bankruptcy proceedings with a hefty bill for services rendered —$56 million for a little over a year of work in a bankruptcy representation.
Kirkland & Ellis made its name on fearsome litigation. But now, after years of transformation, the firm has become the largest in the country, powered by the billings of its corporate and bankruptcy lawyers. Litigators who have left the Chicago-based firm say its power center has shifted toward lawyers in private equity and public company mergers and acquisitions. Litigation partners have seen their compensation cut, and their share of the firm’s headcount has declined over the past decade. Their lawyers make could money, but staff is not paid well and don’t seem to be generally happy.
Yet, they still claim their strength is litigation and focus on trial-readiness that often produces more favorable pre-trial rulings and settlements. They brag about their success in forcing the plaintiff to reduce its claims and patents infringed. We can perhaps see this in current efforts to reduce the number of Samsung companies involved in the Nanoco lawsuit.
While the have a large office in Houston, they don’t seem to have a strong presence in Marshall, TX court. Pre-trial hearings will seemingly be very important.

Thanks, Enteleon. I appreciate so many people on this board. No one has gained more respect than you. I just hope we all make money.

I have no idea. I hope so.

It seems pretty complete and does include InP.

CuriousM, This patent abbreviated excerpt from 2010 includes InP in “method of producing nanoparticles comprises effecting conversion of a nanoparticle precursor composition to the material of the nanoparticles.:
IIA-VIB (2-16) Nanoparticle material include but are not restricted to:—MgS, MgSe, MgTe, CaS, CaSe, CaTe, SrS, SrSe, SrTe, BaS, BaSe, BaTe.
IIB-VIB (12-16) Nanoparticle material includes but are not restricted to:—ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe.
II-V Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—Zn3P2, Zn3As2, Cd3P2, Cd3As2, Cd3N2, Zn3N2.
III-V Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—BP, AlP, AlAs, AlSb; GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb; InN, InP, InAs, InSb, AlN, BN.
III-IV Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—B4C, Al4C3, Ga4C.
III-VI Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—Al2S3, Al2Se3, Al2Te3, Ga2S3, Ga2Se3, GeTe; In2S3, In2Se3, Ga2Te3, In2Te3, InTe.
IV-VI Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—PbS, PbSe, PbTe, Sb2Te3, SnS, SnSe, SnTe.
Nanoparticle material consisting of a first element from any group in the transition metal of the periodic table, and a second element from any group of the d-block elements of the periodic table and also including ternary and quaternary materials and doped materials. Nanoparticle material include but is not restricted to:—NiS, CrS, CuInS2.
By the term doped nanoparticle for the purposes of specifications and claims, refer to nanoparticles of the above and a dopant comprised of one or more main group or rare earth elements, this most often is a transition metal or rare earth element, such as but not limited to zinc sulfide with manganese, such as ZnS nanoparticles doped with Mn+.

After reviewing patents, I recognize that I may have been wrong about Edleman having not been forthright regarding Magic-Sized-Clusters. It looks as if Nanoco repeatedly described a multi-step process that included Magic-Sized Clusters without calling them such and did, in fact, reference Magic-Sized Clusters in their patents.
We all knew Edelman was incompetent. Perhaps, this incompetence was magnified when dealing with the legal team. He seemed unable to manage his own life. His trades were embarrassingly timely, and he almost always used personnel debts as justification for his trades. He even claimed once that he sold shares to give to charity. Giving shares of stock would have been preferable if he believed in Nanoco's future. I suspect that he was his own preferred charity.

Quotes added, reflecting the content of the patents:
Beginning in 2006, Nanoco (Nigel Pickett) began filing numerous patents for "methods of producing nanoparticles using a molecular cluster compound under conditions permitting seeding and growth of the nanoparticles."

Beginning in 2006, Nanoco (Nigel Pickett) began filing numerous patents for methods of producing nanoparticles using a molecular cluster compound under conditions permitting seeding and growth of the nanoparticles. The 2007 patent discusses "conversion of a core precursor composition comprising separate first and second precursor species to the core material and then depositing said first and second shells. The conversion is effected in the presence of a molecular cluster compound under conditions permitting seeding and growth of the nanoparticle core. "

Nanoco has since many related patents. Nanoco recently received additional patents describing in detail a wide range of materials available to create these clusters. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

It seems that Samsung's case revolves around the failure to mention Magic Size Clusters. Yet, the patents do include references to Magic Sized Clusters.

Prior to reviewing this material, I seriously considered selling but have reversed my decision to sell. I am not a patent lawyer, but Samsung appears to be full of it. I do not believe that Nigel Pickett is an idiot.

Given its legal team's extensive review, Nanoco's patent must be valid, though perhaps limited. As Newbie pointed out, the patent might not have disclosed the Magic Size Clusters, which could then be used for seeding. It is critical that this NDA have included a perpetual Trade Secret Agreement. Samsung could only have learned about the MSCs by working with Nanoco and Dow under nondisclosure. Thus, they would have violated a Nanoco trade secret. "Trade secret law is centered on the belief that certain confidential business information of economic value should be protected against theft." I understand that Trade Secret infringements are handled by state courts and not by patent courts.
Edelman should have been fired long ago. He was most likely fired now because he had not been completely forthcoming with the legal team.

Our lawyers will certainly beware of red herrings.