Member Info for amerloque

Feels different this time. Good luck to all.

have worked with carbon quantum dots and needs to promote this use (dream on!).

Thank you, Basscadet. Trump's comments regarding injecting disinfectants was very enlightened and very positive for Nanoco. As we all know, Nanoco has been testing invitro use of quantum dots in imaging for many years. Others have tested carbon quantum dots for invitro antibacterial use. Nanoco has worded with carbon quantum dots and needs to promote this use.

Please wake up, Nanoco, and fight your way our of the paper bag in which your management is trapped. As the following URL indicates, there are currently huge lighting opportunities for any company able to offer lighting that can eliminate coronavirus. Making the wrong lighting decision can result in many deaths and wasted resources. Nanoco has world class lighting knowledge and, even if they do not have a product, should be able to make substantial money consulting organizations throughout the world. This kind of knowledge is immensely valuable. Please benefit your company and the world by sharing it.

https://247sports.com/college/ole-miss/Article/Ole-Miss-training-staff-has-a-big-job-ahead-146351135

They need to find a safe way to bring football and basketball back into the university’s substantial weight/exercise facilities and indoor fields and arenas. If Nanoco does not have solutions, it could at least receive large consulting and sales commissions by hooking other companies up.

The SP is simply an assessment of Nanoco management, which is clearly trapped inside a paper bag. Despite long ago agreeing with this estimation, I decided ride it out. My biggest fear now is that unsound management might extend across their IP. I just hope that they have been completely honest with their patent lawyers.

Interesting, NanoNano. Is it possible that Apple is awaiting the outcome of Nanoco's lawsuit and perhaps even committed to funding the lawsuit? They would certainly benefit from blocking Samsung.

The Eastern and Western Districts of Texas (>900 Pending IP Cases)
The Eastern District of Texas issued an Order on March 16, signed by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, continuing all jury trials scheduled through May 1, 2020 to a date reset by each presiding judge. This continuance, however, does not include any other pending deadlines. If other deadlines need to be modified, attorneys are instructed to contact their presiding judge. With respect to bench trials, in-person hearings, scheduling conferences and other court proceedings, individual judges may continue to hold them as they deem appropriate on a case by case basis. Relief from such hearings may be sought via motion. The Court welcomed the use of telephonic or video proceedings where ever appropriate.

I googled “Samsung lawsuit” and received 5,720,000 results. Among them:
2019--A Samsung refrigerator class action lawsuit alleging the ice makers on certain models leak
2019--ads suggesting Galaxy smartphones could be used while swimming were misleading.
2019—Misrepresented cellphones that exceed federal radiofrequency radiation exposure limits
2019—Top-load washing machine settlement
2020—Nanoco patent infringement
2018—Samsung cellphone update issues
2018—Samsung awarded $539 Million in patent infringement case
2018—Samsung Note 7 fire endangered a plane and its passengers
2018-- www.androidauthority.com/samsung-nucurrent-lawsuit-846179/
NuCurrent developed a new way to deliver fast and efficient wireless charging speeds and talked to Samsung about licensing the technology. Samsung invited NuCurrent team to South Korea for a multi-day. NuCurrent considered the meeting a success by NuCurrent as Samsung showed strong interest in using NuCurrent technology in its Galaxy S and Galaxy Note line of phones. However, Samsung stalled in making the partnership official. Then, NuCurrent was horrified to find that Samsung implemented NuCurrent technology in the Samsung Galaxy S7 and eventually the Galaxy S8, among other devices, without ever signing a licensing deal.
This is not the first time Samsung has allegedly stolen technology from a smaller, younger company. The link references other instances. Does this look familiar?

You are right TLWilliams. I have been puzzled as to why Samsung did not respond by April 2. I now realize that I had miscounted the 45 days. We should hear something by Wednesday or Thursday.

Agree. Sadly, they have proven deficient in many more leadership skills.

I sent a message to Nanoco yesterday explaining that I have owned Nanoco shares for 8 years while Management was making timely sales and that they must be aware from blogs that investors have been left blowing in the wind regarding when to expect a legal response from Samsung. While we no longer expect Nanoco management to exhibit skilled leadership, we do expect them to be considerate and to keep us better informed.

I am not a big fan of Facebook, but I don't mind seeing Apple shut out of Plessey, which holds much too great promise to allow itself to be constrained by Apple. Facebook could help Plessey dominate the VR/AR/MR industries.

BTB: It is understandable that potential buyers of Nanoco would want to await the outcome of its patent infringement case against Samsung. Moreover, why would Nanoco sell from such a weakened position. Nanoco's press releases may intend to make it clear to the court that Samsung's behavior has caused grievous harm. I never believed that Nanoco was serious about selling. If Nanoco wins, they will not need to sell. If they lose, the company will lose much of its value and will be forced to sell for very littlea. It all boils down to one question. Did Nanoco adequately protect its IP? It does concern me that Nanoco management have never exhibited the ability to make good deals.

J'Accuse Samsung!

Nanoco lawyers would certainly have sent such a Patent Infringement notice to Samsung. The following referenced pdf file discusses the danger of not responding to a notice of patent infringement. It is likely that Samsung failed to substantively respond, which opens the case to triple damages.
www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorney%20Articles/2002/Responding_to_Patent_Infringement_Notices.pdf

The following web site defines Federal rules for time. Time is based on calendar days. Moreover, "an extension of time sought before expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order ought to be granted in effect ex parte, as FRCP 6 (b) permits, it may grant motions seeking such relief without delay."
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_26
"Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time
Primary tabs

(a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
....
Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time
Primary tabs

(a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
....
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1967

The provisions of this rule are based upon FRCP 6 (a), (b) and (e). See also Supreme Court Rule 34 and FRCrP 45. Unlike FRCP 6 (b), this rule, read with Rule 27, requires that every request for enlargement of time be made by motion, with proof of service on all parties. This is the simplest, most convenient way of keeping all parties advised of developments. By the terms of Rule 27(b) a motion for enlargement of time under Rule 26(b) may be entertained and acted upon immediately, subject to the right of any party to seek reconsideration. Thus the requirement of motion and notice will not delay the granting of relief of a kind which a court is inclined to grant as of course. Specifically, if a court is of the view that an extension of time sought before expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order ought to be granted in effect ex parte, as FRCP 6 (b) permits, it may grant motions seeking such relief without delay."

Thanks, Troublesome. It now dawns on me why Nanoco has been unwilling to exploit its opportunities in anti-virus lighting. ME fears elimination.

Troublesome: It is shocking that the article you referenced was published in November, 2019.

Good find, Troublesome. Seems to justify government funding.

Troublesome: Unless Nanoco were total idiots, Samsung should be in heavy negotiations with Nanoco. Although Samsung has many employees in Texas, I doubt that Texas courts will be sympathetic toward them.
On another matter, I notice that airlines are using huge ultraviolet light machines to disinfect planes. Nanoco, which has been a leader in cadmium free lighting, should work with governments worldwide to provide quantum dot lighting solutions. Why couldn't quantum dots be used in various garments and protection devices? Funding should be easily available in this environment.