Member Info for amerloque

Sorry Nanogeddon. I am already committed to Gilstrap.

Gilstrap is brilliant. He received a Bachelor of Arts from Baylor University in 1978, where he graduated magna cum laude.[3] As an undergraduate he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He is highly respected in Texas, extremely well organized, and seems to have little difficulty understanding technology or business subjects.

For many years, he has presided over more patent cases than any judge in the country. He led the US in patent cases in 2014 and 2015. In 2016 alone, he had 1,119 cases brought before him. He also has access to subject experts. It is not likely that many jury members have anything near his expertise.

I mention this, Feeks, because I think it is an important backstop. I don't think we need to depend on the judge overruling the jury. However, it is comforting to know that the judge could overturn a totally irrational holdout by one or two members of the jury. We know that there are gobs of money at stake, that Samsung has huge funds at its disposal, and Samsung often does not play fair.

I believe that Gilstrap is a fair person and will seek a fair outcome. I am sure that Samsungs excessively egregious behavior will weigh heavily in any award Nanoco might receive.

Can a Federal Judge overturn a jury and | Legal Advice (lawguru.com)
Re: Can a Federal Judge overturn a jury and rule a patent invalid.
Yes. A judge can overrule a jury's verdict in a case. The measure is whether, given the evidence, no reasonable person could give the verdict that was given by the jury in the case. This can happen in cases where the jury lets their emotions take over for their rationality, or in cases where the jury may not have properly understood the issues and the evidence in the case (as might have been the scenario in your case). The two rules of Federal Civil Procedure through which this may be implemented are as follows:
Judgment as Matter of Law (formerly ?Directed Verdict?) ? Motion for judgment as a matter of law allows judgment to be granted for either party if the evidence is such that reasonable persons could not disagree. Evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (in your case, you would have been the non-moving party).
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (formerly "JNOV" - Judgment Non Obstante Veridicto) ? A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, formerly known as a JNOV, may be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment (if a motion for judgment as a matter of law was made at the close of all evidence.)
And, of course, the Federal Appellate Court may affirm the Federal Trial Judge's verdict.

I once suspected that Samsung would be paying posters on this site. Lately, I am increasingly convinced that such posters are probably using the payments to buy nanoco shares.

My research shows that a Post Grant Review petition must be filed withing nine months of the patent grant date. Strange that Samsung never petitioned for a PGR. They certainly must have been immediately aware of the patent approval.

Put yourselves in the position of the funders!
1. You were considering committing tens of millions of dollars to fund Nanoco's lawsuit.
2. First, you hired a company expert in verifying patents to verify Nanoco's technology and patents.
3. You hired Mintz, a top law firm, to work with the above company to examine all loopholes. 4. The two above companies would have worked with Nanoco (scientists and executives) to review the evidence against Samsung.
5. Prior to filing the lawsuit, these three would have hard-tested the patents by verifying the process against the sufficiency of the patent descriptions.

I have no doubt that funding would not have occurred if they and Nanoco lawyers were not certain they could prove sufficiency. Nevertheless, a jury trial is always a risk. Let's not forget that Gilstrap is not a fool. The jury should vote in Nanoco's favor. As a judge, he does have the authority to overrule the jury if he feels the jury reached a wrong conclusion.

No, UglyButter. Nanoco could not have done it without the funder. The money could not have been better spent given that Nanoco was ble to sue Samsung risk free-- all court costs covered, win or lose. This funder saved Nanoco and us. Even if Nanoco loses, the SWIR and Infrared dots hold promising futures.

Poooroldman: Inverse percentage (50% to 25%, if I remember right) based on size of award. Funder receives lower percentage on very large awards; have not seen a breakdown of percentages.

We have been assuming that Nanoco will receive ongoing royalties, which would likely be the most important element of any potential award. Not only did Samsung jilt Nanoco at the alter and not buy Nanoco's QDs; there is a long chain of circumstantial evidence that they persistently hampered Nanoco success vis-a-vis other prospects. What if Samsung has found an alternative to CFQDs. How should this influence the award amount if Nanoco wins? Had Samsung followed through with Nanoco, Nanoco's platform technology would have dominated the quantum dot market for many industries.

I found the following comments regarding Apple's IPhone 14 and Samsung's Galaxy. Looks like Samsung is experiencing problems with their new phones.

"Then there’s this year’s Galaxy S22 performance scandal. Even if you don’t want to buy the iPhone 14, you should avoid the Galaxy S22 at all costs. Samsung’s innovations turned the Galaxy S22 into an overheating mess early this year. And then there were additional misleading claims about the handset’s capabilities that should keep you away from it."

"With all that in mind, Samsung better buckle up. The massive iPhone 14 sales that will follow in the coming year will obliterate all the 2022 and 2023 flagship Galaxies."

1) Denigrating the Innovate award offends me. Show some gratitude.
2) Nanoco have absolutely reduced R&D expenditures in recent years.
3) Pickett is nearing retirement. Who replaces him?
4) Who believes that Pickett would stick with a moribund company offering no challenge?

Millstone? In 2020, Nobel prize winners received $1,208,677.20 in addition to the prize. The award certainly leads to much larger monetary gains.

"£500k is a drop in the ocean ".
The Picketts of the world don't apply for a grant to do 'stuff'. Rather, they research , plan, budget, and propose interesting projects. Samsung's IP theft and subsequent actions have prevented Nanoco from doing research recently. Given solid direction and goals, Nanoco could benefit significantly from even this relatively small amount. I have no idea what the project involves, but if Pickett's hypothesis proves out, it could lead to additional funding. Time is of the essence in a rapidly changing world. Nanoco might even be able to fund this further in the near future, but starting sooner must be important.

I refer to Dr Nigel Picket who collaborated with Novoselov for 10 years. Googling Picket and Novoselov led to the following quotes. Picket does not have a Nobel prize but is certainly a valuable collaborator at that level.

'Dr Nigel Pickett, CTO and co-founder of Nanoco, said: "By combining Nanoco’s expertise with the knowledge base from Professor Novoselov’s lab we have been able to push the boundaries of material science to come up with a new generation of versatile 2D nano-particles and are now utilising Nanoco’s 15 years of scale-up expertise on methods to produce them at commercial scale.
nted " '

"For the past year the revered scientist [Sir Kostya Novoselov] has been collaborating with Manchester-based Nanoco Group PLC, a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other types of nano-materials."

"In a bid to develop and commercialise nano-materials, [Manchester] university and Nanoco have now launched a business called 2D Materials."

And recruit top scientists. I don't imagine it is easy to retain Nobel level scientists on a staff unless you can offer them challenges.

I should also point out that new vistas will help to make Nanoco a fun place to work. Nanoco has some of the top nanotechnology scientists. They need to be able to keep these scientists.

Let's not trivialize the Innovate and other loans from the British government, as Nanoco might not have survived without them. Failure to benefit from them to date has more to do with Nanoco facing competition from their own IP.

Nanoco will receive an extra .5M pounds over the next two years--not to be scoffed at. Anyone paying attention would notice that one of the awards, for 'Quantum Technology Applications", opens important new avenues for Nanoco. Quantum Technology promises giant leaps in understanding our universe. Much of it has to do with electronics and computing, but also includes concepts such as 'squeezed light' which was first proven in 2015 and is currently used to track gravity waves? I have read that gravity waves can modify distances in the universe. Today, squeezed light requires huge and expensive optical equipment. Just as quantum dots reduce SWIR costs and size thousands of times, why wouldn't they do the same for squeezed light.

I'm sure of it, Troublesome. I can imagine Eu Jong trying to figure out what to do with the sticky wicket.

https://www.venable.com/-/media/patent-claim-construction-wong_dillon.pdf
The above site is interesting. I sometimes forget that Nanoco achieved a huge victory in the Markman trial, in which the judge approved all of Nanoco's Claim Constructions. The principal concern had to do with the definition of MCC because Nanoco did not place quotes around the phrase and specifically define it. The Markman judge ruled that Nanoco used the term in its ordinary and customary sense and that quotes were thus not necessary.

"...the Federal Circuit has stated that the inventor must clearly indicate in the specification or file history the desired definition to overcome the presumption that the term’s ordinary and customary meaning applies. The
inventor may provide this indication by, for example, using
quotation marks around the terms in question. "

This is huge for Nanoco since the Markman judge must understand the patent specification and interpret terminology in context. Nanoco lawyers must certainly have verified that a POSITA could perform the procedure successfully using this terminology. It is probably why BT is so confidant.