The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Hawi
So refreshing to see a reply that sink to arrogant pontificating.
Thanks! I notice that the IPR appeal by Samsung fails to reference 'lack of description' or 'enablement' issues as invalidity grounds. This new issue is not surprising. When Samsung requested the IPR hearing, they stated that they would not contest validity on the grounds specified in the IPR request. It now looks like they always intended to raise this issue in the court trial. They apparently did not want the PTAB to address this issue. Is this a trap? As Gilstrap warned, Nanoco needs to tread carefully and not risk opening Pandora's box. Note that the Brown University expert has credit for two nano technology inventions of unknown value.
www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/ongoing-royalties-for-patent-infringement.pdf
"Section 283 of the Patent Act provides that, to prevent the ongoing infringement
of a patent, courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of eq-
uity.” If the court decides that the issuance of an injunction is not appropriate, it
may direct the parties to negotiate a royalty for the infringer’s future use of the pa-
tented technology. When such a negotiation fails, the court will impose an ongoing
royalty that the infringer must pay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir-
cuit has clarified that the calculus for an ongoing royalty differs from the calculus
for a reasonable royalty typically awarded for past infringement, but it has not pre-
scribed any particular methodology for a court to apply when determining an ongo-
ing royalty. I conduct an empirical analysis of the courts’ decisions on ongoing
royalties, which shows that a court-awarded ongoing royalty typically exceeds the
jury-determined reasonable royalty imposed for past infringement."
@Screenlearner: "... validating our products in H1 of FY23, ahead of expected visibility of production orders shortly thereafter. "
As Screenlearner implied, this comment probably applies only to Cadmium Free Quantum Dots. Since the trial happens so soon, it probably does not matter much. If Nanoco wins, it should receive a slew of orders from Samsung and its customers. As previously indicated, STM sales are dependent on STM receiving orders from STM customers.
Moreover, Nanoco's infrared dots are probably created using the same patented QD process and are thus protected. Can anyone confirm this?
Barbon: With the commitment that STM is making to infrared dots, I would expect STM to have a multiple suppliers. I don't know who else could compete with Nanoco. The fact that STM continue to advance thru multiple stages and extend contracts gives me hope that Nanoco will finally succeed. Having been invested since before the Dow contract, I have experienced many disappointments, most of which I attribute to Samsung applying various pressure to Nanoco partners. Samsung's success with Nanoco product testifies to Nanoco ability to produce quality product. Although Samsung's influence now appears to be greatly reduced, I recognize that Nanoco has not yet commercialized its product. A commercial order would produce enormous value.
@Screenlearner: The Asian prospect is still a secret, but STM is has significant contracts with Volkswagon Group (2nd largest auto group in the world) and Tesla. They must also be working with Ferrari, as they recently hired a top STM Engineering Executive as CEO. They will use infrared sensors for automated driving and to monitor passengers (seat belts) and driver (sleepiness, distractions, inebriation). Expect STM infrared TOF sensors to be very successful in consumer wearable goods, industrial manufacturing and robotics, health, and agricultural quality control markets. STMicro is also very strong in the home robotics market where improved vision can offer huge improvements for robot vacuum cleaners, mops, lawn mowers and other home devices.
Settlement with Samsung will necessarily involve contracts with Samsung and/or with companies that Samsung are currently supplying. I doubt that these companies could afford to have their supply lines disrupted.
dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases/
"United States: American courts use lost profits and the failure to collect a reasonable fee from a licensee to calculate a damages award. Determination of the former depends on proving notable demand for the infringed invention and demonstrating you could manufacture and market the IP as your own product or service. "Enhanced" (i.e., punitive) damages may also be awarded in cases of willful infringement, maxing out at three times the figure arrived at after standard calculation. "
"Additionally, since 2018…ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations. (This is not considered in numerous other countries.) "
My View:
Samsung needs to make Nanoco whole. If Nanoco were a huge corporation with large cash reserves, this lawsuit would have cost very little since the courts would make Samsung pay legal costs. Because Nanoco was forced to seek funding, they will automatically lose 20-50% of any award and not come close to being made whole unless the court treats the funding cost as a legal cost.
In assessing damages, will the court consider the fact that winning an infringement case is far more expensive than for a large corporation? While losing costs Nanoco very little beyond employee and opportunity costs, there is a gigantic cost to winning. In a fair world, Nanoco should receive in entirety the amount that Samsung stole times three (willful infringement and enhanced award). With the increasing frequency of David and Goliath trials, courts should level the playing field by awarding funder costs.
Caution! China, Russia, Iran, their allies, and probably the Democrat party (as a way of solving the debt crisis) are intent of destroying the dollar. There is strong possibility that they will succeed. Although I would prefer a trial, I am not against a settlement as long as the agreement punishes Samsung for its wrongdoing and protects Nanoco from dollar decline and runaway inflation.
Point well made if we were in a courtroom, Barbon, and in a polite way. I do find the term, guilty, to be appropriate. Although I took a Business Law course in college, I have never claimed to have a legal background--unlike Nigwitty. It would be extremely pedantic to require that everyone on this board speak in legalese.
The definition of 'pedantic' follows:
"Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter."
In order to refresh the memories of other posters, I will try to clarify my understanding of the importance of Application 84 being denied. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer. I welcome any corrections.
Application 84 was Samsung's response to Nanoco's Docket 173 in which Nanoco explained their position regarding the MCC. As far as I could discern, Samsung's counter-response to Nanoco's Docket 173 response exposes their intention during the PTAB IPR to trap Nanoco into terminology needed to protect their patent while enabling Samsung to claim that their process used different materials and thus did not infringe. In what seems to be a huge victory for Nanoco, Nanoco lawyers defeated this effort. The court denied Samsung's Application 84 request, which seemed to be the basis of Samsung's case.
Nigwitty: I hate having to respond to a mean, incorrect comments.
2,180,000 Google results returned to "patent infringement guilty". Some results shown below. Are we all legal illiterates? My advice; preface you comments with a little research.
Patent Infringement: Everything You Need to Know - UpCounsel
https://www.upcounsel.com › patent-infringement
The patent owner is responsible for proving patent infringement. It's similar to the concept that a criminal suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
J&J's DePuy Synthes found guilty of infringing orthopedic ...
https://www.fiercebiotech.com › medtech › jjs-depuy-s...
DePuy Synthes faces a fine of $20 million after a jury found Johnson & Johnson's orthopedics and neurosurgery device business guilty of infringing a patent ...
Patent infringement case will cost Apple $300 million - 9to5Mac
https://9to5mac.com › 2022/05/19 › apple-patent-infrin...
May 19, 2022 — After the second trial, the jury found Apple guilty of patent infringement and awarded Optis with a $300 million verdict against the tech giant.
35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent
https://www.law.cornell.edu › ... › CHAPTER 28
Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. (c). Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into ...
Google found guilty of patent infringement for using Linux
https://www.infoworld.com › Enterprise Applications
Apr 21, 2011 — Bedrock sued companies that use Linux claiming that the Linux kernel infringed on its patent for search technology. Bedrock's patent covers a ...
Apple found guilty of patent infringement, faces possible $862 ...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com › ...
· Translate this page
Oct 14, 2015 — Washington, Oct 14 (EFE). —. A U.S. federal jury has found Apple Inc. guilty of infringing on a processor patent held by a foundation linked ...
Google Found Guilty of Patent Infringement - GH IP Law
https://ghiplaw.com › google-found-guilty-patent-infrin...
Google Found Guilty of Patent Infringement. Jury Form (Marshall, Texas – Tuesday, January 18, 2014) Earlier today, a jury returned a verdict against Google ...
Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly ...
https://appleinsider.com › articles › jury_reaches_verdic...
Aug 24, 2012 — Samsung jury handed down a sweeping victory for Apple, finding Samsung infringed on all but one of Apple's asserted patents while the iPhone ...
The press should provide extensive coverage of this Nanoco-Samsung trial. Samsung's behavior is characteristic of many huge corporations whose enormous vertical and horizontal tentacles are overwhelming smaller companies. This needs to be a wake up call to honest world leaders. The court needs to set an example and multiply the verdict by the maximum amount.
The following site describes procedures specific to IP Infringement cases.
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-intellectual-property/pages/2-5-pretrial-procedures
"In recent years, most patent cases are resolved on summary judgment and only a handful go to trial (about 100 per year throughout the country). The primary reason for this phenomenon is the advent of the claim construction (Markman) hearing and the decision by the court, before trial, about how the language of the asserted claims must be interpreted. The court’s claim construction decision resolves most of the uncertainty in a patent case, because what the accused products or services are, and how they operate, is rarely in dispute by the time discovery concludes."