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.
As I read it posts about Nanoco's involvement in the Apple VR headset are speculation based on the undisclosed American company previously involved with N being Apple (prob correct), and hope. I don't think this possible end use has had any real effect on the share price, nor can I see it being a big earner even if true. It would I accept be a very valuable endorsement of N's technology, but the delay is a very small issue for N at this stage compared to other things that are going on (or rather not getting on).
This is making planning ever more difficult. It used to be - win the litigation, assess the damages, sell the shares, take the money _ (assuming all goes to plan, which it seldom does). Now I'm not so sure the last two parts of the strategy are right any longer.
Who ekse is making CFQD display panels? As far as I've read only Samsung Display actually produced such panels, all other tv/display producers e.g. Panasonic, Sony, Philips, etc. buy their panels from Samsung. There may be some small exceptions, but the situation is unlikely to change imo, Samsung are and will remain predominant in CFQD display as LG are in OLED.
Please correct me if this is wrong, more than one producer, and one with a few more ethics than Samsung (would not be difficult) would be very good news.
There is always a conflict between keeping technical secrets and revealing them to allow others to see whether they want to use them. I agree Nanoco could not really have acted any differently in allowing Samsung access to the patented CFQD tech. They seem to have protected it well, 47 out of 47 wins at PTAB is an endorsement of their patent writers skill. They attracted the attention of the biggest player in the display market. They clearly sold their ideas well. They can hardly be blamed for the attempt by Samsung to use its muscle and just walk out with the goods without paying.
That having happened they've enlisted both money and skill to recover what's been stolen. Hopefully and entirely possibly they will recover more than they would have made had they simply licenced Samsung to use the tech, Samsung could have driven a very hard bargain had they wanted to use the tech legitimately.
It has made life a lot more stressful for Nanoco and all associated with it, but it just may prove to be better in the end. A win will certainly put Nanoco on the mental map of everyone in the QD and the QD world.
The questions betray a misunderstanding of N' role and I'd be very surprised if the answer were anything but:
a. No.
the other questions are then meaningless.
N will licence the tech for large users to produce. More money and less risk that way, leaving N free to concentrate on further development and production on a small scale for batch end users and specialist uses. N will never have the production capacity to supply major end users. If they tried to change from niche research company to industrial scale producer they would almost certainly fail.
Most likely number 2. We don't want them living entirely off this case alone.
It is (as a lawyer of course) amusing how people will **** off lawyers, accuse them of engineering proceedings solely to maximise their fees, caring little for their client's interests or wallet*, until they are in trouble when suddenly their lawyer is their saviour, their greatest friend, that is until the result falls short of what they want (everything) when their lawyer is once more a rogue.
*very much a concern, the first aspect to be assessed of any prospective case.
My reading of the RNS says the case has been pushed back because another case scheduled for the 3rd Oct is going ahead, the usual listing approach of overbooking in the expectation / hope that all bar one will settle and bumping off all but one of those that don't. Delay is no omen of what is to come, but it is still a little depressing.
Sammy88, "How long does it generally take to negotiate and agree a global licence agreement? I expect in a normal situation it would take weeks if not months."
Yes, generally, but the parties here will not be starting from scratch. They will know already every head of discussion, where the other party stands, what they are seeking, and have a good idea of the range of potential and probable court outcomes. They will also have already considered the methods of assessment and valuation of each head. It will now largely be a matter of agreeing what figures to put into the boxes. That's if the parties are close enough on those figures.
It is all speculation, I suspect they are not yet close enough and that agreement is only likely after the trial and in the face of the otherwise inevitable appeal when the court will have defined the type of numbers to be considered. Samsung's corporate structure may well hamper them agreeing before then. But as always (and often), this speculation could be wrong
Mighty relieved to have a trial date again.
From UK experience another delay would be quite possible. As I've said before, listing officers just look at how the pieces fit together to make a list that works for them, i.e. without gaps and without too much possibility of gaps occurring. Like airlines, they overbook on the basis of a certain percentage no show, settlement in this context.
Those cases which have been bumped out before do generally get a little preference, but if the first timers are a better fit they'll go in instead. List changes can occur right up to the day before. Having said that the odds are that N v S will proceed this time, it's just there is still a chance it might not. Fingers crossed (but they've been mostly crossed for the last 10 years with this firm!).
I've no idea how quickly a German court would consider granting an injunction, just a UK lawyer's personal (not professional) opinion that one would be more readily granted following a positive decision in the US. The PTAB decisions on validity could already be very helpful in that regard.
I'm not a patent lawyer, but in most areas of law jurisdictions tend to differ in details but generally run parallel. Murder is still murder in the UK, Europe, and Asia, breach of contract is generally very similar, etc. Trade between global partners including the international protection of intellectual property depend upon generally comparable frameworks, and though the decision of a court or tribunal in another jurisdiction cannot be binding it can have great persuasive weight, especially at a stage before the court in the second jurisdiction has had the chance to hear all the evidence, i.e. at an pre trial application for interlocutory relief.
But we must wait and see, for myself a large part of the reason I'm still invested here is the trust i have in Nanoco's legal team and the investigations their backers must have conducted before putting their money onto the table. The recent starting of parallel proceedings has only strengthened my confidence in their competence and I would not like to second guess or criticise their conduct of the case.
As Samsung's business is conducted through local subsidiaries in different parts of he World the defendant list will be different. Including Samsung Display would seem sensible, but the lawyers will know best who to sue.
It probably would involve starting the litigation from scratch in a new jurisdiction, though the German court would most likely take some notice of the decision of the US court in some areas, particularly I would think when deciding whether to grant interlocutory relief, i.e. an injunction before the trial. Plus the evidence and arguments have largely been marshalled already and would not need to be prepared from the beginning again.
I would understand a "sister patent" to be one covering the same invention etc. but in German (obviously) and couched in terms to comply with the German patent regime and meet their legal and technical requirements.
amerloque, thanks for the reply, presupposing a win in Texas I think we see Nanoco's future differently.
I don't see Nanoco seeking to become a large scale producer of QDs. I see them as a company licensing their tech to other parties interested in mass production for their own purposes (e.g. Samsung, STM, etc.), and Nanoco producing for smaller scale specialist users, such as medical equipment manufacturers, high end camera makers, etc. in Runcorn, plus supplying novel specification QDs for new projects, evaluation etc. The big users will make their own. Samsung may be untrustworthy and slippery as slugs but Nanoco will still need to do business with them.
This model clearly relies upon remaining at the front of the research pack. That's where I see Nanoco concentrating rather than on mass production either alone or in partnership. Licence fees for existing tech funding the research, skill and experience in both research and developing production giving them an advantage.