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.
Does this sales figure include any other TV producing company using Samsung screens? According to "What HiFi" Sony use the Samsung QD Oled screen. have they been using Samsung QD screens before now? Note, if they have this would not make them liable to Nanoco, but should increase the damages figure recoverable from Samsung. It's the number of screens Samsung have sold (and expect to sell) rather than the number of Samsung TVs that matters. What do they make from each screen sold to Sony, and would that business even exist were it not for them using patented Nanoco IP?
Troublesome, I'm no patent lawyer, nor experienced in the US let alone Texas, but a full exploration of the appeals process both as to liability and quantum, and decided issues of fact and law, attempts to have pretrial points already decided once reconsidered (as we've seen), and interpretation of the judgement itself, its construction and exact meaning if they can find any possible ambiguities. There may well be more. All designed not necessarily to succeed but to take time with the aim of persuading Nanoco to settle at a lower figure to avoid risk, delay, and the hassle of fighting every trivial point.
Nanoco's most obvious big card is the threat of an injunction in European jurisdictions, withdrawing Samsung flagship products from the shops would be costly both directly and to their commercial reputation, such that it is.
Ecclescake, that's my point, a midrange judgement carries more risk on appeal for Samsung, a top end result for Nanoco carries little or no appeal risk for Samsung. At the end it must all boil down to money, they are a commercial organisation, measure results in money terms, and exist for no other purpose. That's not saying the only factor affecting the result is the quantum of damages, future licence fees and costs, there may well be intangibles like reputation, respect, deterring future litigants, etc. which also have a quantifiable value to them.
Hi Henry, I do agree.
There are too many ways pressure and compulsion could be applied for Samsung to just ignore the judgement and not pay. I do however fear they will use every legal trick in the book to avoid paying until they have no option. It may require Nanoco to take further proceedings and seek injunctions before Samsung finally realise they've run out of road.
I know many here, quite rightly want to see Samsung found to have wilfully improperly used Nanoco's tech and have a 3x uplift imposed. I agree with those who feel that unlikely, but the greater the uplift the more likely Samsung are to appeal, on the logic that they have more to gain and more chance of obtaining a reduction, and less chance of the multiplier being increased by counter appeal. So a mid level 1.5 or 2x might be the best outcome.
But we might be surprised. I check this board every morning just in case there has been an overnight development!
All very reasonable, I can see now how the trial might be achieved in a week if Samsung are forced to keep to the point rather than introduce red herrings directly or by innuendo, muddy the waters and attack the character of their opposition rather than the evidence and the case presented.
Amerloque, never intended to say you suggested anything of the sort, I was simply commenting that for anyone to think a settlement based on US sales alone was an option would be a mistake. I agree worldwide sales would include a number of complex issues. I could possibly envisage a "broad brush" approach being adopted if both parties wanted to settle quickly, but that's not the scenario here.
I also agree that settlement after trial might well be the most likely and best option. Assuming success for Nanoco (not certain, but if we didn't think it likely we wouldn't be here), that would set the upper limit and give the parties a starting point from which to calculate how much reduction or enhancement to offer/accept for the certainty of no appeal on both liability and quantum, no further litigation or possible injunctions, quicker payment, future sales, and worldwide breaches/future rights. Until and unless that starting point is known it would be very hard to quantify all these various heads. At this stage the parties need to know what sort of damages model and quantum they face before they can sensibly make settlement proposals with any real hope of reaching agreement.
I still fear Samsung will never serious come to the negotiating table though and will fight this in every tribunal they can think of for as long as they can, and that getting the money out of them even after a definitive judgement has been entered and upheld could be a problem. The battle between optimism and pessimism with this share is unending!
Troublesome. There is a difference between mediation and arbitration. They are different processes. Arbitration is binding once you've agreed to enter it even if you don't like the result, mediation is seeking to gain an agreed position.
From a private investor's point of view a settlement in October/November this year might suit very well. Nanoco has unbalanced a lot of portfolios, mine included, many having more in this company than we would normally think correct. After a decent result, albeit discounted for settlement, that imbalance could be even more pronounced, hopefully. To rebalance then could free funds to invest in more conventional stocks just when they are hitting the bottom of the cycle.
Not saying sell all Nanoco stock on a settlement rise, but it might be wise to bank some profits.
Caution, this is counting chickens early and we could be sadly disappointed.
I am surprised that mediation is taking place, I didn't think Samsung would even contemplate it. But like Henry I would not expect a quick result. Samsung will need to be convinced they cannot escape liability at trial and would be making a substantial saving by settling before they accept anything. They will take it to the wire or beyond. After trial but before appeal might be their favoured time, when they know the maximum figure for the US breaches and hope to negotiate a reduction.
The advantages for Nanoco are that the issue is settled quickly, the money paid (bird in the hand .. ) and hopefully a global figure reached negating the need for further litigation in other jurisdictions. They'd have to give a substantial discount for this certainty and speed of result, but provided the figure was realistic most commercial outfits would see this as a good outcome, allowing them to focus on their real business.
All we can do is wait. Not long now.
We are often fixated on the cherry, the litigation, perhaps in part because Nanoco has promised cake (organic business) so many times before and disappointed that it would seem foolish to put too much reliance on it delivering this time. Plus we can see nothing of the progress in that field but we can watch the litigation move forward, albeit slowly inch by inch, and see the next hurdle approaching. It may be the wrong approach but I for one am motivated by the cherry, if it comes with cake support, all the better. If it weren't for the litigation many would likely have given up on Nanoco long ago.
NigWitty, thanks for your response, I've no experience with litigation funders and it is good to hear from you that once committed they stick with the case. One less thing to worry about. I also hadn't considered the possibility of parallel mediation and litigation, in my experience it has been one or the other, but I don't doubt what you say that they can run side by side. Given the way Samsung have run this case I'd be surprised if that were so here, but we never know. Have they any history of using mediation?
The general point on the adversarial system, like democracy, (the worst form of government known to man, except for all the others) it has its faults, cost and time being the most obvious and both available to be exploited by the unscrupulous, but for uncovering all the details, all the evidence and allowing the parties to fully explore all their claims it is imo the best approach. I've seen the inquisitorial system in action and was not overly impressed. Whether juries are the best option in civil disputes is another matter.
NigWitty, just seen your reply, I agree mediation in many cases is far more cost effective and quicker. But where one party refuses to budge, will not accept obvious facts (of the patent and of infringement), and does not agree to accept the decision of a mediator, the litigation and the full extended and expensive process is the only resort of a wronged plaintiff.
Samsung want the all or nothing approach of litigation because they believe time is on their side, the more delay the better, and linked to that, they have more money and Nanoco may not be able, or its backers willing, to stay the full course, particularly if Samsung were able to win a few small battles along the way. Plus others contemplating action may baulk at the time and expense when they see how Samsung has responded here, and so allow Samsung to get away with it in other situations.
Sadly this case was always going to be fought all out if it were fought at all. Thank goodness for Nanoco's backers, even though they'll be taking a goodly chunk of any award.
But not for following a client instructions, certainly not for using the court's procedures to delay, that is all part of the tactics of litigation, it is up to the opposition and the court if it feels it right to frustrate delaying tactics.
I could add I don't see Samsung settling now. It would be cheaper and obtain exclusive use of the patents to buy Nanoco outright, which they've had the opportunity to do and shown no signs of.
I see them running the trial and appealing the damages. It is the pattern they've followed in the past with some occasional success.
Please understand the job of a lawyer. It is to take the client's instructions, advise the client (Samsung or Nanoco)) on the likely outcome of putting forward their case on the basis of hose instructions, take further instructions and follow them whether they are in accordance with their advice or not, within the limits of professional propriety. Note the repeated word instructions, the lawyers do not dictate the course of the case. Neither do they judge the accuracy or truth of their instructions unless they know them from personal knowledge, not opinion, to be false, which is very rare indeed.
Nanoco's lawyers are not representing a client with bottomless pockets. They will have advised their client of the prospects of success at the outset and throughout. Nanoco will be acting on that advice.
Samsung's lawyers will also have advised their client, but Samsung have limitless resources. They don't need to follow legal advice. They may also have motives favouring delay even if it means spending more on the litigation. They may be chancing a cheaper award or settlement after delay than giving in now. They may still believe Nanoco will run out of money before the end. for whatever reason they have chosen to persist in their defence and their lawyers are obliged to put forward their case on instructions however feeble they may think and advise it to be be.
That Nanoco has started and pursued this litigation must be on the basis of the advice they have received on the prospects of success. Their backers wouldn't be there backing them if this were not the case. They are not in it for fun, and wouldn't be there without solid expert advice (as shown by the PTAB result).
Samsung are following their Standard Operating Procedure whatever the case against them. They instruct their lawyers to defend whatever advice they may have received, or possibly choose lawyers they know will give the advice they want to hear, (it does happen).
The fact that Nanoco are pursuing the action and that their lawyers and backers know the case fully and are still there even though a loss will be a real loss to them, in contrast to Samsung's legal team who can expect to be paid come what may and who have a big client with repeat business to keep happy, is the best endorsement Nanoco could have, and the reason I'm still invested.
Henry, there is always a case for taking a profit. I bought some Nanoco at 10p (not as many as I now wish!) with the intention of selling if they reached 25. Watched as they hit 47. Still got them. Bought more at 19, 25, 28 and 33. Take your point but there have been times when taking a profit would have been a good idea.
This share is so volatile that the brave could have made a lot more by buying and selling and buying again than we solid believers. Everyone is looking for a sign either way.
Feeks, the reference to PTAB was pretty late in the day, almost too late to delay the trial. It might be said to have been perfectly timed to achieve delay. Appeal of the PTAB decision had to be made within a certain time period, so not much scope for delay there. My gut feling is they do seek as much delay as possible, as most litigants who are not confident of the outcome do, in the hope something will turn up, a financial rock to sink the plaintiff, the litigation funder becoming tired of waiting, a new research discovery so they can cease using the disputed tech before having to pay a licence fee, etc.
But as we cannot influence anything, so we wait and see and trust our team to foil their schemes.
Nanoco is a public company. As such it has legal obligations to disclose such information which could materially affect the share price. Shareholders need not fear a secret deal, though the danger exists that what we consider a less than fully advantageous deal could be agreed and done before we were made aware of it.
However we are not in possession of all the information management have and, like all investors, have to trust those who manage the companies we invest in. If you don't trust the management, put your money elsewhere.
I entirely agree, the wider issue needs to be aired somewhere, but as a Nanoco investor it is only the specifics of their case that are of immediate concern. To become het up over Samsung's disgraceful conduct generally and its wider implications is to go off on a bit of a tangent, and the danger is people might think it relevant to the outcome of the specific case we're interested in, which unfortunately it is not. Suspect we're all really singing from the same hymn sheet.
NigWitty is right 100% on this, as is Henry, though I'm a bit more optimistic on the share price potential. We should ignore any of Samsung's past behaviour, this case will be judged solely on its own merits, (it is obvious but it did need saying) no criminal proceedings will flow from it, and to talk in terms of convicted etc. feels dangerously like becoming emotionally involved with the company and the share. Emotion has given me some of my biggest investing losses.
I too have been invested in Nanoco for 10 years now, fortunately buying at the low points as well as some of the historic highs, not to quite the scale of amerloque but to what will be a life affecting amount if we win significantly. I think emotion kept me in the share, probably unwisely. Could have sold and rebought profitably several times. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Now I think there is a strong objective case to be invested here, but emotional attachment and a desire to see those who have wronged "our" company get their just desserts have no place in the decision whether to buy or sell, and therefore, in my respectful opinion, a very peripheral place on this board.