RE: Docket update - Court Tech Advisor10 Mar 2021 16:58
I did go through them, and came to the same conclusion, but given such expertise as I do have is not in IP law, still less US IP law, and I have a inbuilt bias to want Nanoco to win, minnow against shark, Brit against Korean, company I have shares in against company I don't, I am very cautious.
But it just seems so inherently unlikely that a general chemical company like Hansol would suddenly discover CF QDs, and not register a patent, or that Samsung mysteriously devised it themselves without registering any patents or announcing any milestones on the research road, but coincidentally about the same time as they were cooperating with Nanoco, who had worked for years to develop the technology to this very same stage, that the overwhelming inference is that they are using Nanoco's technology. Had they got their own original tech they would be screaming that in their defence.
As it is therefore they are driven to the only possible defence open to them, which is to claim the patents are not valid, therefore although they're using someone else's tech that person, or their lawyers, failed to adequately protect it, so in law anyone can plunder it. I don't know enough IP law to comment on the validity of patents, but I'd be surprised if a company set up in large part to develop and licence technology on a global scale had ****ed up to the extent that all these patents are invalid. That, and the fact that Samsung have just gone ahead and used the tech without even trying to reach agreement with Nanoco to avoid unpleasant litigation makes me think they knew all along there was no real doubt as to the validity of the patents. This logic says Nanoco should win, but every investment decision I make I try to dress up in logic, not all of them prove to be right. When they are its often for completely different reasons.