GreenRoc Accelerates their World Class Project to Production as Early as 2028. Watch the full video here.
Steak, are those in limine motions agreed? Or just Samsung’s proposed ones? I don’t remember seeing that docket. Number 1 on the in limine motions seems like a big win for Samsung if so…
This would suggest not intrusive:
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/ptab-basics-key-features-of-trials-before-the-uspto.html
This was what I was beginning to think. It collapses on itself. Like I said the other day they tried at the PTAB to widen the definition of an MCC to give them enough room to argue a POSITA could conceivably develop one using all the available literature. Now they are claiming the patent is too narrow! Surely it can’t be both?
Steak I’m not overly concerned myself. I would be amazed if a legal team as competent as ours didn’t see this one coming down the pipe. And they’ve had a couple of weeks now to formulate their thoughts on it even if they didn’t. Keep the faith.
Steak, do you think that this is something our legal team should even seek to address. Can you honestly see a complex sufficiency argument landing with the layman jury? My argument would be to sidestep it entirely and to expose it for the cynical ploy it is.
Something I’m beginning to wonder about is this idea that Tenner keeps referring to ‘fair value’. It’s such a relative term isn’t it? I’m wondering if some sort of preliminary agreement was drafted all those years ago, and that’s the basic premise of the agreement that Nano will deem ‘fair’ in terms of settlement? Otherwise, what on earth might ‘fair’ mean? He would’ve said something like ‘recompense for lost earnings’ or ‘justice’…I really think there could be something in this…
If there’s a lot of cash sitting on the balance sheet I would think that the inflated price wouldn’t matter so much. Either way you’re rewarding investors invested prior to the announcement, who are likely to be longer term holders. So in essence you are achieving your objective of rewarding long term holders in a tax efficient fashion.
Great article intrusive. Thank you.
I agree a low award is pretty much priced in now. Therein lies the risk and why the Germany news didn’t smash the SP northwards. Anyone who wants in is in now pretty much. The other obvious risk is that we somehow lose from here. Unlikely, but to be respected as a possibility.
In the event of a big award I would like to see a share buyback with part of the money. That’s how you maximise the benefit of any award for shareholders and really put a rocket under things. As others have said, an ongoing licence agreement is also something I don’t really think the market is taking into consideration right now. So lots of significant upside here but to the average investor, essentially speculative at this stage.
Investing is curious in that being right ‘often’ doesn’t matter much. It’s about HOW right you are when you get it right. I find it curious that some refer to this as a ‘binary’ play but it’s not. Lose and you lose your money, win and you win many times over IMO. I don’t think the market is quite ready for anything other than modest damages, and that’s exciting, and why I continue to load as best I can.
I can’t seem to find an answer online to the question of whether the transcripts from the pre trial conference will be published.
The only thing I can find that hints at them not being published are the recent dockets of S and N both requesting transcripts of the conference, which might indicate they won’t be released to the public. Happy to be corrected? It stands to reason they not be published as I’m guessing that it would contain discussion of many different aspects of the case and in order for those discussions to be fruitful, an agreement that they be entered into without prejudice.
Any other thoughts?
What intrigues me most about all this is the timing.
Logic would tell you that should court loom, this is not the time to be diverting attention in this way. Get the US done and dusted and then pursue other territories.
So to me this seems more than just a rhetorical strategy. If Nano saw all prospects of settlement as dead in the water they wouldn’t be doing this.
Maybe this is something they’ve had up their sleeves all along. But to me it leans heavily on a settlement being likely, and this is Nano’s way of trying to nudge the needle a little more towards what they are asking for. The stick rather than the carrot.
Going to be a fascinating couple of weeks, strap yourselves in folks!
‘t may also suggest Samsung is not entertaining the idea of a settlement presently and so NANO is attempting to take the initiative’
Or, that Samsung are serious about settling and just need a little nudge to focus on Nano’s proposed damages model a little more. There is no point whatsoever in this litigation at this moment in time of tenner thought the trial was nailed on.
I’m enjoying this immensely!
You beauty!
That’ll turn the screw.
Settlement anyone?
Will the transcripts for the pre trial conference be made available via a docket? I notice both parties have requested them but not sure if these will ever be public?
For heaven’s sake. What part of that was Feeks stating as facts? Do you not appreciate this is a discussion board where we kick around ideas and scenarios? You’ve been asked many times to provide some basis for some of your comments and instead all that comes back is more ‘me against the world’ nonsense.
And I’m going to address your comment about Tenner for a second time. He couldn’t have said anything other than what he said. As it stands, those are the facts. Just because I say ‘I’m going to buy a red Ford Fiesta on Thursday’ doesn’t mean I am bound to that narrative if the facts don’t change in between, such as winning the lottery. There is simply no way that Tenner could give even the slightest clue as to any settlement talks because if they were to fall through, he’s misguided the market.
Nigwit please just give it a rest with the pot shots and the woe is me. It’s grinding this board into the dust.
If I were Mintz (and I’m sure they possess minds far superior to me own) I would simply dismiss this for what it is: a cynical, after the fact, attempt to review the PTAB’s decision on the patents. In validating the patents, the PTAB would have had to (and did) consider the scope of the patents at hand. This is highly ironic because anyone who followed the PTAB will know that Samsung initially tried to get the patents invalidated based on a much wider definition of an MCC (if you remember they tried to combine lots of different literature, using lots of different base metals, to come up with a Frankensteinesque MCC definition) so I personally find it quite amusing. First the definition was too narrow to be relevant to Samsung’s own production methods, now it’s too broad! Laughable really.
It’s something they’ve deliberately kept in reserve and I’m sure Mintz will have seen this coming. Of course, they’ve had plenty of time to think of how they’re going to approach it in court. But I honestly don’t see much merit in any of it.
Regarding your broader point on the unknowns, that’s the nature of this share at the moment. It’s like looking at an iceberg to be honest. We just have to hope the signs have pointed us in the right way, but approaching anything approaching a fully informed verdict on this is simply futile as, like you say, so much is sealed.
So to clarify, Samsung can wheel out all the experts they like to try and question the patents through the back door as it were, but Mintz have an easy reply in that the PTAB were wholly satisfied with the validity of our patents. So to me, no issue.
Hi Gonebroke, thanks for raising this and as steak mentioned earlier, certainly an idea worth kicking around.
Two things that stick out having looked a little more closely into this.
The first and most obvious issue is that Amgen had their patent rejected/invalidated as it was too broad. That’s where the issue stemmed from and has continued to be the reason for their failure. We have crossed that hurdle and so it seems to me that the patent is satisfactory in both its description and its scope. Therefore it’s an issue that doesn’t particularly alarm me.
Secondly, there is something unique to pharma about the case. Had Amgen been allowed to have the patent granted, it would’ve set a very broad precedent on patents covering antibody treatments. We obviously operate in a much more niche field and so I’m not convinced by the Samsung argument that the case is somehow relevant here.
Just my thoughts on it.
No issue with that at all. But as many have asked, what are these arguments likely to be, what within the dockets makes you think that way?
I don’t think anyone here takes exception to differing views but if I said something without any real explanation as to why I would expect to be called out on it.
Nigwit, I really am beginning to wonder about you and how little you are aware of this case and how it all works.
From the outset, it has been stated many times that for trial, the patents will be narrowed down and will select the ones they feel are most robust in court. It’s simply not possible to deal with all 47 sub claims in a week. So Nanoco has not conceded anything. This was part of the plan from day 1. In fact, it’s a luxurious position to be in to pick and choose in this fashion. If only 1 of our patents survived it would’ve been all riding on that.
So I don’t see how Samsung could interpret anything from nano’s selection that would encourage them. I’m sure it wouldn’t have escaped you as a well researched Nano investor that they opted for green dots as one of the patents they will be going after, which, as it happens, were the ones Samsung were having most issues with in terms of quality and stability, it even says so I’m Samsung’s initial email reaching out to Nanoco.
But of course you already knew all this.