The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
4) S fully intends to settle but as yet is not compelled by the forces of time to do so (an 11th hour agreement)
Feeks this is why I think we’ve got them licked in court. The story is so simple and I don’t see how Samsung can really walk that back in the jury’s minds. As soon as they see that email, and as soon as the timeline of collaboration is revealed, I think Samsung are going to have a major uphill battle trying to unravel that tightly bound and very simple narrative.
Samsung’s tactics will be a procession of experts trying to baffle and confuse with jargon but that narrative is crystal clear.
I’ve plugged this guy before but have a read of this:
https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/story/
It amazes me that some here interpret Tenner’s words to rule out a settlement. He is NEVER going to give even the slightest hint that this will happen. Why would he risk being accused of misleading the market like that if it didn’t come off? He’s rightly focused on trial because at the moment t those are the cards we’ve been dealt. If a settlement is agreed then it will come out of the blue.
I’m feeling much more relaxed now that our experts are allowed to testify. Brandi Cossairt is a very impressive woman (look her up) and will do some damage on the witness stand. Like Sammy I’m fairly agnostic now about whether this goes to trial or not, but Samsung has so much to lose (and I’m not referring to money here) and I doubt they will run that risk.
Had one last punt today at 44.7. Price dropping back has been a blessing didn’t think I’d get in sun 50p before the trial, especially after today’s RNS yet here we are.
Settlement still odds on IMO
Not sure about this. LOAM is a major holder so surely this would come under the standard TR1 ‘acquisition or disposal’… category? That’s how it was reported last time LOAM sold
Might make me a little unpopular here but in my opinion I don’t think the trading update was strictly necessary. Nothing material has changed. More often than not ‘noise’ updates like this produce a negative impact on the market as it automatically invokes the ‘sell on news’ nonsense even when the ‘news’ isn’t really news. Ok so you could argue Tenner wanted to guide the market on the order, fine, but that could’ve waited til after the trial.
It’d have been better to wait for something material IMO. It was hardly as if the share was tanking in the absence of any updates from the company.
I understand there is an argument that an update was called for to bring everyone up to speed on the goings on, it’s just my personal feelings on it.
My mistake Hawi. I’m so used to Q1,2 etc (which is calendar year) that I forgot H1/H2 refers to financial year in this particular case.
As we were then!
In essence the trading update is signalling that the timeframe for the order has slipped from H2 2022 to possibly early next year.
Feeks, in terms of volume, the caltech suit dwarfs this one. However, it is not tech that added as much value/margin as ours does to QDTVs IMO.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/after-winning-1-bln-apple-case-caltech-sues-samsung-over-same-patents-2021-12-03/
The easy bit not the wash bit haha
I agree with a lot of what is said there Feeks. I think the market is struggling to attach a value to any possible award, such is the range of possible outcomes on offer. What I would say, is that the lower end figure, to me, has no basis in reality and is just a figure plucked at random rather than applying any meaningful method by which that sum is calculated. As soon as you start applying even the most conservative lost revenue calcs, you end up at 500mil plus. A few of us here quietly believe that there might be grounds for a pretty colossal award but it’s not something oft repeated for fear of being called a ramper. Regardless, the volumes are huge in terms of Samsung’s QDTV sales and if damages are calculated by traditional means, the figures could be multiples of current market cap.
But we aren’t there yet. I’ve been chewing over the court case and to me there will be two key battlegrounds for our lawyers:
1) to establish a clear and simple narrative of collaboration between S and N, that was then cut off and followed by QD production shortly after (the wash bit)
2) to prove that nano’s tech resides within the Samsung devices to such an extent that the jury, on balance of probabilities, believes nano tech was used (more difficult)
Battleground 2 is going to be tricky as it’ll rely on expert testimony, and will be countered by the expert testimony of Samsung. It’ll be important for Mintz to keep hammering 2 or 3 lines of enquiry here, and not get sucked into a game of semantics with Samsung, which has been their sole tactic thus far.
We need both points to win this case. A compelling narrative of collaboration is nothing without establishing the patents at work within the tech itself. The expert testimony is going to be absolutely essential and IMO why Samsung has moved to strike virtually all our experts.
No problem if not to hand mate!
Feeks could you share your damages research if you get a mo? Much appreciated.
Looking at the volumes (nearly a million shares traded within the first hour) that tells me that this share is largely in the hands of momentum traders and algos. It will probably be this way til news of a settlement or commencement of trial.
Wouldn’t blame anyone for taking a bit off the table if it helped them sleep at night but it’s important to remember that the SP is largely an illusion that’s being created by people/computers playing a completely different game to us. For me, I came here back in 2020 because I believed our legal chances were good. That view has been strengthened considerably since then. So until our day comes, I won’t be selling a bean. I hope, and believe, that our patience will be handsomely rewarded.
Amazing, thanks Morbox.
Do we know if this has been submitted to evidence?
Sliding scale so they get a smaller chunk of a bigger award.
Perhaps another reason any settlement will include a large initial damages , if there is one.
So long as both parties come to the table in good faith, then every chance of a settlement is still very much alive. We know that good faith exists in Nano’s case, and, given the cards we now hold, this certainly raises the prospect of settlement so long as Samsung make an offer half way to reasonable. Both parties are, thanks to mediation, well aware of the expectations of the other, so the time for silly pot shot offers is now over. I agree with Feeks that it’ll be 11th hour agreement, not because of any brinkmanship, but simply due to the complexity of any agreement and the careful due diligence that will need to happen.
This is just pure speculation on this matter, but if I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Samsung don’t have an issue with paying nano what nano deem fair, but they differ on the manner in which that payment will manifest.
Samsung will be pushing for as minimal (as close to 0 figure as possible) initial damages award and instead, offer Nano a more attractive future licensing agreement which, over the course of the life of the patents, will equate to a handsome sum. The reasons being it allows Samsung to easier hide their ‘guilt’ in the figures through a legitimate licence agreement and there won’t be an ugly multimillion stain on the books that will need explaining. Nano, on the other hand, will naturally have trust issues and be pushing for an initial high damage award and a more reasonable licence agreement. That initial damage award will breathe life back into the company and Tenner will want there to be recognition of the damage that has been done. As we all do.
It surprises me that anyone can reasonably hold the view that Samsung won’t be bothered about settling or not. If this goes to court, and we win, I would humbly suggest our legal backers will be more than happy to put their hands in their pockets to chase Samsung up and down every jurisdiction known to man. We aren’t some two bit patent trolls trying our luck in Texas. Samsung knows that we are well backed, and the situation will simply snowball if an agreement isn’t made and they lose in court. As I keep saying, the fact that this is their opportunity to make this all go away for good will not be a fact lost on those advising Samsung on their legal position. And whilst they are free to be as pig headed as they like, they will surely not turn down an opportunity to potentially save millions and come to a fair agreement. The alternative? Getting dragged through court with a sham defence, racking up damages bills as they go. Or worse yet, injunctions. A few hundred million, even a billion, settlement is NOTHING compared to losing the ability to sell your product in Europe, and the loss of market penetration that you would endure for years afterwards. Yes these are big maybes. But they are maybes that any half decent risk assessment would reveal, and have colossal implications for Samsung.
So I remain confident as ever in settlement. All IMO of
Bizarre it’s taken all morning for people to twig this. Glad I had a little extra top up at 38p now!
Great minds Hawi :)
Steak, Germany, often the go to for European paten disputes, is much quicker and much more efficient…and will much more readily issue injunctions. Tenner stated as much in his last presentation.
It won’t be the same tactic rinse and repeat because like you say, it’s a different territory with different rules. Things would move much quicker there, and the stakes would be higher.
https://www.taylorwessing.com/-/media/taylor-wessing/files/germany/2021/04/tw_2020_german-patent-cases---statistics.pdf
Figure e3 shows that in 60% of cases on average where a case is proved valid, a preliminary injunction is issued. That means, as soon as you win the case, an injunction can be imposed BEFORE any appeals etc. the hazard to Samsung here is obvious.