Member Info for BeContrarian

Intrusive, is this hot air or have you been a naughty boy again?

I think there is some credit to Hawi’s point. It’s one thing understanding how patents work but another entirely looking at the legal outcomes of various forms of challenges and arguments. For all we know, sufficiency arguments may be a highly successful or completely dud trial ploy.
Ok we may not have answers but it’s the right question to ask. We may be getting our knickers in a twist over nowt.

To satisfy myself a little more I have read the expert report of Vicki Colvin (exhibit 1 of docket 237). A few of my thoughts:

Literally the first 40 pages is a re-do of the PTAB arguments.

From page 40 onwards we start to get to the nub of the sufficiency grounds. It gets incredibly confusing and has ominous echoes of the ‘game of semantics’ that we saw in the PTAB. I just cannot see any of that testimony being enough. Again and again she comes back to the patents requiring ‘undue experimentation’. What on earth does that mean? How do you quantify ‘undue experimentation’? That to me does not seem sufficient to warrant ‘clear and convincing’ evidence.

And something else I’m wondering. If Nanoco can prove that wilful infringement likely took place, surely all this goes out the window because they can prove that despite ‘undue experimentation’ being needed Samsung somehow managed to miraculously create MCCs!

I’ve really tried to take ‘the other side’ at this but the more I think about it, the more I’m having a hard time separating sufficiency from the other aspects of patentability. Surely you cannot say that something is novel and original without clearly defining how that originality is characterised (ie the sufficiency element). It’s also worth repeating that Samsung had issues with how specific our patent was in relation to the formation of an MCC. They came unstuck on novelty because they failed to prove that some guy in a 30 year old text book, and some other guy in a 20 year old text book had already got it all figured out between them. If our patent lacked sufficiency then surely there would have been wiggle room to say that cad free MCCs can be produced in a whole host of different ways. But they can’t, and Nano’s patents stood up to that test.

Sufficiency and novelty must surely go hand in hand in my opinion because you can’t prove you have something original without clearly defining how that originality was arrived at.

*large court award

Thanks NGR lots of good points made there and I agree with you by and large.

Major hazard will be the fact that this is just a US dispute. The saga will continue in many other countries if Samsung don’t settle. So whilst I accept that even a large settlement will be small beer to Samsung, it doesn’t make this go away.

I know it’s tempting to view the trial in isolation, but the macro picture leans heavily towards settlement. Nano have shown clear intent to pursue settlement, where through Samsung making a reasonable offer or through being dragged through each court individually.

I won’t keep banging the settlement drum because I’ve said my piece enough on that. But to say there’s little forcing Samsung to settle disregards the wider picture, which points towards further hassle, cost and damage if Samsung opt for court.

Baznick, I agree Lobo is missed, he gave a lot of great insight in the early days, when the position was much more risky than it is now. He was always so bullish on our chances but equally had a way of explaining things in a way we could all understand, hope they’re still invested.
If I remember right, he had no issue with the way the case was funded, it was the non dilutive loan we received at some point last year that got his back up.

‘gla... and hope we get one more rns positively affecting the sp before the weekend’

A settlement should do the trick ;)

For all we know this is a rise that has been wanting to happen since the 47-0. Bear in mind any rise has been carefully sold into so if LOAM are done this could keep going, there again they could resume selling tomorrow for all we know.

Not long now.

This is now 70% of my ISA starting as a very humble holding and kept building and building. I believe the term is ‘all in’.

Hello, agreed, but what I’m getting at is the asymmetry of it all. Lose and it’s a dud I don’t think anyone disagrees there. But win, with all the factors driving the SP north thst I’ve mentioned, and this could realistically 10 bag from here and more. That sounds like shameless ramping I’m aware of that, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility.

Great analysis Lord, thank you.

Just a few points from my own research on why we aren’t currently at a much higher SP pre trial:
- Major shareholder rebalancing through selling into any strength
- poor performance in the past leading to a lingering bearishness around Nano, perhaps also some selling from LTHs finally back on an even keel after years of being underwater too.
- general risk aversion of the UK investor
- risk profile of the company pre trial is not going to attract major funds, even though the odds of success at trial are great
- market is pricing in a modest award, and attaching a 0 value to the prospect of an ongoing licence agreement

Value drivers the market has not priced in:
An award in excess of 400million
An ongoing licence agreement
Further news on sensing production
Introduction of a new breed of investor (funds and IIs in particular) with the advent of ongoing commercial contracts and earnings
Further forward momentum with the concept of QDs becoming more mainstream and their commercial applications better understood
Further interest from potential new clients if: nano can defend its patents and/or nano proves itself competent at producing QDs for its European customer.

This is the bit where it gets interesting. If Samsung are going to settle it was always going to be on the eve of trial. So I’ve never bought the logic that the chances of settlement narrow as time goes on. You don’t pay the ferry man until it’s time to cross.

On the whole trader LTH debate I think a settlement will make things really interesting. Traders will sell on the settlement spike regardless. That could be a nice buying op for any LTHs who know a little more about what the settlement might look like.

I think calling the RNSs misleading is a stretch. The patents have been proved valid on the grounds that they were challenged on. In that sense there’s nothing misleading at all.

I think you may be referring to Tenners’ statements about the court case being focused on alleged wilful infringement which, as I’ve hinted at before, is what I think this case will be about. It’s not going to be 5 days arguing this singular point of sufficiency, as much as Samsung would like this to be so. It will be dealt with and the case will move on. I personally think Nano have already navigated way more challenging hurdles and frankly smashed Samsung on all of them, so there’s nothing here to give anyone undue worry I feel.

We have to respect the black swan of course, it gives Samsung an outside shot in this court case. But that’s all it is, so please let’s stop conflating a bit of pre trial nerves with somehow us having a flimsy case when the guys at Mintz haven’t made a single wrong turn so far.

For what it’s worth I wasn’t particularly encouraged or impressed by BT’s words to be honest. Seems so out of step with how he’s communicated before and I can only assume he was being quoted in conversation rather than in a formal interview setting. Even so, let’s hope it doesn’t happen again because as our CEO his game is PR and as the face of Nanoco he needs to be more professional than that. Maybe I’m overanalysing it a bit but I must say I was a little disappointed by those comments.

To top off a rag article that 500mil figure plucked out of thin air.

And they say no news is bad news!

Burford Capital is the strong rumour

Yes and Gilstrap has overseen so many of these cases I dare say he has a set spiel for this bit that he just adapts and tweaks

Agree Feeks, and you think this is off the back of a few days of relentless technical discussion.

Mintz just need to keep in mind a few really core principles IMO:
Keep it simple
Balance of probabilities
Best story wins

Moderna suing Pfizer and Biontech, more corporate chicanery!

Haha this was originally posted here yesterday