Member Info for BeContrarian

Thank you steak. Just spotted those.

Yesterday steak showed some in limine motions but I don’t remember both parties agreeing to any in limine motions (that’s usually something decided at the pre trial conference) so was curious which docket they were. Thanks

Steak do you have the docket number for that one? Cheers

Without wishing to sound dismissive I find this a storm in a teacup.

I don’t see how you can bring up the issue of sufficiency without it becoming very complex for a layman jury,

I’m a little concerned if the in limine motion to agree not to discuss PTAB has been agreed, I do t remember seeing a docket where in limine motions were agreed and it read more like a Samsung wish list to me.

Sorry steak! Long day

Steak, I think gonebroke posted a link to the docket ($700 dollar an hour lady) that lays out Samsung’s sufficiency argument

What docket no is that S and A?

Sammy, my link answered the sufficiency question.

I’m sensing some nerves on the shop floor for definite. Steak, I remember a couple of weeks back the concept of the summary judgment giving you the jitters when that was never going to fly.

We are definitely so zoomed in we are in danger of 1+1= 200 at the minute.

I would invite anyone who’s starting to have second thoughts to come back to this central idea around which the whole trial revolves:

Did Samsung, on the balance of probabilities, infringe Nanoco’s patents and if so, did they do so willingly?

Then think of all we know so far, all we are likely to find out in terms of the heretofore unknown communication and collaboration between them, and all the legal hurdles that have been successfully navigated.

Weigh that against the likely arguments put forward by Samsung and I really do not think there is much to be overly concerned about.

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!