Member Info for BeContrarian

‘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.

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.