Member Info for BeContrarian

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.

Hi Feeks,
It was skilfully argued yes, but what was being argued already fell within the remit of what Markman and PTAB were there to establish, and had already affirmed. That’s why to me it was always an outside shot with a slim chance of success. I’m relieved the motion was denied but by no means surprised.

Regarding the other point there I don’t recall any actual dialogue between S and N pre litigation? Nano opened the door by saying they were open to a sale but Samsung missed that boat, likely as at the time they thought Nano were high and dry without any meaningful legal representation and so left them to implode. How the times have changed, and what a misstep that turned out to be on S’s part!

The simple story is, Samsung’s greed has got them in this mess. Once by nicking the tech in the first place, secondly ignoring the opportunity to buyout Nano for what then would’ve been a snip at the time.

Ps I know I said I’d stay away but very pleased by these developments. Good luck all! :)

If you can’t win the argument you try and change the argument.

As far as that element is concerned, Samsung have failed. It was always a pot shot, one they probably didn’t reasonably expect to overturn given that it would set a bizarre precedent of contradicting Markman and PTAB. Nonetheless, it was a hurdle that needed to be cleared from Nano’s point of view, and it was certainly ‘worth a go’ from Samsung’s.

With that in mind, I don’t know where this leaves Samsung and it further entrenches my long term view that this isn’t getting to court.

I think Barbon’s words of caution are wise and I agree that trial brings with it an element of the unknown. What I would counter with, though, is that Samsung face hazards of their own in court. Ok so they get whacked with 3x damages etc. fine, they can pay it. But this doesn’t go away. They will still be pursued relentlessly in other jurisdictions. They must know now they are dealing with a major adversary in Mintz that won’t stop pursuing them in every corner their TV’s are sold. It gets very messy very quickly, especially with the rocket fuel that an injunction would provide to the already blazing fire of bad PR and legal costs.

The only way this goes away is settlement. That’s the likely outcome IMO.

Yes that’s an important point Sammy to be fair. I was just using OJ as an example of the whims of the courtroom and how one cannot rule out a bit of madness on the day!

Just under 40 days til jury selection.

Couple of years of waiting distilled down into a crucial week for this company (if it even gets to trial).

Excited and nervous for me. I believe the case to be cast iron but if OJ can get off then you can never write off the element of chance in a courtroom.

If things go our way, and the SP reflects this, this holding could be pretty life changing for me.

Good luck all I think I am going to take a rest from the board now until we have a firm outcome on the trial.

Hawi there is no need to have a pop at me. I favour settlement but not for any statistical reason. The individual case here has enough merits to warrant settlement in my view. I simply used the PTAB as an example to say that is Nano can buck the trend of statistics by a factor of 96:4 then how useful are statistics in our particular case?

I just find statistical analysis problematic as there is so many variables in play. It gives a sense of confidence for the wrong reasons.

I only say this because I learned my lesson from Synairgen. We were all taken by the fact that the majority of phase 3 trials are successful. Around 80% as it happens! And of course we all got wiped out there by the Black Swan.

A specific example on statistics that had us all fooled:

Virtually no one thought that we would have all our claims upheld. Many of us felt that way because statistically only 4% do.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/14/90-percent-patents-challenged-ptab-defective/id=84343/

Nano can now be added to that 4%. But clearly we don’t fit the trend there so it stands to reason statistics are of limited value in this case.

Statistics are only useful insofar as they help to provide a bit of general context here (so in this case it’s useful to be aware of the fact that the majority of cases settle, and offers something of a risk measure) but the truth is statistical arguments fall apart as soon as there is the slightest variable. Here there are mind boggling variables. So really the Nano case is best treated in isolation. Taleb spoke very cogently in his book on randomness, he states that statistical inference gives the illusion of accumulating knowledge, but inevitably takes us away from the specific case we want to look at.

Let’s flip it around and say what if 83% of cases didn’t settle. Would that change your feeling on settlement? It wouldn’t mine because there are so many unique characteristics favouring settlement here: ie the desire of Samsung to continue using the tech, a slam dunk PTAB, the potential damage award etc etc.

Screen - that is certainly a legitimate concern and not one that should be discounted. Mintz have successfully argued at PTAB but it’s likely the trial will be in a very different gear from a technical angle, and that will require a quite different skill set.

In a sense the trial has some simplicity in that it’s simply a case of proving infringement. The technical angle to this will be initially explaining the patent and then showing how Samsung used it. There will be an art to conveying this clearly to a layman jury.

Mintz will absolutely know all this, and have a strong previous track record doing this exact thing. They will no doubt run through some arguments to see how they wash with a mock jury, common practice in high profile cases like this, and will ensure that visual/multimedia aids help bring as much clarity to proceedings as possible.

So to answer your question, it’s a definite risk, but one I think Mintz are well aware of, and in a sense it’s just as much a risk to us as it is to Samsung.

Gilstrap now holding a lot of the cards in terms of the next chapter here. Lots of filed motions with decisions to be made on summary judgments, expert testimony and those all important patent motions.

The outcomes of these may well swing it one way or another. Really important to remember the massive hazard Samsung risks in terms of what happens next if we win in the US…

A useful article for anyone (such as myself) unfamiliar.

https://www.hoffmanneitle.com/news/use-of-mediation-in-settling-patent-disputes.pdf

Some takeaways for myself:
Mediation is essentially voluntary in nature, which means at least Samsung are showing some willing to pursue this route. With what degree of enthusiasm remains to be seen
Mediation is enshrined in confidentiality. So the mediator is in an important and powerful position. They will be fully clued up on tbe merits of each side and will try and steer proceedings accordingly.
A second mediation session is not normally needed unless the case is particularly complex, instead it is expected that parties move towards post mediation (ie settlement) or walk away from the process.

In this context, ‘suspended’ is highly ambiguous.