Member Info for BeContrarian

It’s not really good enough making a mistake on an RNS. These things should be triple checked - it’s market sensitive information after all.

Did Turcan have 5 mill shares to sell in the first place? Suppose we’d never know given it would be below the threshold.

I still can’t fully figure out what’s happened here. I think this new shareholder must’ve hoovered up whatever was sold?

So what’s actually gone on?!

Surprised this has produced such a bounce! For every buyer and all that…

I’ve been reading the settlement notes from Gilstrap on Kai’s. Very interesting read and indeed some very useful parallels.

https://casetext.com/case/kaist-ip-us-llc-v-samsung-elecs-co-6

Some of my thoughts:
1) I wonder if Mintz only agreed to the PTAB pre trail on the condition the verdict was not contested, as it was with Kaist. Yet more evidence Mintz had done their homework
2) it would appear that proving infringement will require the triangulation of expert testimony. No wonder Samsung are moving to strike so many of our experts.
3) It’s really interesting that in the Kaist trial Samsung seemed to have leaned heavily on semantics which is exactly the ploy adopted vs us at the PTAB. In the Kaist ,trial NONE of the definitions posited by Samsung were accepted by Gilstrap. I repeat, none.
I agree that Kaist is a useful benchmark and if we do go to court, I think the odds are stacked very much in our favour. It is worth mentioning that the trial still very much centres on the patents, proven valid by PTAB. That gets us an award regardless. The next step will be proving wilfulness, which, with the right expert testimony, coupled with the smoking gun comms between Nano and Samsung, won’t be too difficult to prove.

I think it’s also important to appreciate how good a job Mintz are doing. Naturally we feel worried and nervous, Samsung have arguably the best legal representation that money can buy and that can easily lead to some wondering what they have rolled up their sleeves. But I should imagine there are very very few scenarios that Mintz have not already legislated for and have answers to. The PTAB proved just how ‘in’ this case they are. They’ve done their homework.

Something I’ve come around to thinking that tips the balance even more in favour of settlement than I originally thought is that even with a massive court award in Texas, that wouldn’t necessarily be the end for Samsung as other territories would become the next chapter. The only way to assure this all goes away for good is an agreement.

Cool heads and patience is needed. If investing has taught me anything it’s that you can never rule out a black swan event. Nano have had a few of those in their time. But all things being equal things should go better for us this time.

Nigwit it is abundantly clear that you are scarred by nanoco’s past, your own investing past, or both. It would be more helpful if you could simply admit this, rather than trying to project your naturally pessimistic bent as having some basis in fact when it is abundantly clear that in this specific case it does not.

Sorry yes the funder. Same dynamic applies.

I vaguely recall in an investor meet that Nanoco have the final say in that regard. Mintz has hedged against a low offer by having any award on a sliding scale, with Mintz taking a bigger slice of a lower settlement and a smaller slice of a higher one. So in that sense I think that Nano and Mintz are broadly aligned, and have probably already agreed on figures they would both consider fair value.

good points Amer and Lord. I agree that any settlement will be a ‘full and final’. I guess my point was that we will never really know precisely what Samsung admit to or the terms of the deal if one is struck, the whole thing will be shrouded in confidentiality agreements. If Samsung do go down the settlement route, it could potentially protect the supply chain and other infringing parties. Go to court and that assurance doesn’t exist…Get slapped with a huge court award and you’re STILL being pursued left right and centre in different countries and not just you but your partner firms too.

Yet more reason to settle in my view!

Ok, taking the argument on its own terms, the only people Samsung would want to be sharing their know-how with is people in the supply chain. Our legal team, I’m sure, are taking a look at that and BT has hinted himself that this could well be the next phase. Anything beyond the supply chain makes no sense as Samsung aren’t going to willingly give away their competitive advantage just to stuff it to a UK small cap, that’s conspiracy stuff in my view.

But even so, it must be remembered that the scope of legal proceedings here, whether this is dealt with in or out of court, is to simply ascertain whether Samsung (not anyone else) used our IP for commercial gain. The courts will look no further, neither will our lawyers in pursuit of a settlement. You’re simply not going to get a confession or any commercially sensitive info from Samsung. Even if they lose at court there is nothing compelling them to admit liability or do anything further than to pay whatever the court orders.

Justice will be compensation, but I’m afraid we won’t get anything more than that. That’s not how it works.

I agree that there’s probably more than meets the eye with Hansol, Nanosys etc. but it’s important to play the cards we are dealt first. Once Samsung is sorted then we can begin to look at third parties etc. whether this goes to trial or not, the chances of Nanoco finding out exactly what happened and precisely who Samsung has shared the IP with we will likely never know. That goes far beyond the scope of this trial and would certainly not be asked for/given as part of a settlement.

‘Any out of court settlement would force Samsung to admit to all of its wrong-doing’

I read it the opposite way Amer. A trial will lay out the guilt in black and white, along with any negative publicity and reputational hazard that comes with it. A settlement is simply a financial agreement where no acceptance of liability or apologies are needed. Pre trial settlement and this all goes away relatively quietly really.

An out of court settlement is 100% in our interests, and probably Samsung’s. BT has stated they are open to talks and so I don’t think they will be unreasonable. Samsung however…

The pre trial conference will be interesting. Gilstrap has a good track record of getting parties to settle and I think he will tell them both how he sees it. The stats on settlement pre trial are really surprising. 95-97%! However that figure is probably so high because in the majority of cases legal costs provided a suitable deterrent. Given the stakes here, and Samsung’s deep pockets, this lowers the odds somewhat here. Nonetheless, the chances of an agreement are still more likely than not IMO.

https://legaljobs.io/blog/patent-litigation-statistics/

Henry. I disagree. It’d show up in the cash balance in the next results, or a nice juicy special one off dividend would do it…and don’t forget any settlement is likely to include a licensing agreement, details of which would be much more transparent.

Overall I’m struggling to see a settlement scenario that doesn’t put a rocket up the SP.

Lord, my thoughts

A) I don’t think we will get much, if any coverage until there is a verdict to be honest. As you rightly allude to, this isn’t being widely watched, and until there is big news on a settlement or a damage award, I don’t see that changing.
B) based on point A, I think there will be a few speculative buys coming in but nothing major. We will be sticking in the 30-50p channel I reckon. There was a lot of buying post PTAB, and I thought a breakout was definitely on, but any upward pressure that could’ve been achieved there was negated by RG and Lombard selling into the strength. The two big sellers have really skewed what true value is here at the minute. As a buyer I’m not complaining.

To answer your question on trading I think this won’t be a good trade based solely on momentum because for all we know RG and Lombard could continue to trim into any strength. I think if you buy you have to be prepared to hold for big news which could turn out very well or very badly!

Something I’ve been trying to look into but haven’t been able to find a straight answer to.

Should the court eventually rule in our favour, would there be grounds to legally enforce some sort of ‘cease and desist’ on Samsung’s production of QDTVs? If so, this is a pretty major hazard that is potentially far more damaging than any court award which will likely be small beer compared to halting production… it seems a pretty major incentive to settle if you ask me.

Thoughts?

‘ I do not respect your legal knowledge or indeed anyone's ability to predict the trial outcome and I do not have time in my life to wade through all the endless pointless pontification whoever posts it’

No one is forcing you to be here bro!

Feeks I really don’t think adding at 40 odd pence vs 30 odd pence will make much difference in the long run is something you should be beating yourself up about. You’ve shown great vision in where we could end up and I think that in the fullness of time, you won’t be feeling too bad about any buys made so far this year.

I think bulletin boards are great and I’ve learned a great deal from posters sharing information on board such as these. They do, however, impose a trader’s mindset through the constant SP watching (I’m guilty of this myself) when really, as long term holders we should be looking at where we might end up in a few years time. Even though we don’t intend to sell, we fail to recognise that a few pence difference in the buy price is utterly irrelevant if our ultimate target is multiples of current SP.

I’ll come back to sentiment as a driver. I’m sure ANYONE that’s been involved in a multibagger will reflect on it as so obvious in hindsight, even wishing they’d bet the farm on it. But what we are experiencing here ans now is all the doubt and worry and volatility that is the ‘fee’ we must all pay for being involved in what is in essence a speculative stock. Unless you are prepared to take risks, there is simply no hope of generating alpha. I’ve added again today because I think the market has totally decoupled from what’s actually going on here. Time will tell if that’s a correct assessment.

Troublesome, this is exactly what I said regarding why I think LOAM sold some (crystallise profits for quarterly reports). It’ll be ironic in that a lot of institutionally owned stocks, usually very stable, may suffer badly over the coming months.

Very little of this has to do with nano’s own personal journey, with a couple of major inflection points round the corner. In that sense it’s not a bad defensive play as the litigation aspect is ‘market proof’. US equities, which were in the main overvalued, is a different story and could suffer badly.