Member Info for BeContrarian

Thanks Nano

Guys could anyone tell me what the last possible date will be for the PTAB to issue their decision? Thank you.

Feeks, RE STMicro, what do you reckon ball park production volumes might be if we do finally reach the holy grail of commercialisation? Are we thinking it’ll be quite niche or big volume? And at what point will Nano be a little less cryptic (if ever) about ‘the customer’?

Steak that is a well argued post and one I’m tempted to agree with. I’ve agonised over whether to top up once more, and something with in me has held off for the reasons you explain.
Just by reading the oral presentations it is clear that there is inter connectivity of the patents and as you nicely articulate ‘step arguments’. In essence I see it as is having two major ‘pillar patents’, the first boils down to ‘emulsion’ and the second ‘uniform cluster compounds’. On the second one I think we have them absolutely plum LBW but you can never be too sure. One must also take heart that 4 of the 5 constructions posed by Samsung were rejected at markman.
However, one is in essence staking any invested funds on a binary outcome. I’ve been there before and been badly burned. I don’t think that’ll happen here but one can never be too sure.

Anyone else starting to get a few butterflies about this? When the PTAB deliver their verdict in the US it’ll likely mean an intraday RNS and ensuing chaos. We are definitely entering ‘any day now’ territory.

I agree to an extent that just one patent surviving does place us in a position of vulnerability but:
A) it doesn’t stop us counter appealing the patents that weren’t instituted.
B) if Samsung are going to contest the patent again, it has to be on new grounds/new arguments. Not an easy task!
Still, I remain confident more than one will survive.

AccidentalT, it’s probably best to look at it from the angle of imagining the trial WITHOUT the PTAB. Both sides disputing cluster compounds and emulsions in front of a jury. You can imagine how difficult that would be and how easy it would be for Samsung to blinker the jury with seemingly compelling techno jargon arguments. It would set a very high bar for our team I think trying to educate and then convince the jury that our patents are valid and that Samsung stole them. Far better for the patents to be valid or invalid based on the opinions of experts and we move from there.
Looked at through this lens, PTAB appears the far better route IMO, despite the risk of having a slew of patents invalidated.

This has been a really interesting discussion and got me thinking. I think I’ve arrived at the answer as to why Mintz agreed to PTAB when in theory, the finitiv precedent would’ve protected them from that route if they so wished.

I agree with what was stated in the RNS, contesting so many patents in court would’ve been tricky. However, there is clearly a subtext here, and that subtext is time. Ok, so the finitiv precedent stops a company being dragged through court and PTAB simultaneously. But from what I gather, one does not categorically rule out the other ad infinitum. Therefore, say we win at court, what’s to stop Samsung pursuing a patent review AFTER the court decision? Say one is overturned then surely the court’s decision is brought into question? You can imagine the endless delay this would cause.

PTAB suits both parties. It gives Samsung a pot shot at our patents, and an opportunity to manage reputational damage before we get into the realms of a high profile court case and ensuing award. It suits us because we learn the key patent battlegrounds we need to fight in court and we also know, as Samsung have said so, that the IP thieves will be bound by the PTAB ruling. That is a risk worth taking in terms of time saved and settlement timelines in terms of Mintz’ view of it.

Overall I still don’t see us getting to court. If PTAB is in our favour, Samsung may look to settle and get a better deal than what they will get in court. It really will be a fait accompli trial if they decide to go ahead, and I’m sure there are some folk within that huge legal team that are aware of what sort of numbers the court might award…

I think ours is an absolute classic case of what is being described in the article (thanks for sharing).

When a patent is granted and when a patent is appealed at PTAB are sadly two very different processes and until said processes are able to better meet in the middle, PTAB will continue to be exploited by big tech/big pharma/ anyone with big pockets and for whom patent theft has helped maintain healthy profit margins.

There is, of course, a fight back of sorts in the form of third party legal backers like ours. We are undoubtedly one of the lucky few who have been selected to take on goliath by a high profile and extremely adept legal team. How many other companies have bitten the dust through failure to secure ‘legal aid’ though? How many amazing breakthroughs have been stolen by big tech, leading to the ruin of an individual/company? It’s a chilling thought and I would wager that for every 1 company that manages to get their day in court, there are scores of others without the backing or financial means to do so.

Now why did Mintz go for the PTAB when it has long known to be the patent death squad? Perhaps the tide has changed since Finitiv. Perhaps they felt they had enough patents to go at that at least a few would survive. Or, perhaps they felt they could corner Samsung and show they didn’t have a leg to stand on.

If we lose, it’ll be a dark day not just for Nanoco, but for innovation and the relationship between big tech and small innovators in general. Let’s hope for justice.

It’s concerning that any ‘investor’ would need to have the CEO’s own words quoted to them so often to clarify pretty basic facts, as seems to be the case with BTB. Their time would be more wisely spent doing their due diligence rather than wringing hands here every day.

Tenner intimated that having all 47 upheld would be problematic in itself as there’s no way all of them could be argued in court and so a decision would have to be made as to which ones are pursued anyway. Obviously I would love for all of them to be upheld but equally it’s no bad thing if only a few survive.

Yes I should imagine it gives one a competitive advantage, stealing the best IP available without paying for it. Keeps costs down!
Seriously though Samsung need to tread carefully, how many more lawsuits before innovative tech companies refuse to deal with them and so other manufacturers start making bigger inroads on Samsung’s huge market share? It’s quite feasible that Samsung could start having to solely rely on their own RandD because no one else will go near them. Clearly for now Samsung see no issue with their Wild West approach…

I’m sure I’m not alone in the fact that the LSE website has been trying to sell me a Samsung telly on the pop ups.
Have to raise a wry smile every time it comes up! Haha

I was of the impression that PTAB was such a carrot for Mintz because it meant that the patents could not be disputed in court should they be upheld. Now if I have that right I don’t really know where that leaves Samsung defensively. There is of course the added smoking gun of those emails and the documented timeline of Samsung’s engagements with Nano. It’s going to be an easy narrative for Mintz to tell. No doubt we have to be alert to the fact that Samsung have world class lawyers and no doubt they aren’t just going to roll over but it seems to me Samsung have put their eggs in the PTAB basket. The trial should (crossers fingers) be a formality.

Something I’ve been thinking about is what Brian Tenner said about having improved confidence in the case. I’m wondering if the transcripts might have been cross examined/stress tested by legal consultants? It just seems an oddly bullish phrase to throw out some weeks after the hearing.

Just a bit of my amateur observations on the charts.

We are at a really interesting moment in the SP here where potentially a brand new trading channel could present itself. 30p-?There is no precedent (in charting terms) for what comes next, the last time we were above 30p was 2019.

It stands to reason the SP could continue to rally as money enters for exposure to the PTAB. Of course, if that’s positive then all bets are off in terms of what the price could be.

Either way it bodes well that despite a major seller, the price has maintained such strength. As BT said yesterday, two major inflection points this year and huge value driver in a positive PTAB outcome (I think, based on his comments yesterday, that a positive PtAB will see them pursuing Samsung in multiple jurisdictions- that is the pressure he’s alluding to IMO. A litigation cluster bomb if you will).

Not quite sure why RG is deciding to sell at these prices, his last TR1 had him selling at sun 20p which seems daft. Ah well, his loss our gain.

I’ll play contrarian and happily admit that the legal delay may be lengthy. 6 months ago that would’ve really worried me, cash was running out and there was a risk of early phase projects running aground.

What seems to be unfolding is organic growth and development that will make any legal settlement a real sweetener for us, but ultimately an added bonus to an already positive situation. You don’t up sticks and move out the family home to a much bigger family home unless you can pay the mortgage, and you are going to use all that extra space. I would argue the company themselves are being way more upbeat than any of us! Caution is baked in with this group of shareholders and I don’t think anyone has got too carried away.

Good luck to you listening to BTB Simon, let’s just hope you haven’t been following his trading tips in addition to his welcome words of caution. BTBs credibility is shot, he’s been urging people to sell since 20p and look where that would’ve got you. Oh and that fund raise he’s been telling us is round the corner for the past year…

So by your logic Barbon if a criminal is found guilty of murder but they plan to appeal, they don’t have to spend a day in jail before the appeal proceedings are over?
Whatever the decision of the PTAB, it will be binding until (and if) an appeal finds otherwise.

Further, I cannot see an injunction being granted. It would damage Samsung too much if they were forbidden from using the processes in dispute, or oblige them to pay a royalty to an impecunious company which might not be able to repay should Samsung eventually win.

If Nano are seen to own the patent (Ie the patents are upheld) then it doesn’t matter one iota how damaging it is to Samsung, the patent holder is surely within their rights to pursue an injunction on patents a court of expert judges has ruled belong to them.

If more than one of our patents are upheld I think that a re rate is an absolute certainty.

Samsung can play litigation trolls all they like but at the end of the day the chances of them overturning more than one patent on appeal is just not going to happen. Even if they do appeal, on what grounds? What will they introduce to try and change the PTABs mind? Appeals will be delay and nothing more, and I’m sure Mintz will have already thought about squeezing them harder for the privilege. Let’s hope they pursue an injunction to really turn the tables if PTAB goes our way…

It’d abundantly clear to me that Samsung’s play has failed miserably. They thought Nano wouldn’t even exist let alone be pursuing them with one of the finest legal teams behind them. Shareholders can afford to be patient because there is so much else to Nano than just the legal battle, as the update today showed.

Not if the turbines of Runcorn are churning out product BTB, which seems to be where investors are being guided towards…