RE: RE:Samsung Display environmental strategy14 Oct 2022 16:20
NGR, for what it's worth, IMO
S lost Markman 4-1.
S lost PTAB 47-0.
S failed to get motions to re-define agreed.
S failed to get N experts removed.
S and N agreed to removal of red QDs to concentrate on green ones (or was it the other way round?) which doesn't seem to favour either party, more about time pressure in court.
It seems neither corporate nor lawyer bluster that N believes it has a very strong case. We can't know what has/is happening in mediation but N must surely have been pushing for a similarish but reduced amount compared with what it thinks it can get it court. Ultimately, N is content with the case going to court.
Both parties have very strong legal teams - it's a draw.
As we've discussed before, we don't know what S court arguments will be but I can't help thinking this will be a continuation of glossing over, claiming ignorance and trying to obfuscate N case with the jury.
Court is a gamble for both obviously, but S may be thinking:
The worst is we lose with a multiplier (let's assume a max of 1.5x as 3x hardly ever seems to be applied).
BUT we might still be able to negotiate a deal that reduces that amount thus avoiding the delay and costs of an appeal for both parties.
We can win - if N appeal, we can drag it out for at least another year with no guarantee that N will win the appeal, quite a risk for N and its funder.
Even if we lose and pay out, the max damages will still only be (say for argument's sake) 5% of this year's profits. It will hurt a bit but won't damage our future, even with royalty agreements.
If we lose face, it will only be a temporary situation. I remember another poster referring to tomorrow's chip wrapping - made me chuckle!! (The only reason I remember Intel's 1bn fine is because I'm invested here.)