Member Info for ddubya

A jury trial is what Mintz and NANO wanted because they felt it the most likely route to secure a positive verdict.

Having doubts and nerves is understandable and the case is not won until Judge Gilstrap says so. However, I have confidence the jury will be up to the task and will also receive appropriate direction from the judge.

In any case, most of the Americans I have come into contact with have shown a strong sense of right and wrong and the jury system seems to have served the US justice system pretty well over the years, so why not here too?

I don’t know if the jury lives together for a week or go home each evening but either way, I can’t see that a Samsung attempt to bribe the jury with a new phone (or anything else) will have much chance of success. I am not suggesting the idea has not been considered though!

Thanks for the view Sammy. As you say Samsung is an experienced user of legal services and supports many of the East Coast elite. I will settle for the loss of this case for KE, or a fair settlement.

From a Kirkland Ellis perspective I expect they will do all they can to avoid being on the losing side for reputational reasons, so I would not be surprised if they favour a settlement and have recommend it to Samsung. I would be interested to hear your view on this suggestion Sammy.

Oh well - four more weeks for Samsung to raise some $ cash.

Morning BC. My recollection is that he was initially comfortable with the loan but when it became clear that there was a large ‘success’ bonus (for an interest bearing loan) he was much less flattering and thought it sharp practice. The amount of the bonus was left ambiguous by NANO which did not impress.

I managed to sleep like a baby Baz but I understand and share your excitement and to a lesser extent the worry.

There may be no positive news from Samsung between now and proceedings starting, so if you can find some ways to deal with the stress positively and take enough sleep it is going to be hugely beneficial. Keeping healthy is what matters more than anything.

I often wonder why we don’t hear from Lobo too. He is very knowledgable and I appreciated his insights too, so if you are out there Lobo, it would be great to hear from you.

Enjoy the ride today too.

Now at 44.8 to buy so there is clearly buying interest now. Took much longer than I expected but hopefully it continues.

Then again, cadmium was the only option because no one other than NANO knew how to make a cadmium free version.

Quite Barbon and all of which cuts right to the cynicism of Samsung’s actions. They knew no one else would buy CFQD from NANO when they could instead purchase the complete QD panels from the worlds leading supplier. NANO’s display offering was always dead in the water.

BT has not been especially diplomatic but as Sammy says we don’t know the context behind his Snake Island salute.

It would not surprise me in the least if Samsung has offered a settlement in the low tens of £m, so perhaps something was needed to demonstrate NANO’s resolve.

Attack might be the best means of defence and the bigger take away for me is BT’s comments regarding the strength of our case.

That’s a similar view to my own FDred.

If Judge Gilstrap is willing to entertain a discussion in connection on ‘sufficiency’ he will not permit them to monopolise proceedings on that topic and will likely direct Samsung to deliver its points in short order.

It will be difficult for Samsung to state its case in a convincing way and unless the judge considers it has a slam dunk argument, the jury is not likely to be swayed or directed.

Samsung Is arguing the technicalities and perhaps does so in desperation, since the substantive arguments have not gone it’s way. I am sure Mintz considered the matter before PTAB and already has a solution it will bring to bear. We need to put our trust in the case, Mintz and the US legal system at this point.

Thank you Alan00. An excellent article that brings the material issues together concisely.

Some home truths in there, including a 90% downside in event of losing the case, since ‘nil’ value is currently attributed to the IT sensor work-stream.

On the other hand the article argues a compelling investment case to the trial date, so if anyone takes note there should be some active buyers between now and then.

I could not see direct reference to value in event the case is won but Samsung has not offered to settle. Surely some value would be added to the SP in such circumstances even if likely at a level based on lower award estimates?

We can only speculate what the Court will determine in terms of its decision and basis of calculation, and as you say Sammy, a significant risk is that any award is low and the funders swallow most of it.

I do believe It unlikely that risk will crystallise though. Edison indicated damages of somewhere around $220m based on yesteryear’s TV production figures, an assessment based upon a royalties based calculation, whereas other methods produce much higher values.

If the Court finds in NANO’s favour and even without uplift for ‘wilfulness’ the award is likely to be much larger and perhaps include a lump sum for future royalties discounted because of advance payment. That avoids arguments over future TV sales figures.

Like some others, I have been invested in NANO for 600 weeks, so I can wait another four and am looking forward to the mounting tension, whilst also remaining confident of our chance for success.

The timing of the action in Germany, before commencement of the E Texas court case is interesting, and to my mind suggests confidence of a win in Texas? Otherwise, why not wait just a few more weeks to hear the outcome of the first action and onboard any learnings?

It may also suggest Samsung is not entertaining the idea of a settlement presently and so NANO is attempting to take the initiative.

Thank you Sammy. As you say, the purpose of the NDA is to allow NANO to share sensitive information confidentially with Samsung, and with a view to facilitating the licensing agreement.

If it chooses to do so, NANO can share the same information with whoever it’s wishes and I can’t see why it would not be able to share limited and relevant information in Court.

The lengthy period of collaboration that NANO had with Samsung will surely be a factor relevant to the ‘sufficiency’ argument.

NANO will have provided additional information over and above that disclosed in patents (and subject to a non disclosure agreement). This was likely crucial in giving Samsung the information it required to replicate the CFQD production process. I am sure there will be detailed records of the additional information disclosed to Samsung as part of that collaboration.

Most firms would try to settle the litigation in the most economical way possible, and any self respecting Head of Legal will have in mind a settlement value he/she recommends accepting.

Samsung has shown itself willing to be different and this case has potential to be the largest award made against it for IP ‘theft’, so top brass probably is probably more closely involved and may be less pragmatic than the Head of Legal?

The Highlander effect could be in play and there is of course only one way to dispose of one.

Just so Sammy. Samsung is playing hardball presently, in the hope NANO will lower expectations and accept whatever offer Samsung has made - just as we might expect. No need to make a serious offer until the eleventh hour.

Hi NGR. The case could either settle early or go to trail as you suggest, and possibly also appeal (as PTAB is doing).

Obviously, an early and satisfactory conclusion us suits best but it could go either way and what will be will be. If there is no settlement we need to win the Court case and carry on, which will benefit the SP even if no money changes hands just yet.

I will be sitting tight either way, at least until there is news on IR sensors, which has potential to be as transformational as the Court case.

I very much agree Crow. Samsung might see advantage in dragging the case out further to starve NANO of funding but since it is not manufacturing CFQD on a commercial scale and does not have capacity to supply Samsung it is not a competitor in manufacturing terms.

A potentially smaller settlement pre trial seem to make more sense than risk a much larger payment post trial. Samsung can then carry on making CFQD and push ahead with its new manufacturing plants.

BT’s only strategy is to make clear that NANO is prepared to go to court. To do otherwise presents Samsung with the upper hand. In any event NANO’s case appears strong, so why would it not progress to trial? Recent events must increase (but not eliminate) likelihood of settlement, rather than reduce it.