Member Info for ddubya

It looks like Samsung considers itself to be bigger than the US justice system, criticising Judges decisions on one hand and apparently offering information that does not resemble the truth on the other.

Good luck with that approach Samsung - we had wondered if new management might make you more amenable but it seems the opposite is so.

This appears to be notice of ‘filing’ rather than notice of patent ‘grant’?

If the above is correct, it is not inconceivable the application could be contested by NANO, if it considered to infringe existing patents in any way?

The application might is likely well worth a closer look to see what it addresses, as it might be part of a strategy to stretch NANO resources and finances ahead of the court case.

Unfortunately, COVID will be with us for some time, particularly if more deadly variants keep evolving. A licencing arrangement might suit India and Belluscura, which could use India's engineering skills and manufacturing base to make units quickly and in volume? It could establish a low cost manufacturing base for long term production also.

Torpedo - apparently if we put a long dated sell order on our shares at a price well above the current valuation, it makes it less attractive for shorters to open a position as those shares are effectively off the market should they need to purchase. At least that’s what I have been told, and so perhaps time to place my order.

Similar considerations applied to my thinking when on the way down from 175p Mattyboy!

I have to say I am enjoying the recent journey up much more, having averaged down over the years to 19p.

I agree with the current dilemma, and I am sat on a decent profit myself. However, I have the unsubstantiated feeling that if I sell any now, I shall be kicking myself in a few months (perhaps years) time. The Samsung case is hugely important for NANO but I suspect the real value lives in sensors and possibly even display relationships with other manufacturers?

I was not able to open the link Nanonano but it makes complete sense that Apple has not given up on QD and helps to explain its decision not to hold NANO to a share of CAPEX when the contract was cancelled.

Great to see NANO maintaining a northerly direction in share price. Fewer underwater everyday, which is good for all.

There is of course always the possibility that Samsung wins the case BtB because that’s the reality of litigation.

However, I am convinced Samsung can’t be described as innocent. They are able to make CFQD only because of the NANO collaboration, and if they have found a way around patent infringement, it will be solely as a result of a ‘get out’ technicality and not because have not both referenced NANO’s patents and benefitted from its expertise on CFQD.

None of us on the ‘outside’ is close enough to the case to judge the likely outcome by its merits. However, the third party funder’s confidence surely bodes well for the outcome.

I am as confident as I can be that no ‘get out’ exists for Samsung and NANO will win through, in the end.

My guess PPE is that Samsung recognises it is undeniable it is making product using NANO 's IP and any claim they are not would be destined to fail at first hurdle. In my view, the only viable defence open to Samdung is what it is doing, i.e. that of delay, IPR, prior art and obviousness and wherever possible to argue the meaning of words used.

Many twists and turns ahead but for the moment it looks like the Mintz strategy is on plan and Samsung is where we want it. If The Patent Board denies them an IPR, and I see a strong arguments why it should (including reasons of self interest) then it is down to the October trial verdict and any appeal process.

Samsung knows it is likely to lose large, so it will do all it can to delay further.

The process for Nano particles (IR sensors) certainly is Basscadet but that’s not to say the molecular seeding is not also required to make them in commercial quantities.

BtB. The Apple contract may live on through ST Micro, and we all know the Dow story. Plessey was always working on its own three primary colour QD and so Merck and Wah Hong, which you don’t mention are the two unexplained departures.

Let us see where we are at the end of the year. My prediction is we shall be cash positive not long after the first anticipated commercial order with ST Micro. Can’t be certain of course but you pay your money and take your chance.

Thanks Ecclescake. We are certainly at the very forefront of an exciting new technology, which could launch NANO to become a big player.

For what it is worth, my view is that Samsung knew it was (allegedly) stealing IP not only for CFQD but also the production platform for a new technology with potential in hundreds of applications.

Perhaps NANO’s near silence reflects its desire not to give Samsung any more clues than necessary as to its direction of travel, and limit ability to use IP to leap ahead and ‘borrow’ the next generation of QD and sensor innovation too?

Meant to say we may continue the blue trend...

It is the Nanoco ticket nLondon. Volume there was 23k yesterday which is tiny, although it is over twice the OTC daily average for NNOCF.

There are occasionally days where OTC moves dramatically and it means nothing at all. However, we continue the blue trend in the IK today and further moves up are entirely possible. If, as it appears, the Markman hearing has gone in our favour NANO, then odds of an adverse outcome have been reduced further.

NNOCF is up over 42% at the moment on OTC. I realise the price can vary wildly from that over here as it is today but it’s certainly going in a very healthy direction and perhaps there is a reason behind that?

Further evidence that Samsung plans to exhaust every avenue and explore all potential technical ‘get outs’, as well as challenging the Patent Board’s granting of patents.

I suppose they have few other options but if/when they lose in a year or two, the costs will be very much greater.

Like Gindog, I am liking your analogy RC30. So Samsung saw it stole it, tweaked a few aspects of design and call it something else. I don’t see them fooling judge or jury with their argument as without NANO IP they would have no product whatsoever.

Thanks Pirate Pete. It is possible to understand both sides of the argument and perhaps US Courts should respect Chinese decisions (?), although China does not have a great record of protecting IP and how detached is the Court from The Communist Party?

On the other hand, Samsung probably sought a judgement in Wuhan because it knew that it would set a lower level of Royalty. It also filed its case without reference to Ericsson, which had no prior knowledge.

If evidence were needed this shows that Samsung will do what it can to avoid/mitigate payment.

Can’t imagine that Judge Gilstrap is better disposed toward Samsung now. Better not defer the trial, otherwise Samsung may attempt to have a Wuhan Court rule on NANO’s case ahead of October.

It is beginning to look like we shall need governmental intervention to deal with Samsung’s antics.

My personal boycott of Samsung now amounts to two laptops, three 27” monitors and dual stand.

If Samsung has genuine reason to contest the validity of the patents, it may have a legitimate right to contest them using the process set out by the Patent Board. Having said that, such an option existed over 10 years ago, which it chose not to pursue, probably because it hope NANO would wind up and disappear?

Samsung appears to be suggesting the Patent Board is a higher authority for determining patent validity than the Court?
It might be a clever legal move but the timing is completely cynical, and presents both the Court and Board with a bit of a challenge over jurisdiction. It high risk strategy, which I doubt it would take, if it were more certain of its ground? It also risks losing any goodwill it could muster in the establishment (as TM58 suggests) - let's hope so and also that a way can be found to prevent Samsung from frustrating and delaying the justice system further.

Thank you Intrusive. It might be getting ahead of ourselves a little but if successful in Texas I am sure there has always been a plan to follow up in other jurisdictions, with Germany being next on the list because of its unique cheap and speedy system. Not that the German courts will rely on points determined in Texas but you would think there might be some that are demonstrated to be fact and so help to obtain that German injunction as quickly as possible. If NANO win in Texas and Samsung drags its heels on payment, I suspect we shall Mintz pursue an injunction on Samsung’s US sales.

I thought it interesting that in the recent public docket, Samsung states CFQD had been synthesised for years before NANO’s patents. However, what they forget to mention is that NANO would probably not deny that fact. Universities worldwide have been doing it on a small scale. However, no one had found a way of making them in the quantities needed for mass production until NANO patented its process. That is one of the unique offerings that NANO provides, and which Samsung (allegedly) has trousered without paying.

Samsung’s argument that NANO’s patents are invalid is a bit like the local criminal saying you left your back door open, so it is OK to remove all your possessions (including the QLED TV) via that exit.

If you are a buy and hold type of guy Drones, then you have been a shareholder for a very long time indeed, and even longer than me. Welcome aboard and stay close to your friends!

Thanks Morbox. I suspect we might still be waiting for the first Samsung QLED TV had it been solely responsible for the CFQD.

Their argument feels rather hollow and I look forward to hearing the evidence to substantiate their assertions.