Member Info for ddubya

The defences are far from being ridiculous PPE, although the key point is that none applies to the circumstances of NANO 's case. A possible exception is the delay in in commencing proceedings but NANO clearly sought to persuade Samsung to do the right thing - probably should have known better but I am sure NANO was aware of this potential hazard and has received specialised legal assistance every step of the way. None of these potential defences gives me any cause for concern.

Let’s hope they follow through on that threat wicky. Of course, nothing the EU could not and should not have done several years ago.

Hi Scamp. I have always felt ‘Sambung’ will contest the case until all avenues have been exhausted and settlement is the only option left. The defence that NANO patents are invalid and approach to the Patent Board, which puts forward only several hypothetical means of creating cluster CFQD suggests to me it’s case is at risk of floundering. NANO May trip up on a technicality but otherwise, I suspect it is only a matter of time before it obtains satisfaction, and their paper suggests a decision in May 2022, so that’s what I shall work to and be delighted if anything happens earlier.

An injunction against US sales would focus minds but I can’t see ‘fairness’ permitting that until the appeal process has concluded and ‘Samdung’ has failed to comply with the court ruling.

NANO 's favour (spell check again :))

There is a lot to be said for a Court that sets record damages Borasic. If the Eastern Texas District could stretch it just a Little further in BANK's favour that would be nice.

I don’t think you will find either myself of BtB disagreeing with you Intrusive. Potentially, any patents and or secrets held must be that of Hansol the toilet paper specialists.

I don’t want to speak for BtB but I think his point is that if Samsung had found another way to make CFQD that look like exactly like NANO’s then our patents remain valid but Samsung is not guilty of patent infringement.

There is infringement only where Samsung has followed one or more processes patented by NANO. I feel sure it has done so because the traits, which NANO identify are highly suggestive of having used them. Samsung will need to reveal the process it has used, if it hopes to persuade the court otherwise.

However, if Samsung were innocent, there is every incentive for them to say very little now and keep their powder dry until the trial.

BtB - How are you keeping at the moment?

That’s right BtB, although the burden of proof is ultimately on Samsung to demonstrate how they have made cluster nucleus CFQD without infringing NANO’s patents. My money says they don’t have an answer to that. NANO says Samsung’s Patent Board application includes a number of implausible ways to create them, so it is entirely possible that likely it could be decided by a trial and Samsung will drag it out as far as it is able. After all, it is very big money even for them.

A positive Markman outcome would be a very significant benefit to NANO though and limit Samsung’s options. There is an increased chance of settlement, if they get ‘Slam Dunked’ at Markman hearing.

Could be Nanonano. We are always the last to hear but if we can become a dominant player in IR sensors and also secure that very large pay cheque from Samsung, I can’t imagine anyone here is going to be disappointed.

There should be more long term value outside of the Samsung case than in it but there is no doubt that winning the legal case has potential to add capital more quickly, even if it does take several more years to obtain it.

The agreement is certainly a five year one Hawi, although the first phase of development was due to complete in December 2020, so what I and I am sure others would like to hear is something or anything, for example the next Phase is underway and has not expired in the same way the expectations ME set for Merck nearly a couple of years ago, as indeed have several other promising announcements. Sometimes I have questioned my judgement but I am still long though and have not sold any in 10 years. Not too much longer to wait.

I was certainly expecting something before now Ecclescake but if the customer is Apple and assuming all is well, we shall be beholden you their timetable and so may not hear for some time yet.

Interesting article and those Apple glasses sound like they might be something very special. I see they ...might be able to notify the wearer of sounds beyond their own field of hearing. My wife shares a similar specification, although I doubt that I would be ready to displace her for an Apple version just yet.

It is clear from NANOs very convincing paper that Samsung’s Dr Jang tried unsuccessfully for four years to create CFQD and contacted Nigel Picket for help in October 2006. A non-disclosure agreement was signed and technical discussion was ongoing for years before Samsung managed full scale manufacture. The agreement was promptly ditched and a CFQD TV launched in 2015. Much more detail regarding what we knew already.

Like most, I am no chemist but Samsung’s arguments appear to be given short thrift and are even ridiculed for their non sensical nature. Certainly sounds like NANO is convinced as to the strengths of its arguments (and funders too). Also, that Samsung has failed to provide the critical information that would persuade anyone of the invalidity of NANO’s patents.

The paper suggests an expectation that Samsung will litigate to the end and try to frustrate the process, including this tactic to obtain institution and both add to NANOs costs and stretch its resources.

Decision following trial look like May 2022, so the wait is nearly over, and who knows they might even settle earlier?

I think we are in good hands with Mintz, who will no doubt have been assisting. It must have been a tremendously expensive in both time and money to prepare this document.

Any hopes of a benefit to the SP as a result are dashed by the market and a loss of over 3% so far today. A ringing endorsement to keep holding for me :)

Hi Frostbar. Some at Samsung might be thinking how nice it would be to offer selected individuals, including the proficient Judge Gilstrap, a ‘The Wall’ TV to help with their Covid nights in?

Come to think of it sales of large QD enabled TV sales must have been booming for Samsung as a result of Covid.

I am beginning to look forward to the outcome of the Markman hearing.

NANO alleges use of its patents in what looks to be over 200 Samsung TV's and monitors, the largest I noted being 98" - so lots of Patent infringement content. The claim for increased damages and recovery of attorney fees remains too.

Roll on the Markman hearing, and hopefully roll over Samsung at some point. However, I still expect it to extend the process for as long as the Courts will permit.

Hi Upticker. Right or wrong, I am in for the full journey, which I hope will include commercialisation of IR sensors and realisation of value in other market segments too, such as vertical agriculture and medical applications. And of course in Display, the possibility of that Samsung payout, which could fund the next 20 years R&D and more.

Hi Nanonano. It is great to see that NANO continue with its R&D and filing of patents. No doubt Samsung has been using its know how to do exactly the same for years, so it would be great if NANO is able to patent the next generation of CFQD and the supporting technology to retake the lead, despite the mugging it received at the hands of Samsung (all in my personal opinion, of course)

Hi Basscadet - there is no exclusivity period presently. I seem to recollect there was one though (2 years).

Certainly will Hftb. If NANO was to announce an IR sensor deal with STM, that would be the launch pad this firm really needs for profitability and longevity. Any Samsung payday would be an extra thick layer of tasty icing on the cake. Here’s hoping we can have cake and eat it.

Yes, the US partner did not exactly slam the door shut on the way out. It is possible that without waiving the NANO contribution to CAPEX, it was not able to enforce rights to exclusivity. So it might have gained something in return for what looks like a very generous gesture. Consequently, NANO and STM have been prevented from marketing to anyone else (so far).