Member Info for ddubya

We would have preferred a more meaty RNS of course but NANO is compelled to release its Blocklisting return to the market.

Good to hear that Ericson is joining the queue to litigate against Samsung. No smoke without fire, and Samsung appear to be a prolific offender (if not the most prolific) in alleged IP theft. If NANO's case is a s strong as we hope/believe, the pressure on the judiciary will build to encourage it to find an effective way to clip Samsung's wings. The easiest way to do so would be to award much larger damages awards and potentially to prohibit US imports. The timing of this new case could work to NANO's favour?

There’s always a first time BtB.

Samsung does not sell any mini-LED today, not a single item, but it will apparently feature only Epistar mini-LED in all its new TV models over the next two years. Thereafter, it will launch the long awaited QD colour filter in QNED models.

According to FOMO, Samsung revealed the above at its TV summit this week.

Sounds like a recipe for commercial c*#k up if you ask me.

Very interesting that Samsung would want to make a temporary switch of this nature. Perhaps it foresees losing the NANO suit and wants to limit future losses in the form of licence fees?

FOMO’s advice - do not buy a Samsung 2021 or 2022 model year TV . Mini-LED is dead end technology.

It gets stranger and stranger.

https://youtu.be/TgOv4ldHXW8

That would certainly raise a broad smile on many longsuffering faces Nanonano. ST Micro looks the most likely source of good news ahead of the Markman hearing, and it does feel like 2021 has potential to be the 'genuine' turning point.

I wonder what happened to Merck since ME's "Watch this space" comment? Done a deal with Samsung, or are they waiting to hear the outcome of litigation?

I have a broadly similar view of the world Amerloque, although I suspect it might be possible to reform globalised players, rather than break them up entirely? However, both reform and break up would require international agreement, and that seems most unlikely to materialise any time soon.

Samsung is certainly the undisputed leader in CFQD manufacture and distribution, yet it neither invented the concept nor invested years and many £millions in research to make them usable in Display. NANO did that, with funds provided by its shareholders.

I suspect Samsung got here got using exactly the methods you mention, and relieving NANO of the CFQD market is exactly what Samsung hoped to achieve and has done in my view.

I do not view Samsung as some sort of stalwart of CFQD. It’s actions appear completely selfish to me.
Had the EU followed through with RoHS, CFQD would have been far more prevalent in other manufacturer’s products and Cadmium based displays might have been close to redundant by now, so it is a complex picture with many separate issues acting against NANO.

Sorry lee7. Missed that you posted the docket update - thanks

Hi Screenlearner and thanks for that. Interesting news - my initial thoughts are that since Samsung has been pouring all over NANO’s patents for more than 10 years, and has taken a unilateral decision to declare them invalid. Why would it need time at this point in the proceedings, to prepare a case to challenge the validity of patents, unless it were (once more) time wasting? And will the Markman hearing not settle most questions surrounding the patents anyway?

If they wanted to settle now there would be no need to put proceedings on hold I suspect. Hopefully Judge Gilstrap will not be up for their games.

In a moral sense you are right Nige, Samsung is guilty.. There is no doubt in my mind, they set out to steal NANO's technology and never intended to pay, just as they have done with others. However, whilst some will share this opinion, the Law is weak in this respect and Samsung has deep pockets. The Courts will find against Samsung only if the correct patent process was followed and all other aspects of the case are proven to its satisfaction. And Samsung will not settle unless it knows the game is lost.

No firm with a good idea should approach Samsung as a partner in my opinion. They do not respect patents or indeed any sense of decency, so can be only one outcome, which is why I shall not be buying Samsung again.

Samsung’s claim to, effect that NANO’s patents do not enable the invention seems a weak one to me. Had this been a new ‘revelation’ to our TP funder, it would probably have pulled out of the arrangement, claiming NANO has not acted in good faith during the due diligence and contract negotiations.

It seems far more likely the detail of the US patents was considered in great detail by NANO, the US patent office, Mintz and also the TP funder (which is risking its own funds) well before the legal action got to this stage. “Pressure tested” as Mike put it, so I find it difficult to be too concerned on that front, particularly since Samsung (or was it Hansol, the logistic experts) needed an extended period of joint development to acquire the full knowledge required to replicate seeded CFQD ‘on the sly’.

They probably also buttered Dow up with compensatory contracts, to prevent them from joining an action with NANO against Samsung?

All said in my humble opinion of course, but Samsung looks as guilty as sin. I believe the Texan courts will see it the same way, barring the unexpected.

As it stands, a court decision against NANO would likely cast doubt upon the Court’s ability to protect patent holders and to serve justice where it is due.

If NANO wins the legal arguments, the application of profit based damages is certainly possible. Marketing costs are deducted from the additional profits made by Samsung.

When Mike quoted $14bn, he provided the increased cost of QLED sets to consumers at retail cost. NANO can not hope to recover any additional profit made by distributors and retailers, so my guess is that Samsung's increased margin at wholesale might be around 40% of that value, providing a ceiling of around $5.6bn, which Samsung has pocketed through alleged theft.
Against that yardstick, I cannot not see why an award of over £1bn would be considered either out of place or unreasonable and it could be more? Does anyone have a more accurate measure of the retail mark up for TV's?

I really hope that comes true for you BtB and anyone else with over a third of a million shares. We can’t take the court decision for granted but I am confident there is a strong chance of success and an eventual total payout north of £1bn.

I would love to think so Steady. I could not open the link posted the other day but did wonder whether these masks use copper variants of CFQD or simply nano sized copper particles, which have been printed on to face mask material?

Good enough for an 8% increase at the moment. The RNS suggests that it does not add anything to the bottom line, which is true but it should mean that we cover part of our costs (less the 20% share) from the grant. About time there was some investment in UK business and pleased it is with NANO. Another future product that we may be able to bank one day.

We shall all do very well, if and when NANO wins its case Nige. Samsung is not challenging the Law though it is claiming due process was not followed when patents were filed. It is looking to the Courts to support its position. Irrespective of our opinion, there is always a real risk of losing a case on a technicality, even if it seems unfair.

In my view Samsung acted dishonestly whatever way you look at the facts. If they truly felt the patents had not been filed correctly, why would they enter into a collaboration agreement over many years, unless their objective was to rape and pillage all NANO knowhow for their own benefit?

Their defence feels like a weak counter argument to a Court case they calculated NANO could never mount, so for the benefit of all small fish, I hope we win. Also that Judge Gilstrap views the circumstances the same way and shows Samsung no mercy whatsoever by awarding humongous damages. They deserve it :)

And in what you say Nanonano is the greatest injustice of all. When the court case is over (and won) but with relevant patents close to expiry, Samsung will be the dominant manufacturer and supplier of CFQD. Not even Judge Gilstrap can fully compensate NANO for the full extent of losses inflicted by Samsung.

With legal action now a commercial transaction, I can’t see why NANO or TP funders would settle for less than £1bn, or as much as they are able to extract.

News on Samsung will not likely arrive until April or May at earliest but other transformational news could drop at any time. My guess is that Brian Tenner would not have taken the CEO role and Mike Edelman would not have negotiated share options as part of his exit, unless they were confident as to the outcome of the court case and the future?

Don’t worry Steadydanny, I have no expectation that you or anyone else will reveal the future tomorrow but I shall be interested to learn your thoughts.

Could be supply of electroluminescent CFQD to BOE, an order following successful R&D on IR sensors for ST Micro, or even something new that includes Merck?

You are a bit of a tease Steadydanny but I shall tune in after 11.00 on Monday for an update on your hunch :)

I would imagine that Tek Capital's shock absorbers have as much relevance to the more common Hybrid vehicle as they do to fully electric models, greatly increasing the potential market.

It seems likely too that range of Hybrid and plug in Hybrids could be extended by a larger percentage than fully electric, allowing them to complete more of their shorter journeys on electric power alone - can't be a bad thing.

BBD - you mean preferential terms compared to the premium rates NANO will offer Samsung!

If Samsung wanted to license, I am sure NANO would take their money anyway but I love the idea of Samsung paying its dues in every way possible. It would be even better if NANO revealed it had a next generation CFQD that puts both Samsung's QLED and QNED in the shade. Oh dear, think I just woke up but it was a nice thought.....