Member Info for ddubya

Steveiom. If it reaches £5.43 those with a Stake of a few K or more can club together to charter a plane and be there for the party. I am looking forward to that already, so please stay in touch. It certainly beats the alternative of commiseration at the Greasy Spoon.

Sorry NIGDM, I remember the discussion but not the numbers. I remember thinking it was a lot, and $200 per set could well be correct. Samsung turned it down as being way too expensive and the Display industry has since become super competitive, so I am not sure the numbers help us too much now. There would need to be some form of reassessment by reference to whatever commercial terms would be achieved today.

The extra profit ME refers to and the $15 per set might be more useful as starting points?

Quite Screenlearner. ME has set the lower end of the range but is clearly not able to make assumptions about whether the Analytical basis of calculating damages will be applied by the Courts, or how much value could be attached to it. It would be unrealistic to expect that NANO would be awarded 100% of Samsung’s additional profit. ME stated that NANO wanted its “share”.

I would need to go back and check the video again to be sure NIGDM and might do so later today.

It is the lower end NIGDM so a conservative estimate yes. In the same conversation ME mentioned the profit based calculation too, so whilst we have a range but the floor is a known quantity and the ceiling far less certain. Any award received will transform NANO’s prospect.

Certainly reference to Q (quantum) could be a consideration in shelling out an extra $900 for the TV, if buyers associate it with CFQD but the Texan court is the right forum to decide if and how much value is derived from NANO’s IP.

NIGDM. ME has stated a licence would be around $15 per TV, hence the $210m estimate over 14m TV.

We would all prefer $26bn Screenlearner but if NANO wins in court I believe the estimate I have suggested put forward is far more likely than the bigger number. ME did say funders are very attracted by the possibility of nailing Samsung on profit based damages. There is certainly a case for that but it may be more difficult to demonstrate and it would be more economical for Samsung to fight damages of that order for years. What estimate did you have in mind?

Nige. Oops fat finger sent my last message a bit early . The final sentence is muddled but hope you get the gist.

It does look like Samsung has been making surplus profits from NANO enabled TV but proving the additional profit is derived from NANO IP will be harder to prove. So, whilst it is a possibility, we should not assume damages in the $billions. If we win in Court the likelihood of $630m seems reasonable and in event of pre court settlement something around $450 is my guess.

In the US, patent holders are entitled to "adequate compensation", and the value should be no less than what they would have received under a royalty agreement. Using ME figures of 14m TV, that's $210m and if 'willful' infringement, the Court can award up to 3x so $630m

In order to apply higher damages, the Court would need to be persuaded that an alternative 'Analytical' basis was more appropriate, for example, because Samsung has calculated that it could make bigger profits by aware that it could make larger profits by infringing the IP.

Damages in the £bn’s might be at the upper end of expectations but Samsung (allegedly) needs to learn to keep its hands out of people’s pockets. It looks like Samsung has had cloth ears on for the earlier judgements made against it. At some point, the Courts will lose patience and profits based damages will become the norm. Hopefully, that starts with NANO v Samsung.

20.14% spread at the moment. Hmm...?

I am warming to Judge Gilstrap already. Anyone that says No to Samsung has my vote.

Unfortunately, NANO is the original slow burner TLW.

Call me a conspiracist but I believe that is largely because some big players recognise the importance and value of CFQD, wish they had invented, it and have actively done whatever they can to frustrate NANO’s development and see out the life of the patents. Tricks have included leading NANO to believe it would receive a licence and ‘borrowing’ secrets of commercial production. I’m probably wrong of course. More good news please ME.

And then immediately down over 4%. NANO seems to be suffering from SP volatility in recent weeks.

A near 14% spread cannot be encouraging too many buyers or sellers (but still up 2.9% presently).

There could be an early settlement Nige and I really hope so for everyone's benefit. We should be prepared for the long haul though to help avoid potential disappointment. Nine years into this journey (and still a believer) that's how I deal with it.

Bonzoful. As you suggest, absence of a TP funding agreement makes sense if there remains any hope of a pre court settlement. Without a TP agreement there would be no ‘pay away’ (so again cheaper for Samsung to settle now).

I suspect Mintz and NANO hope for a settlement, although Samsung could simply be exploiting willingness to converse as means to delay.

We should have some form of answer by the due date for filing a defence but before then more good news on sales would be welcome. ME says NANO has high hopes for Display, so surely some OEM must be looking to source NANO CFQD now?

I hope it works out that way Nige, although I can’t help thinking the best time to buy NANO would have been during the strategic review, and previous form suggests Samsung will go to court rather than settle. Having said that the stakes over these patent infringements are potentially the largest Samsung has faced, so anything could happen.

Personally, my preference is for a settlement separate from ownership but if anyone were offering £2bn, I may have to revisit those thoughts.

If NANO says it is confident it’s patents have been infringed I believe them. I agree with SL that it is probable Samsung has made a derisory offer to buy NANO (rather than to settle litigation).

In my view, the odds are that a Court case will be needed and settlement will occur when that progresses to the point Samsung has exhausted all options to wriggle free on a technicality. However, I also have confidence the Texan Court will reach the right outcome.

In the months/years between now and then NANO needs to focus on its business. That is why it has opted to pursue the TP funding route (which if secured endorses the strength of the claim).

Wella99uk. You need to be comfortable with the risk to be here and only your can decide but I am Confident the risk of business failure is lower now than it was before, in part thanks to Covid 19.