Member Info for Ecclescake

Hawi, I find you guilty of not caring.

Your post overtook mine, your right to ask why should Samsung settle, injunctions are expensive and won't have the Financial returns. I think Nanoco would try to include worldwide sales in any settlement.

Could include worldwide sales
Twit

A pre court settlement could in could world wide sales, but a court decision might only include USA sales.
Samsung's defence of the willful infringement is becoming harder, they can't claim no knowledge, and difficulties in claiming they belived patents were invalid isn't going to work.
They could be revisting the Financial numbers to make the next moves.
E&EO
For the pompous this is a conversational note without prejudice.

Been said before, the possible problem for a pre trial settlement is the wilful infringement. Many companies could arrive at a commercial figure for the IP. Samsung's gamble could be a higher IP infringement award, but not guilty on the Wilful.

Sammy, I can't say how they will agree to verify numbers. Any agreement will include a method, my experience has been royalties on numbers sold which relied on the audited numbers with a clause to independent audit if requested. The other aspect is payment terms 30, 90 days or annually. I'm sure this will be more complex, but terms will be part of the settlement.

Barbon, any appeal is a double edge sword unless the maximum penalty is applied. By that I mean the penalty could be revised up and down. So they will need firm grounds to launch one or fear the wrong outcome with a spurious challenge. I get the feeling money isn't the issue for S, they've run the numbers and I belive they have overriding commercial considerations to achieve outweighing cost.

Often the first to market often fails because the market doesn't develop fast enough and the second company come along and takes the cherry. Nanoco near didn't make it, I suspect Samsung thought so too.
However.
There is a tipping point with new tech, from pushing a bit of string to having it pulled. Demand is knocking on our door.

LordWM, it's not certain what the relationship might be. A recent agreement with a chemical company in Japan is somewhat simular the Nanaco could be because they make thier own heavy metal free qd or have IP. It doesn't matter.

The 2 things to focus on for me, NW England is a centre of QD excellence and possibly more important a rising tide lifts all ships. CFQD have become the future. Bit OTT but you get my drift.
https://quantumscis.com/2022/06/20/quantum-science-announces-infiq-quantum-dots-material-distribution-partnership-with-nishimura-chemitech-in-japan/

FYI
https://quantumscis.com/2022/08/01/quantum-science-outlines-the-future-of-sensing-technology-in-new-white-paper/

https://quantumscis.com/2022/08/02/nano-in-size-big-on-sustainability-and-performance-quantum-science-achieves-leading-device-performance-for-lead-free-swir/

Forgot link
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsungs-plan-to-build-cheaper-oleds-with-rival-lgs-panels-has-hit-the-rocks

Snippet of insight about panel sales between manufacturers, no prices mentioned of course. My quess is they're around $50 on an order of 1.5 million.
Wild Guess, Samsung QD-OLED come in around $200, wondering how the factor in payback for the factory setup.

Nice heads up guys we coming for you next, or would you like to come a talk to us now.

Number 10, Any argument, evidence, testimony, reference, or suggestion that Nanoco has not asserted
its patents against other entities, including Nanosys or QD Vision.
Obvious why, but possibly confirming more infringements to be address.

Overall everyone has be generous with each other on our speculation and desires, thanks for your indulgence. This is a giant puzzle and we don't have all the pieces, and neither do Samsung and Nanoco because each will not give everything away to avoid harming their desired outcome or negotiation objective. Anyway its been interesting, educational, and thought provoking in many surprising ways. Keep up the effort be generous we still got some way to go. It been emotional. lol

Troublesome, I'm concidering such strong a case could mean that Nanocos team might have to dial back the amount to get Samsung to settle. Samsung might have commercial rationale to extend the resolution as far into the future as possible and that delay may give them a payback larger than a court decision award.
Sammy, I need to look back and see what was said about the financial arrangements. Difficult to accept they access the chances of success at the outset and don't have stage reviews. For example if if the PTAB had been a complete failure.

Interesting to read all the points of view, there are many facets to this most of which we can only quess at. The darkest or less apparent to me are Samsungs commercial calculations in terms of maximising return on investment. Part of that will be to to delay competition, and court case will give the longer delays. They will also want resist any wilful infringement payment in any settlement agreement. Nanocos backers on the otherhand will want to maximise the payout and this for me is what will be the sticking point and why I think a higher probability of a court case. I know BT said a settlement was preferable, but I'm not sure who has the casting vote on that decision, I suspect its the funders and lawyers. Its not everyday they are presented with an opportunity of a mega payday. I think the PTAB result and the Willful infringement aspect have increased the chance of the court case. I can't see a strong case for Samsung to settle.

Thanks Surprised, i was wondering what is causing the buys.

Richard Griffiths reduce holding further to 3%
Could be looking to exit completely.

I'm still using a Panasonic 55 viera plasma TV supposedly cutting edge way back. :)