Member Info for Ecclescake

Coverage
March 08, 2021
Jury Awards Samsung Rival $63M Over Screen Display Patent
Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap's first patent jury trial since November ended Monday with a jury finding that Samsung Display Co. Ltd. willfully infringed Solas OLED Ltd.'s screen display patents and awarding $62.7 million in damages — an amount the judge could increase because of the willfulness finding.

I see Samsung have tried for a stay using the IPR of the Asserted Patents argument in their use of case of 3 patents belonging to Solas OLED. Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the request. July 2020
https://casetext.com/case/solas-oled-ltd-v-samsung-display-co-1
I see they are back in court next Friday might be worth keeping an eye on this as it looks like this case is a bit more advanced. Might help give us indication of how things may proceed.
I was hoping the Nanoco case was live streamed, wouldn't that be good lol

Work over started PFO 16
https://twitter.com/PresidentPlc/status/1375359618814255104?s=19

DTransfer blog
https://blog.dtransfer.com/are-blockchain-b2b-payments-solutions-safe

£52.3K BUY AT 23p positive outlook from someone

ST Micro moving forward at a pace on AR glasses
https://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/about/innovation---technology/laser-beam-scanning.html

Doesn't improve my grammar either. lol

Yes your correct just spectators, owning shares doesn't make me a player just a supporter and spectator

The PTAB is expected to issue institution decisions in May of 2021 and Samsung might be allowed to make the request within 14 days. But it might not be allowed even then

Frosty, Great find, but you may be mistaken. Mintz are putting forward and augment not to allow a stay, part of the augment is the previous stay of the 8th jan. Mintz augment is Samsung's second request for stay is premature.

Rig in operation at rio Negro
https://twitter.com/PresidentPlc/status/1372139054188404736?s=19

BC, its never certain and that was partly the point I was struggling to make earlier Samsung can't stop now until they loose. Mintz on the other hand have to be certain of a win because looking they will pick up the tab.
Samsung case is the patents not valid. Not sure I an argue thier corner, they used a process which was protected and now the defence is there words you use in the process descriptions don't mean what you said they mean so its not protected.
Yes I'm biased

I might add that patents go through checks for validity prior to being granted, it seam odd to give weight to the same body to check it again. And as already pointed out Samsung wher aware of the patents and probably had discussions about how to recompense Nanoco for there use. And that would have been the time to check the validity. Could we assume the did check and then decided a way forward. The rest as they say is history.

its sort of in the headings and Samsung request the Patent and Trademark Office have a view the validity of patents first.
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/insight-on-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-reversals.html
I. PATENT OWNER MISCHARACTERIZES THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY.
II. THE RELATIVE TIMING OF THE DISTRICT COURT CASE ANDTHIS IPR DOES NOT MANDATE DISCRETIONARY DENIAL.
III. PETITIONER’S UPDATED STIPULATION ELIMINATESPOSSIBLE OVERLAP.

I dont mind being wrong, but I think Samsung are requesting a Pertition to Stay. Because there is a overlap betwen the IPR petitions and hearing

"For the reasons stated above and in its Petition, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute this Petition".

My laymans take on that is they are asking for a delay on the Markman hearing until the patent has been checked over by the patent office. Plus it appears to me they are not pursuing prior art defence.

IP theft is playing the odds. Unfortunately they don't suffer any brand damage so when they get away with it they see it as a win. They probably win more than they loose financially because they are the biggest, patent protection has very little value because entry to market is mega bucks.

Recap
https://youtu.be/iGlkB0ptSnM

looks to me like the web site has had an update or this is when everyone comes back and says we all knew about that.
https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/

Time lines
Following on from the Nvidia vs Samsung and Qualcomm behind the scenes was a a VP called Brian Gally. He left Qualcomm late 2015 around the start of the Nvidia court case. 2016 he starts work for Nanoco as Head of Product
How he has close contact with Samsung in both positions and hopefully was batting for Nanaco, but left Nanoco quietly around May 2019
https://www.i-micronews.com/quantum-dot-and-display-industry-adjusting-to-new-european-regulations-interview-with-nanoco/?cn-reloaded=1