Member Info for Ecclescake

Nvidia filed a complaint against Samsung and Qualcomm alleging the infringement of 7 patents September 2014
April 2015 and Nvidia received a favourable outcome on 6 of the 7 Patents, but thins didn't turn out as they hoped. There was a counter claim from Samsung and things got messy, finally getting sorted in 2016
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/04/07/nvidia-gets-favorable-itc-ruling-in-its-lawsuit-against-qualcomm-samsung/?sh=8183f763597e
https://www.theregister.com/2016/01/07/nvidia_and_samsung_patent_battle
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10290/nvidia-samsung-settle-all-patent-infringement-disputes

I still think there is a deal coming. Lew stated his growthworks team are installed at SatoshiPay and could be work towards that. Lots of merger and acquisitions
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/98274/cp-velo-stellar-merger

The Paraguay deal isn't done until its signed and if its with Petrobras as I am guessing it might be it could be heading into trouble waters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/emerging-markets-latam-idUSL1N2KS1BK

Yes you are correct, my speculation was Mintz and the funders have a different perspective to Samsung. Samsung are motivated to proceed with a lower chance of success whereas Mintz and Co only want a positive outcome as they will incur Samsungs legal cost. So I think its safe to assume Mintz will set a higher percentage chance. If they don't like the odds there is no motivation to continue. If it looks like its going to trial after the Markman hearing I think we could conclude Mintz and Co are expecting to win.

After the Markman hearing should we assume Samsung would continue with a weak defence and either continue to trial or negotiate a settlement, but Mintz on the other hand would not be financially motivated to proceed with a lesser chance of success. I've no idea what success threshold that might be, but we should consider a continuation of precedings after the hearing as weighted decision from Mintz they will succeed and that has to be a positive.

A bit more depth to the written article, and a few nuggets of information. You'll note where it's from but the content is interesting. Bit about the QD starts around 24mins but if have the time see it all.
https://www.nanosysinc.com/news/2021/1/26/bob-obrien-of-dscc-on-the-display-show?

Could have a influence on resolving matters outstanding.
https://english.etnews.com/amp/20210204200002?__twitter_impression=true

There are numerus scenarios. One which should be considered, is that not all the patents might survive the Markman hearing, but low probabilities of them all being successfully challenged / invalidated.

Barbon, there are 5 patents under review in the Markman hearing. Samsung have tried two approaches to invalidate the Patents, one was to try and show prior art with augments to existing processes and the second approach has been to try and expose the descriptions in the patents as false or ambiguous. The Markman hearing could bring Samsung to the negotiating table to settle or it could spur them on to a trial by jury, but try and settle before. What the SP might do on every development will be interesting to say the least. There is a PDF doc worth a read, it's long but gives an outline of stages. Section IV is about the stage this is at.
https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2010/08/itc-markman-hearings-could-up-both-deals--delays/files/itcmarkmanhearingspdf/fileattachment/itcmarkmanhearings.pdf
Another doc from Mintz
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2016-09-markman-itc-and-its-effect-investigation

There is a logic. If there are more buys than sells the price goes up and if the are more sells than buys price goes down.

Up the garden path, more like

We can only dream about the rate of news flow from FFWD ;)

Thanks for that, great summary. It does look as if the validity of the patents doesn't rest on whether they work or not, its been accepted they do. The argument of validity rests on how the patent was written and have the correct terms and descriptions have been constructed to not be ambiguous in meaning.
It would appear the time line isn't disputed the process works sucsefully and Samsung claim Nanoco didn't protect it correctly. Nanoco look to be defending the patent robustly and rebuttals look clear an concise.
Difficult to be objective ATB

Anyone else reading the court documents arriving at the conclusion Samsung are not making the case that the patents are invalid. Ref. DOC 71
I realise the back and forth continues, but I can't see Samsung winning the argument at the moment, they don't appear to have landed a blow so far.

Nothing too exciting, but groundwork started.
https://twitter.com/PresidentPlc/status/1369584508102643719?s=19

More info here from Feb
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32355906/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co,_Ltd_et_al

Everywhere I look there is a Fintech news item, announcement, development, merger or acquisition it just feels like its going at break neck speed. On the other hand it been so quiet on SatoshiPay / DTransfsr I just wounder if something big is about to land.

Curv
https://www.curv.co/

PayPal aquire Curve for undisclosed amount
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paypal-to-acquire-curv-301242347.html

Blue ammonia fits in with the current operating system and distributors