Member Info for Feeks

https://www.hudson.org/research/17909-big-tech-s-sticky-fingers-are-still-at-work-in-washington

That's the sort of battle N is up against. In my view its helpful a light has been shone on the problem

https://news.trust.org/item/20220218102516-a1p08/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/time-fight-back-against-big-techs-ip-assault-opinion-1641267%3famp=1

Whole bunch of new filings on docketbird yesterday some related to Samsumg's earlier filing going for summary judgment / no damages re- non-infringement

Sprak for yourseff Nigwittt. It does not sound like a recipe for investing success. I understand the content of the Motion and why S has chosen to run this argument. Clearly there are a few mistaken assumptions being thrown around. I dont understand enough of the science and very few people do but if you think its a pointless exercise then we dont agree.

You haven't even read the motion so how can you judge? S are arguing that it is N which has changed its case. Ah well...

I very much doubt it is that simple. The science ia important and expert opinion will be vital. And maybe it will be too much for a jury to take on board. That largely favours N in my opinion.

There is one thing thoughwhich strikes me as important :
N won its legal argument at Markman and PTAB on the emulsion patent and as I recall that is totally unaffected by the MCC claim construction. So this might be S's attempt at damage limitation to help persuade N to accept a lower settlement offer. That's how it appears to me for now, but I would be pleased to hear views on it from others

Or more accurately Jam in 2033......

Steakandale I don't have an answer for you but I agree with your thought process that this could be pivotal

Sorry, forgot to add the link:

https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-cornyn-and-tillis-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-ensure-the-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-is-a-fair-and-predictable-forum-for-all-parties

"However, prior to the Trump Administration, the PTAB was a forum for gamesmanship by big tech and they actively weaponized it as a way to bankrupt competitors, small businesses, and independent inventors. The Trump Administration’s reforms ended this abuse. This bill, which is a carefully crafted compromise requiring sacrifices from both sides of the issues, permanently ends through the use of legislation some of these practices – all while preserving the vital role of the PTAB in furthering innovation and U.S. economic growth, prosperity, and global dominance"

I'd say there has been a mood change in the judiciary and the legislature which is helping Nanoco.in this case. Can.soemone please re-post that article written by the judge that was critical of the shennanigans of Big Tech?

Can anyone explain this to me. He sells a load then buys some too?

Nanonano, BT said PTAB appeal will be around 12-18 months. 2 years for appeals on main trial - some cases go on longer than that. That's why developments in the sensor materials business are so important. S might get away with a lower settlement offer if nothing comes. That assumes it thinks it needs to settle because it doesn't believe it will successfully defend its infringement but maybe it does

Has sold a few more on 20 June.

My understanding is that N did not use a dfferent definition but the IPR language it used was compromising language which potentially limits the scope of what the patent covers.

If MCC wording is not breached then what else was infringed?

Hi Morbox
Thanks very much for putting in that work - a useful reference point to look back on. What's your overview on this shift in possible terminology? S must hope to show that it hasn't infringed based on the narrower claim terms. If that is successful, what is N left with ?

The argument which S has put forward in the motion (which I have now read in full) is that the court should give a narrower definition to the term molecular cluster compound (MCC) than was established at the Markman hearing by direct reference to N's argument used at the IPR - where it was seeking to persuade PTAB of the validity of the patent (as not being prior art) - by focusing on the requirement for the same molecular mass, size and formula. S says that N's argument therefore comprises the broad scope of the claim in this patent and, following legal precedent, it cannot have it both ways. In other words these are limitations in terms of what the patent covers.

It seems unlikely S will settle until it has exhausted arguments on issues such as these where it is trying to cut down on the scope of the legal infringement if not eliminate it entirely. That will have a bearing on what might be perceived as a reasonable settlement figure.

https://uk5g.org/5g-updates/read-articles/trials-of-uks-first-zero-emission-automated-logistics-hgv-taking-place-in-the-north-east/"The vehicle’s teleoperations system, installed in March, uses next generation technology connected to a private 5G network. The state-of-the-art system allows remote teleoperations to inform a team member (driver) to switch from autonomous operation to remote driver controls to overcome any unexpected conditions such as an obstacle or unexpected object on the road."

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2016/06/supreme-court-upends-law-of-treble-damages-in-patent-cases

Supreme Court decision in Halo (2016) favoured patentees:

- Halo makes it somewhat easier to make out a case for enhanced damages than it was before. 
- Remedy is entirely discretionary: Designed to "limi[t] the award of enhanced damages to egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement."
- Court can look at the full range of infringer's egregious conduct
- No heightemed evidential test (just a proponderance of evidence will do)

Doc 84 is Judge Payne's order after the Markman claim construction hearing and so this appears to be Samsung's appeal against that Order, in which case I don't understand it either because someone here said this had been concluded.

The motion is doc 132.

We had doc 127 recently overruling the objections to Judge Payne so not sure why the motion has beem filed