Member Info for Feeks

Please can we stick to Nanoco news or this will get messy. Nanoco is much better off in currency terms since this case started. $ strength could even be enough to pay for the funder

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63030208

Very good for Nanoco and we shareholders if it wins.

I believe material news has to be reported to the market within 3 days ... sigh

I bet that you are both wrong!

In a world of economic turmoil this has been an ideal defence stock. Am I really the only one who would be splendidly happy with further delays.....?

Hello intrusive,
You should probably not post such things on this board as it is likely to make the foolish and inexperienced investors amongst us think you actually know something, which is extremely unlikely, and act on that message - and if you did happen to know something tangible it would prohibit you from posting this type of comment.

https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement-settlement

To illustrate the point see the TiVo and AT&T case:

"The issue was resolved by this patent licensing agreement less than a week before the case was set to go to trial. TiVo's attorney noted that they were pleased about this recognition of the value of TiVo's intellectual property".

Two parties who were 'going to trial'.

The sheer truth of it is no-one can possibly know what is being discussed but it would be perfectly normal that the parties would attempt to settle, it is encouraged as part of the litigation process, and Samsung is not any different to other litigants.

Troublesome - S's entire conduct can be taken into account. There need not be any specific alllegation that S wanted to do harm. It's requires looking at all the relevant circumstamces and taking a view. It is N strongest point in this case IMO. Market will tend towards an assumed 1.5x based on the average.

A world in which Samsung is queuing up to buy "invalid" patents. Explain that to the jury, Samsung.

It is not dificult in a case like this one:

"To obtain enhanced damages based on willful infringement, a patent owner must show the defendant knew about the patent.

A question district courts can’t seem to agree on is: Must a defendant know about the patent before the suit is filed? Or is the complaint enough to put them on notice?"

Here, S knew about the patents.

And then Gilstrap has ruled thus:

"In East Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap allowed a willful infringement claim against HTC Corp. to survive a motion to dismiss based on an alleged policy of not reviewing other people’s patents. Gilstrap said such alleged willful blindness was a substitute for actual knowledge."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/paying-more-in-patent-damages-a-puzzle-ready-for-high-court

Sammy the issue of wilfulness is not really controversial. It is unarguable that S did not deliberately infringe, so S will have to hope it wins the fimal remaining validity arguments. The real issue is whether the wilful conduct was sufficiently egregious to justify the judge adding a multiplier.

Thanks Morbox. I remember seeing this myelf a few weeks back. I recall we were having this debate about Samsung's interest, and it's important backstory for trial

Well said BBD. One should not have to strain so hard to find negatives in every RNS as some posters here are so inclined to do all in the name of adding "balanced" comment. A rise in revenue and increasing potentially contract bearing activities can hardly be considered bad thing in most people's language

Also the company is bound to issue an rns update once there is news which may have a significant impact on the share price so people who are concerned that there was not more to say are perhaps missing the point here. The company cannot just stay silent if revenues are increasing by 20% or more and they will need to issue further inves when the situation materially changes again, If at all

Hello screen learner , I read it that Nanoco is Working on cutting edge R and D development and that this is a continuous process and we simply won't know When they will have a nano material ready to be deployed in commercial products, but this process is ongoing and continuous across a range of materials with range of different customers. I will personally be delighted if the trial is delayed until next year as we can expect more of this type of news

Westhamptin, If you read through all the past RNS and company broadcasts you will certainly find information to confirm that Nanoco chose a jury trial

NGR, l have no issue with BT; but nor do I expect the King's chronicler to tell me how the battle is likely to pan out.

NGR - IMO you display exactly the same traits as NigWit in being unable to interpret information correctly. Some things require a bit of experience and judgement. I'm reading the same words as you

It is a positive RNS, not least that Turcan has moved on. I suggest you have spent too long in the company of NigWit discussing this share.