Member Info for Feeks

The rise today is justified on the basis that there is now more opportunity to settle and it can be no bad thing that we were brought so close to the brink of trial as it might have resulted in 1 or 2 difficult points being settled by now.

One must remember that it takes more than just an agreed position because the detail will need to be properly settled in legal terms. So there could be a team of advisers who are now feeling much relieved that they canSpend a bit more time negotiating those matters. Any delay will also take us further towards the date of pasible commercial contracts as estimated by Brian Tenner.

It is quite possible that the judge will have made his decision on the basis of whether other cases such as Nanoco's are more likely to settle, as he will of course be closer to this than anyone else, however there is also a choice whichn has to be made for one case to be heard on the scheduled date and for others to be put back. I suspect that there will be other reasons why the chosen case needed to be given priority, such as the length of time on the queue or some other pressing need.

The rise today is justified on the

Sammy88- have you included a multiplier in your historic damages figure? I always factor one in to reach my $1-2bn estimate or'prediction' for historic sales.

I read it earlier. More procedural tidying up after N focused its arguments on just 3 of the patents. This wqs N's unopposed motion. Nothing to see here.

There has been a proposed joint pre trial amendment order too, but it is sealed.

I had literally been waiting for this - but hoping for a much longer delay to Q1 2023. Best price I saw half an our ago was 48p, so gave up trying.

I don't know if this comes in time to saves the Koreans holiday time, but good luck to them too

Kind
It gives more time
- for the parties to negotiate a settlement
- for Nanoco to progress towards entering a commercial contract with customers for sensors which might be close to fruition (we just don't know but H2 is the stated expectation for news to be given on that)

..... and more time for me to read up and take some advice!

Curse, what curse? That's a really funny thing because I was so very near to posting yesterday (I didn't post, so no bragging rights) that the only thing that could please me more than a contract or settlement RNS would be a 'delayed trial' RNS! And now we have one, but I am now far to late spotting this to make a beneficial trade.

PJT not a bad idea, but I suppose we are all biased in one way or other so will it do any good? I just want to hear how it all sounds, from a very high level perspective. One of the reasons I am still invested heavily is that I feel Nanoco's case will be easier to explain, and prove, than S's defence, especially when the relative burden of proof is factored in with the right guidance from the learned Judge. It really might be as simple as that. I was assuming the link posted on this board earlier takes us to the live proceedings, does it not?

I suggest we leave it Hawi, it's just one of the many things we will hear played out over the next few days. We cannot get inside the minds of the jury members anyway. First and foremost I will be listening hard to what N's lawyers have to say, and to gauge how they can put it across simply compared to Samsung's advocate.

Yes, appreciate that, my tone is always (or usually!) warm and gentle, but may not come across that way...?! I don't know how anyone would be able to usefully analyse the question you have raised. All I can really say is that PTAB in this case dealt with a series of different questions, and there are a couple of residual validity points the jury will now decide, not the same points again. From my perspective, I cannot hope to assess the competing arguments, but I do know that S faces the highest burden of proof possible in the context of a US Patent case and the judge will explain to jury members what it requires them to be sure about when reaching their verdict.

Hawi, do you mean curious S & A answer about validity? He's right and I've said the same myself. I see no scope for reaching any other answer. We've been over it quite a bit on this board.

S not A: but not S & A

Amerloque, in UK public law challenges that burden of proof is known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" or irrationality. In legal parlance it's the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus. It's a high bar. I'd rather suggest we don't hang our hats on that type of scenario

He can guide the jury on how they must approach deciding key questions , but to overrule them sounds a bridge too far, or else, why have a jury...?

If Samsung and its lawyers are reading this then they have truly reached desperation levels IMO, and will also now realise that they have little chance of convincing an entire jury. So time to cough up and - make sure it is a billion $ figure!

hellojello.....
10% tax - brilliant point well done for spotting that !

"We don’t lose our stake. Not all of it anyway. There is an organic business waiting to germinate."
I agree with you NGR. SP was 10p or thereabouts, when the litigation kicked off. My analysis:

- Prospects of success now much better on appeal than when litigation first started (e.g, Markman decided in N's favour; patent validity upheld during IPR)
- Moving nearer to commercial contract on organic business

SteakAndAle
Many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my earlier question. I'd have prefer it if this part was done and dusted, but there we are.

I have reduced my overall holding by c15% from a month ago, but this still leaves me holding over 85% of my ISA and 90% of my SIPP in Nanoco, which also represents most of my worldly wealth.

I think we will win and that the level of damages will come as a surprise the market (to the upside). $1-2bn is my rough estimate of a reasonable damages sum but equally I do not discount the possibility of it much more when Nano's experts have had their say.

My only regrets in life are when I have not backed my own judgement, and that policy has served me very well so far with Nano but prudence would suggest that I should redress the balance a bit more, even though I continue to sleep very soundly. I've worried far more about other investments in the past where I have had much smaller sums invested but what made that situation different is that I did not totally trust the management, whereas I do here.

No pressure then, Brian!