Member Info for Feeks

Just a little bit JBongo! I am also a little bit shocked that seeking alpha is not a dating website...

As a very LTH I'd probably sell up everything today if I truly thought we could reasonably only expect a SP of 100p on a trial win or settlement. As far as I am concerned the potential is vastly greater than that. For anyone to understand this properly one has to review the mechanics of a trial -v- settlement in terms of what is covered, get a handle on the number of US and worldwide sales of QD displays (and likely accrued revenues), and then take a good look at damages models in US patent trials.

Samsung will have profited to the tune of >£14bn from its infringement of the technology. N cannot expect all that, of course, but the damages models now in play can potentially be very rewarding. N will be holding out for a big settlement payout. But equally, Samsung is taking a big risk if it chooses to enter the trial without settling.

I'd say SP will be dismal on a failure at trial, but 5p is too low given the right of appeal. SP was around 10p when the litigation first started.

Thanks fpr the replies everyone. I suppose a better question would have been to ask what % of your overall SIPP and ISA is invested in Nanoco? Mine is a high percentage.

Likewise! What tax reduction strategies have investors here implemented? I have been merrily loading up in my SIPP and ISA but obviously if we do end up with the worst possible outcome one must observe the annual limits when replenishing the funds in these wrappers. I thought it might therefore be more sensible to split my investment between normal trading account and tax free holdings, even though this does potentially expose me to more CGT in the event of a big win, but what are others doing?

Troublesome - I'd be reasonably happy with that but I am left feeling confused but what I read in the Jury instructions. Either way, the burden of proof cranks up to against Samsung. It will need "clear and compelling evidence" to succeed on this.

Brian Tenner ;-)

"The only permissible grounds for challenging a patent in an IPR petition are anticipation and obviousness based on prior art patents or printed publications. "

https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2021/04/inter-partes-review-ipr-2020

Yes, they lost at PTAB, and it appears to have included a ground which someone here had suggested (and I agreed) was apparently outside the remit of PTAB.

I believe they mentioned the figure of £38 million of carried forward losses which can be offset against any tax bill

A pretty important point, so what's the answer then....?

https://www.paulhastings.com/news/paul-hastings-ip-practice-steers-samsung-to-victory-against-multiple-patent

'The Board also determined that the claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. J.A. 63."

Thought this was not possible at PTAB...?

https://www.paulhastings.com/news/paul-hastings-ip-practice-steers-samsung-to-victory-against-multiple-patent

https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-nucurrent-lawsuit-846179/

Sharing this for all the obvious parallels. And this is how it was redently settled-

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/samsung-rival-ink-deal-over-contested-wireless-charging-tech

As a Nanoco investor I've always been interested in the prospect of a higher damages award which, by and large, the market has ignored. Does anyone actually know where the anticipated $8-$16 range comes from.....? Is it comparison to cost of other QD licences for cadmium QD....? Is it a sum originally mooted in licence talks between Samsung and Nanoco? Either way this is not determinative.

https://www.stout.com/en/insights/article/importance-reasonable-royalty-license-comparability-analysis-patent-litigation

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://stoneturn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Advanced-Patent-Litigation-Presentation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwil0qHP7fr5AhVqQkEAHZewAaE4ChAWegQIIRAB&usg=AOvVaw0eTD2vhQJf1l3sFmZpqgYO

Note in this next article by Mintz a case where the Federal Circuit overturned a damages award where the expert failed to establish why a patent was "key" - not much of a problem for N here, one would think, given the triumphant way Samsung branded its QD displays.
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2022-03-09-expert-patent-damages-opinions-hit-spotlight-federal

https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2022-03-09-expert-patent-damages-opinions-hit-spotlight-federal

Anynone new to the interesting legal topic of "damages" in US Patent trials might find it useful to read this short piece.

https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/

"In fact, reasonable royalty damages awards can be much higher than any actual royalty rate in the particular industry, sometimes exceeding lost profits damages. Further, the Federal Circuit has rejected attacks on such high reasonable royalty damages awards based on an argument that the awarded rate exceeds any actual one. Consequently, while it may be called “reasonable royalty” damages, the actual award may not be a reasonable royalty under the non-litigation meaning of that term."

It promises to be interesting!

Thank you Lord, for we are grateful!
I'd like to respond to your final point about the market attributing no value at present for commercial opportunities. I agree with that but if the litigation results in a large cash injection then the market will be able to look confidently ahead to the fast emerging market for QD/CMOS sensors which by all accounts is going to be big, and we know ST Micro is at the forefront of this.

https://www.imveurope.com/news/sts-quantum-dot-sensor-set-volume-swir-imaging

Samsung is an investor......

https://www.imveurope.com/news/toshiba-teli-and-trieye-launch-swir-cmos-camera

The panic buying sets in after buying selling set in. Classic!

You mean you didn't already pawn the kids to invest in Nanoco, Barbon?

Not sure where the idea comes from that N has not been doung research. Here is a bunch of stuff patented by Nanoco 2D Matetials Ltd. since 2018 (wholly owned subsidiary of Nanoco)

https://www.patentguru.com/assignee/nanoco-2d-materials-limited

It's in the Jury instructions, so we know what aspects of invalidity S is arguing about here

SAA -I agree with you. This has been the most disappointing aspect of the company's handling from the start of this case (I haven't read the Telegraph piece but get that this did not go down so well with others). I think the Board probably misinterpreted what PTAB were adjudicating, or their in-house lawyer did (assume they have one) before the RNS was put out.

"I would doubt there would be this selling if validity were done with, and I’m still unhappy with the misleading RNSs to that point, and have written to the investor relations to say as much, but of course no response."