Member Info for Feeks

SAA 9:28 you say that you havent seen N's argument in reply, but I'm faiirly sure that I have read it, or a summary. I'd have trouble laying my hands on it right now, and might not be summarsing things 100% accurately, but I believe the gist of it is that N's patent claims have been updated, since they were first filed, and so the description does not need to be in total conformity, so long as the description was sufficient at the time of filing (which N says it was).

Sorry, if this has now been answered I am catching up on the day's posts

Me neither. If that's the settlement i will be v disappointed

Not so far as my knowledge goes Steak and ale because, let's not forget, the emulsion is covered by a different patent entirely. Happy to be corrected, but that's how I interpreted it all

No of course not, and nobody is saying they didn't, are they? All this and more would have been covered long ago

To be clear Steak and Ale, this is what the argument is all about, and you will have seen this play out in your own field of practical experience:

" A patent may be invalid if its description in the specification does not meet certain requirements. To be valid, a patent must meet the “written description” requirement. In order to meet this written description requirement, the description of the invention in the specification portion of the patent must be detailed enough to demonstrate that the applicant actually possessed the invention as broadly as claimed in the claims of the issued patent. The disclosure of a patent must also meet the “enablement” requirement. To meet this requirement, the description in the patent has to be sufficiently full and clear to have allowed persons of ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent to make and use the invention without undue experimentation, at the time the patent application was originally filed."

Steak - you and I shared similar views ahead of the MCC claim construction decision, so I am with you on this. On 14 August, I wrote this:

"Interesting to see that N have narrowed it down to 3 of the 5 patents. Also that there is a residual validity ground - that's a bit surprising as it seems to be a simple argument that could have been raised before, and hence I don't see how it is not excluded."

So, there I was expressing my surprise that this did not seem to be consistent with company announcements about what we now believe to be the specific remit of the PTAB. As an aide, what is the legal rationale for PTAB not having a complete role in its ability to review patent validity? I am not sure why it is only being discussed now, and not then.

I might be able offer to some reassurance on something I did find reassuring myself when I considered it more deeply, and this concerns the relative standard of proof applying to each party. The crucial point is that the standard of proof is higher for Samsung in needing to prove invalidity than it is for Nanoco in needing to show that its patents were infringed. This is what the filed Jury Directions say on the matter:

"There are two standards of proof that you will be asked to apply to the evidence depending on the issue that you’ll be deciding. The first standard is called “preponderance of the evidence.” The second standard is called “clear and convincing evidence.” Nanoco’s burden of proof on its claims of patent infringement is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means you must decide whether or not Nanoco has proven infringement facts by showing them to be more likely true than not true. Samsung’s burden of proof on invalidity is by clear and convincing evidence. That means you must decide whether or not Samsung has proven invalidity facts by showing you evidence that produces in your mind an abiding conviction that the claim is invalid."

So, S still faces a very tough job on invalidity because the burden of proof should mean that where sufficient doubt exists the final verdict rests in favour of Nanoco. In a jury trial these are issues where the judge will provide guidance on such matters: "I’ll provide you with more detailed instructions on the requirements for invalidity at the conclusion of the case."

My LSE screen seems to be indicating there is one for today, but I cannot see anything ....?

Posted too early.... read this one instead.

SAA - many thanks for all your illuminating posts today. Regarding your comment below that Samsung could not register their own patent due to the existence of Nanoco's (in their eyes) invalid patent, what was stopping Samsung from applying to PTAB at that point rather than trying to get away with their infringement first.... ? If that is their argument then it appears to point towards wilfulness.

SAA - many thanks for all your illuminating posts today. Regarding your comment below that Samsung could not register their own patent due to the existence of Nanoco's (in patent, What was stopping Samsung from applying to PTAB at that point rather than trying to get away with their infringement first.... ? If that is their argument then it appears to point towards wilfulness.

Feeling nervy. Boraracic you just described why parties settle close to trial. It hapoened before PTAB here too. The share price came down 10-20%

Nanonao you post at 11:29, would that be what they call "extended silicon"?

Quite Hawi, hence I expressed some surprise when this popped out of the woodwork. Steak and ale has possibly answered it, with the link he posted, which leads me to think the company RNS might have been incorrect

My interpretation is that court action in Germany will be running to roughly about the same timetable as a PTAB appeal so it probably makes no difference. The validity grounds will be final in the US by the time Germany decides.

steak and ale - I am pretty sure that an injunction does not have to wait for the PTAB appeal to conclude, if that is what you are alluding to?

Be contrarian this concept of 'fair value' I think might relate to the fact that if there were originally licence negotiations which led to an 'in principle' agreed figure for the licence of Nanoco's dots then to use that figure now as the basis for damages compensation does not represent fair value despite the initial superficial argument that it does exactly that. I spent quite a lot of time looking at the damages angles, and read an interesting legal academic paper which reviewed all this, which I found to be very illuminating. The courts have recognised a range of factors that can into the hypothetical negotiation of damages which seeks to discount factors that are downward pressures on QD pricing on these licence negotiations, such as the risk of patent invalidity, risk of litigation etc.. All this is extremely important where no other market price exists for cadmium free content dots. That is why I concluded that Nanoco has a solid practical argument for a higher damages award, whereas it is fair to say the market analysts don't speculate on this, and most people on the board would not agree with me either. It seems to be at the root of what we might refer to as Nanoco's 'market / product enabling' argument, where pricing of $100 a set would not necessarily be out of step with that 'fair value' concept or else the patentee is receiving an artificially low value for its technology

I believe the zero posting history means he has been banned and all his posts deleted? That's a shame as I will never get to read back on all the rubbish he was probably firing in my direction.

Well said Bonzoful. There are many valuable contributors to this board.
"So my thanks to all those who provided so much useful research over the years."

Might I suggest that the filter button is used? One gets a streak of green across the screen which indicates when NigW is posting. If one is so inclined it is then possible to piece together the gist of his comment from the assorted messages which follow, all of which has reinforced my decision to filter.

Agreed LordWM - another positive sign. How anyone believes this is inconsistent with the genuine ongoing prospect of a voluntary settlement is completely and utterly beyond me. Commercial negotiations are made of this.

This is good news, and maybe confounding to some who thought this could only happen after a US win. I think it speaks volumes on the confidence Nanoco and its backers have in their case which they have conducted very effectively indeed. Nanoco deserves to win back their reputation, pride and money. I hope they get a monster win in the US and all the positive publicity that will surely come their way.