Member Info for Feeks

If he has indicated his departure from the Board then please let him go quietly without poking the bear. I am sure he will be back if it doesn't settle but let's just focus on other topics - this one ha been done to death. Posturing of the type voiced by BT is a negotiation tactic as well as an indication of what N is prepared to do (and indeed is already committed to doing). That's all there is to it.

I'm still filtering but I can see there are many who haven't! All I have gleaned that is useful is that said poster has a certain perspective which is heavily skewed by his own experiences, namely:

- Fingers burned with litigation, many times over
- Did not settle any of those cases, when it would have been sensible to compromise

One must appreciate the risk, and keep reviewing it. If that is NigWit's basic message then I agree with him - but it comes with a lot of rudeness too, and the view that only he can be right is hypocritical not to mention unpalatable and unpersuasive.

As I see it, the risk for Nanoco at the outset was high but that risk has gradually reduced through this case - and this must surely be the common consensus now, particularly after PTAB. Equally, there are no forgone conclusions. That said, there are two aspects I feel sure the market does not fully value at present:

1) The massive potential upside on the low- end damages estimates, especially if the wilful infringement multiplier comes into effect
2) The significant likelihood that any case of this sort will settle shortly before trial, so the risk / reward analysis right now makes for an attractive investment.

Sammy88 I expect that S thought it was unwinnable before a judge as it is a bad technical argument but one which might be enough to convince a very sleepy jury....

When push comes to shove I am backing the hard-nosed, skeptical, Southern State / Trump supporter mentality to have an influence. There may be some jurors with an unwavering affinity to N given the prevailing narrative of small tech -v- big tech / Far East rip off merchants - if necessary until everyone caves in.

Appreciate your research Barbon but I don't think it can apply here because the Jury instructions say this:

"And then once you’ve heard the lawyers' closing arguments, you'll retire to the jury room to consider the questions in the verdict form and reach a unanimous decision as to those questions. And those unanimous answers to those questions, as I’ve told you, will constitute your verdict in this case. "

Jury verdicts are unanimous.

An honest mistake is infringement, i.e. Nanoco wins a trial and damages will follow. If S's argument sticks then it might get away with the lesser pain of NOT being found to have wilfully infringed. If you want my opinion, that is S's best hope.

I haven't filtered you NGR, and I agree with your general viewpoint that S has something to argue. My personal viewpoint is that it has a very difficult case to argue that it did not infringe (or else it would nave run the same point before a judge at PTAB rather than omit it entirely!), and that what it really hopes is to avoid the higher calculation of damages which N is gunning for.

I filtered him a few days ago. Life is much better that way, he won't help anyone find any understanding.

My screen is a shower of green as some posters were being dekiberatley obtuse and they are beat filtered. Anyone who thinks N is reluetantly dropping key arguments, which that video link I posted and tbink again. These are positive move by N as PJT, BeC, Sammy and Basscadet have all stated. The deramper mob must be sensing a month of news void to push down the price but anyone sellng now will be foregoing the very realistic possibility of a settlement before trial.

Defence / defense - It would be no surprise if Samsung's main focus and its chief motivation for having a trial (if there is one) is for the chance to reduce the damages model to a $10-15 license fee whereas Nanoco is gunning for a lot more. It is the financial result which ultimately matters.

The trial should hold no fear for N having come this far although it is worth noting that Samsung has conjured up residual grounds on validity which it did not run at PTAB, so it cannot yet be said that it is a foregone conclusion that N will win.

NGR it is not impossible that S will win, and personally I take nothing for granted. What is obvious though, is that S has lost all the key points it needed to win so far if it was hoping that Nanoco could be persuaded to take a low-ball settlement offer. That threshold has been passed with flying colours. The only two realistic possibilities now left are a high value settlement or trial.

* sorry it was not Fintiv. It was another ruling on damages.

NGR - I don't know whether you have any prior experience of litigation but your comments appear to indicate you have misinterpreted the current position with still a full month to go before the trial is due to start.

If you care to look at the Fintiv ruling you will see the courts places sgnificance on the fact that pre-trial licence negotiations may not reflect the true value of patents. This may be due to high case litigation costs (and unequal bargaining power) and doubts over patent validity (litigation risk). Nanoco's strategy is simply to remove those barriers in order to establish the true value of its patents - and this may or may not mean starting the trial.

As no-one outside of the case litigation team has sight of the 'without prejudice' inter-partes correspondence it is inpossible to say what is currently being discussed. The only point for investors to be aware of is that such negotiations are a fundamental adjunct to the litigation process itself. A key reason why parties choose to litigate is with the hope it might precipitate a voluntary agreement and those prospects will generally increase as the trial date approaches. It would be folly to start litigation without strong case merits but that's something N does not need to worry about so much because it had a strong case at the outset (which attracted litigatiin funders to step in), following which the validity of its patents was upheld at PTAB, and it won the key claim constructions at the Markman hearing. N will be entering the trial with its main pleadings intact, or it will be settling at a good value from the strongest possible bargaining position it could have wished for. This is alreqdy crystal clear to all but a very few people here so I would suggest we turn to another topic now.

You know what, I hope all tbe Nanoco team have a watch of that seminar. A lot of collective wisdom on display.

Like I was saying.....

https://www.winston.com/en/wacowatch/six-key-patent-trial-insights-from-judge-albright-and-members-of-the-american-college-of-trial-lawyers.html

"WHY DO JURIES FIND THE WAY THEY DO?

Mr. Tomasulo kicked off the panel with a question that weighs on every litigator’s mind: why do juries find the way they do? 

Dr. Colangelo explained that, due to the complexity of patent cases, jurors will often make decisions based on their general feelings about the parties, e.g., in terms of their likeability and credibility. Jurors want a good story with a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” Those gut feelings can stem, for example, from narratives regarding the invention story, relationships between the parties, etc.

Because of this, trial lawyers should focus their efforts on eloquent storytelling, while being judicious gatekeepers of the information that gets to a jury. Failing to streamline the number of themes presented to a jury, repeating themes too often, and overusing technical jargon can produce bad outcomes."

There are plenty of other useful snippets in the article, such as the point about themes and streamlining which may help explain why N has dropped the red dots argument for trial.

The webinar itself is fascinating, especially some of the comments from the lady speaker about "peripherals" from approx. 6.00 to -9.40.ish. i think a lot of the backstory plays badly for Samsung and in my view that will be the hardest part for S to overcome.

https://m.youtube.com/watchv=De29Gj_GYNw&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDypuifsE80

Hi crow2 - this might help you with that thought of yours relating to future development / IP / joint working with Samsung. The science is way past my comprehension so I haven't thought about the angles you raise.

Good to read so many sensible posts on the board today from everyone

Nigwitty - I bet you said much the same thing before each and every one of those cases you lost at court.