Member Info for Feeks

Nigwitty if this case does not settle before 12 Sept. it won't make you right. It will simply mean that the case has not settled.

Nigwitty - as most people here have already spotted, your posts on settlement are totally dismissive and not conducive winning anybody over . In my view it displays an almost irrational conviction, and certainly a lack of sensible judgement, about the reality of the current situation. BT does not have any reason to say anything else publicly than what he had done today. This is seemingly obvious to just about everyone here but yourself, which is surprising given your extensive experience of litigation (which you repeatedly lost without settling ). I'd be amazed if your lawyers never discussed settlement with you before trial, or maybe they did but you did not listen?

BT has no reason to settle for a low offer, and what he said is exactly whatv pe woujdl ecpect him to say. Anythng else would be remarkabkle and neglgigent too.

I see that you had a post removed that was rude and did not contribute contribute anything whatsoever to the educated discussion. Stick to the rules is my advice

I se

Yes, reat assured Nanoco lawyers know how to run their case - and Directors will be sensible in relalion to their duties when it comes on whether to accept or refuse offers to settle.

It seems that the viewpoint that this case cannot settle or won't settle (being "very unlikely") is difficult to shift.
Its a viewpoint that is impossible to reconcile with the statistical data. Those who say settlement is excluded are just plain wrong. The facts of this case will be no different to many of those that do settle - i.e two parties who have fallen into seemingly irreconcialable dispute. There is no evidence that Samsung has a policy of not settling disputes.

One factor I do seriously consider about the prospects of settlement in this case is that because S is a 'Big Tech' company it will be frequently in the driving seat and able to use its bargaining power to crush smaller opponents into submission when it comes to making low ball settlement offers, and had it won something at PTAB that strategy would be working strongly in its favour now.

But this case may need to go to trial so that N gets fair value given that other factors are not conducive to N accpeting a cautious settlement.

NigWitty - you still don't know that and nor for the matter does BT. The Directors will surely not be tempted to cash in at a low price now given that almost every single part of the pre-trial litigation has fallen in their favour so far. I discussed things yesterday with a UK litigation partner for a top US firm who confirmed that, invariably, the propsect of a settlement is on the cards right up to the day of trial - it is an inherent part of the litigation process and he said cases may settle for all sorts of reasons.

In my view this case will undoubtedly settle if Samsung offer the right amount to justify Nanoco Directors not putting matters to the jury. But I'd be surprised if S's tactic to date was to offer more than a few tens of millions, whereas by now Nanoco must hold a minimum base level expectation of walking away with >$200m. The damages model can hardly produce any less.

That said, I think the Nanoco Direcors will reasonably think the litigation value is well over $1bn, and that they won't be inclined to settle for anything less. The ball is in Samsung's court as to whether they want to encounter the substantial risk of doing very much worse at trial than a $1bn damages award, and then negotiating down to settle from a worsening position.

For me, the most significant parts of today's update which give plenty of reasons for optimism of a big trial win or high value settlement are these:

1) Further comfirmation of the vital significance of the MMC order ruling in Nanoco's favour. As you know I pointed out the significance of this issue myself right from the start, and since you have repeatedly sought to query my motives please consider that I chose to inform the board of this point rather than keep that important information to myself. Go check my posting history.

2) Confirmation that Nanoco's damages experts will be able to speak to the higher economic damages models which will be explored at trial. That means if Nanco's not unreasonable argument that QD's enabled Samsumg's Quantum Dot tv's then the damages figure per monitor could easily be >$100m. That is a realistic outcome and is something relatively simple to understand. What else is a lay jury to make of all the extravagent "QD" marketing material that S produced which they will be hearing about?

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASMARSHALL DIVISIONNANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LTD., Plaintiff,v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants. C.A. NO. 2:20-cv-00038-JRGORDERBefore the Court is Plaintiff Nanoco Technologies Ltd. and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Joint Motion To Withdraw Certain Pretrial Motions. After considering the motion the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. The following pretrial motions are hereby withdrawn:

•Dkt. No. 88 – Samsung’s Motion to Compel Nanoco to Produce Relevant Documents withheld by Nanoco;

•Dkt. No. 112 - Nanoco’s Motion To Exclude Testimony of Christopher A. Martinez; and•Dkt. No. 113 - Nanoco’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Aris K. Silza

But remember Nanoco only has to win one claim, and if it loses them all it will be able to appeal.

We knew something like this was coming after all the high volume buying, but I am very pleased with the identity of the investor and the support they will give to the share price from here. I very nearly sold my short term trade to recover losses, but now I too am looking at a long term hold, as indeed I had done originally.

Took my opportunity to sell a chunk, but I retain my general support here. Worth pointing out that I sold >50,000 at close to the Ask

ME will be pleased!
I hate keeping track of CY and FY on companies. I'd ban it totally - everything must start from 1 Jan !

Seriously, how many other people outside the confines of this board had even noticed this ruling, which is now included in the official update as a point of importance:

"Judge issued ruling rejecting Samsung motion to change the definitions of an important technical term in the case (previously decided in Nanoco's favour at the Markman hearing)."

We had this discussion Hawi!

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/beating-willful-infringement-a-new-alternative.html

There are loads of other bits to read with a quick google.

All you really need to know is that the judge has a wide discretion to take account of the totality iof the circumstances. The multiplier is a useful tool for any judge that considers the initial damages sum is too low.

In the past what seems to have succeeded is getting an attorney legal opinion, but that tactic doesn't seem to be so effective nowadays and the bar for Nanoco succeeding on WI is pretty low. I found this article useful:

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/the-evolving-landscape-of-patent-enforcement-willful-infringement.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techxplore.com/news/2022-08-highly-efficient-colloidal-quantum-dot.amp

"Our CQD imager shows the highest external quantum efficiency of 63% among the reported CQD imagers due to the developed device structure," Gao said. "The detailed presentation of our new CQD imager could serve as a reference for researchers and technicians specialized in emerging monolithically-integrated imager fields."

In the future, this new CQD imager could be used to collect high resolution images of veins, biological systems and matter particles. In their next studies, the researchers plan to develop CQD imagers with longer wavelengths and higher resolutions. In addition, they would like to try to integrate other functional sensors with silicon-based circuits using their monolithic integration strategy.

"In our future works, we will increase our imager's resolution (1K x 1K), its wavelength (1700 nm and beyond), and its stability (sustain 120C or even 150C to meet the stringent automobile application requirement), while also trying to create larger wafers (from 4 inch to 12 inch)," Tang added

https://petapixel.com/2022/02/10/a-new-image-sensor-using-quantum-dots-could-replace-cmos/

https://www.eetasia.com/in-cabin-monitoring-driving-sts-global-shutter-image-sensor-innovation-growth/

Some clues to future developments in QD enhanced CMOS sensors?