Member Info for Feeks

to their *making*quiet progress

I think only because the company want to keep feet firmly on the ground and might think that speculation of that sort in the marketplace is counter-productive to their market quiet progress in this case. I am not complaining as it has created a yawning gap in market valuation which I have exploited to the fullest.

Thanks BeC. Massive volume x low margin = $1bn+
Then we have an older example of triple damages:
https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511003152-new-ruling-triples-samsung-s-damages-in-smartphone-camera-case
“Enhancement is appropriate here to address defendant's willful infringement and conduct," Mazzant wrote in his opinion. "The court enhances damages to the maximum extent allowable under § 284 given the totality of the circumstances.”

Keith Hylton, a patent attorney and professor at Boston University School of Law, said the ability to make such changes comes thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Halo Electronics v. Pulse electronics in July. The opinion gives lower courts the power to increase damages in patent cases by up to three times the original amount.

“What Halo did was it said to lower courts: ‘You guys have more discretion now in whether to enhance damages.’ The court was able to take advantage of that in this case,” Hylton told the Southeast Texas Record."

Further, the Halo decision makes it unlikely that the increased damages could be successfully appealed.

“If court has reasonable justification for enhancing damages, it’s unlikely that an appellate court would overturn that decision,” Hylton said.

Such a large award ($1bn+), if it eventually comes to Nanoco, would not be any surprise. Nor would it be a surprise if S redoubled its efforts to settle in order to avoid the possibility of a triple whammy jury award.

I am not aware of any jury award in a patent case where the infringer dominated with a 90% share of the world market (and with several years' worth of sales) in a high margin / premium product.

I would love to see something close to that for comparison but I doubt it exists, or else we would all know about it. If Nancoco wins this will be the case everyone talks about.

I am with you to a point BeContrarian, but these passages of the Jury instructions brought it back home to me:

"In a moment, each of you are going to be given a juror notebook, and in the back of that notebook, you’re going to find a legal pad that you can use to take notes on if you choose to throughout the course of the trial. It will be up to each of you to decide whether or not you want to take notes about the witnesses or anything else regarding the trial and how detailed you want those notes to be if you decide to take notes. But, remember, those notes are for your own personal use. You still have to rely on your memory of the evidence, which is why you should be paying close attention to the testimony of each and every witness. "

"And, as I've mentioned, in the back, you'll find a legal pad for note-taking. And in the front pocket, you should find both a highlighter and a pen that you can use for those purposes, as well. Each of these notebooks are just the same. I would suggest that in the front cover, you write your name so you make sure that you keep yours, and don’t get it confused with anybody else’s, and they don’t need to be passed around by you. "

Hi restorer - exactly - that too was my point the other day. The invalidity grounds they have raised certainly could have been raised ages ago so I really cannot fathom how it seems to be in play?

"Even in the extremely unlikely case that none of Samsung’s IPRs ultimately result in the cancellation of any asserted claims, this case will still be simplified because Samsung will be stopped from re-arguing invalidity to the jury based on grounds raised, or that could reasonably have been raised,at the PTAB."

Anyone tempted to buy 241 like I just did, maybe shouldn't bother. It refers to amendments to the Motions in limine, Docket no. 242. That is the better document to look at.

Nos. 1, 6, 8 & 9 (Nanoco) and 7 & 8 (Samsung), are mooted and/or withdrawn.

You think I have no frame of reference NigWitty? How do you know that, or was your remark directed at someone else....?

No, I am saying that the final outcome of a complex case will be swayed by the balance of other human factors and that Nanoco will find it easier than S to win the hearts and minds of the jury.

Ps. In broad terms I think the current share price only (barely) reflects the lowest possible award on a victory, or settlement. What I can say right now is what I have said before - that in my opinion it is certainly not out of the question to believe the damages value could be in the range of 10x higher than the sort of sum which has been touted in the analyst forecasts for a ‘low end’ award. Others have dismissed this, which is itself wrong, as it ultimately depends on what legal valuation method is settled upon and there is plenty of scope for varying sized awards which end up in the very high category.

One of the arguments used to deny this here (on this BB) was the broad-brush / possibly knee-jerk response that the market cannot be wrong but, in fact, the market has been rising of late due in part to a gradual realisation that it takes a bit of time and effort to interpret what is truly going on, just as it has done at various other times. I am also sure in my own mind that this ‘educated’ Board has been ahead of the game on some things for quite some time because, to give a recent example, when the 232 Order was published on 10th August a few people here commented on the crucial significance of that decision (myself included) and the market barely reacted at first. Not so now.

My overriding feeling is that aspects of this case are intricate and complex case to solve (not so much the law but due to the difficult science involved) but this holds no fear because at the end of a long week what jury members will tend to remember – and will be eagerly reminded of – is a few startling sound bites (such is the world we live in now!). If that consideration did not tend to play fully into Nanoco's hands the company and its funders would never have chosen the apparent lottery of a jury case.

So, leaving aside for a moment the legal arguments and the evidence, I believe the basic "narrative” is a very good one for Nanoco to tell jury members:

1) Small tech being ripped off by mega corporation.
2) The tech battle between Far East v West.

Here, the general political climate in America is highly conducive to Nanoco winning the minds of jury members because, I imagine, that a few die-hard Republicans Trump supporters do live in Texas ;-)

Added to that, we also have:

3) The smoking gun email and other evidence of 6 years of S&N working together before S left N high and dry.
4) Samsung’s public marketing effort which relied upon selling its new “quantum dot” technology to the masses. This was not just some irrelevant widget, but a chief selling point.

Weighing against that narrative Samsung has a dry, purely technical argument to run which will likely send jury members into a coma. I conclude that any half-decent lawyer has a great story to tell a jury – and with Mintz we have much better than that, as they have already shown. I’ll keep backing them to succeed.

I did look just now but at present, unfortunately, I can't seem, to find it .. ! It might need to wait until next week but I will try to do it sooner.

I've looked at this Order. It is a tidy up of the court case (unopposed) now that Nanoco has dropped the 068 and 557 patents from its claim - see my post of 14 Aug 2022 @ 15:11.

Yes, it certainly seems that way. Sitting tightly on my holding. A few weeks ago I was about to post about the damages angles, and started to prepare this but can anyone remember if I actually did? As I recall it was all getting a bit agitated here on the BB so maybe I didn't? It is presumably now felt that it would be a better time to discuss this aspect again though..?

I take a long term view too, as apart form the court case we have imminent prospect of a commercial order which would put this company on a totally different level altogether. I just tried a dummy sell for the first time ever and it say they will take 100,000 shares. That seems extraordinarily high for a normal market trade or maybe it says more about the sort of shares I normally invest. Is it normal for NANO?

* selling at the recent low

Great news! And all eyes on the salt next, which is back to what started me off. My only regret is selling a bunch of TEK but then I did put it in NANO which is doing even better this past 12 months.

Ps. Someone ought to post copy of "that email" again, as not everyone who is now invested will be aware of it. When all is said and done, after counsel for both sides have waxrd lyrical to the jury with their highly technical legal arguments about the strength of the evidence in this case, it is likely to be somehing that will reasonate very strongly with a jury of lay people above all others. They will be struck by the significance of the fact that several years ago Samsung went cap in hand to Nanoco asking for its help how to make Cad free quantum dots because it was important to Samsung to do it but they could not have done it themselves.

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.

But paradoxically the wider gap between the two valuations, the more reason each party has to settle. One of the crucial factors is therefore how one assesses the strength of one's own case. For Nanoco it is also the risk of not taking the opportunity to secure the company's future when a large offer is made.

Thanks for trying to answer my question restorer and NIDGM. It was something I spotted in an earlier document, not the recent Docket 213 for suspension of mediation. I'll keep looking as I've freed up some time for reviewing Nanoco -v- Samsung pleadings next week :-)