Member Info for Feeks

I agree with you on settlement GIVEMESUNSHINE.
If it does settle pre-trial the parties will need almost every single day up to the date of trial itself to finalise commercial terms. It is highly unlikely to happen more than a small handful of days earlier than mid-September.

I might have got this totally wrong but a couple of weeks ago I saw a docket which contained a footnote, or passage towards the end, where it seemed to indicate that mediation talks would be ceased for a temporary period whilst the court resolved other disputes between the parties. I have tried to re-find it today without success. Is there someone who can shed some light .....? My interpretation was that there would be a temporary pause until the motion to reconsider claim construction had been dealt with, which of course it now has. But I was reading on my phone and now cannot verify.

I paid 7.74p at around midday yesterday to double my holding and only checked the price again this morning so you can imagine my reaction! Very pleasing to see a strong rebound from such low levels. High risk maybe, but looks oversold to me.

That's the reaction I expected first thing this morning and it was so so sleepy. It seems the wider investment community really has no in depth understandimg of how to value the litigation prospects for this stock.

I've doubled my holding at 7.74p. Last paid 127p.
Ouch!

For me it is a pure punt on a rebound

Shambolic, whichever way one looks at it.

HI BeContarian
Each to their own, but I really don't subscribe to that view at all, and hence having to contemplate relieving myself of a large chunk of my own holding if this bit had gone wrong for N. There is already legal precedent for such changes being made by Order, and that much is recited in the Order itself, but Samsung's argument did not fall within the required category, though in my view it was skillfully argued. The bottom line is that two years ago, or whenever it was at the beginning when S were in talks with N to buy out of this litigation, S would have reasonably hoped to have done much better than it has done.

Steakandale, yes I agree with you 100%. In particular, I would highlight two things:

Firstly, that it is the price of settlement which shifts up or down as the strength of the parties cases is tested throughout the litigation process. The prospect of settlement is always on the table with litigation of this kind. Samsung is no different to any other in that regard, but it plays hard and probably doesn't wish to settle for a very large damages figure, not the sort that N has in mind if it wins. It is surely heading that way now because infringement will be easier to prove as a result of Markman's MCC claim construction being upheld and, as for the wilful/willfull element, this has surely always been the easiest plank of Nanoco's case to prove.

Secondly, it is self evident that Nanoco has been winning this case at various stages of the proceedings and that brings the likelihood of a good trial result (or settlement) in its favour/favor ever closer. In this regard it is better not to think of the week of the trial itself as a one off moment of reckoning but as the culmination of everything which has gone before. Samsung will have set off at the beginning hoping to do much better than it has done, and now it is in a very weak position to secure a good outcome IF it wishes to risk the outcome of a trial. S may see a good outcome as getting a lower end damages award, rather than being found not to have infringed.

The one point where I disagree with others is the idea that Samsung's case is hopeless, weak, unintelligent, etc.. The arguments on both sides are highly sophisticated and so things have never been that simple or straightforward - but thankfully we have great lawyers, and more importantly they are working very hard for success. We also have a bright judge who is able to cut down the tricky arguments put by Samsung's crew.

FWIW I was committed to selling half my holding had this decision gone the other way. So tonight, I am a very very happy person.

I won't go into specifics but I've followed this case closely, and I am able to make my own mind up on what is important. I have also read and understood the actual Order we are currently discussing.

Hi Amerloque, It was Samsung's motion (docket 133) for reconsideration of the court's claim construction memorandum opinion and order, docket 84. This relates to the absolutely critical claim construction for what may be defined as a molecular cluster compound, or "MCC" for short. It was Samsung's hope to shift that definition away from what the court had already concluded at the Markman hearing. Their argument for a reconsideration relied upon the advent of what they said was new evidence and limitations on the MCC claim construction definition arising from certain arguments that Nanoco had used at PTAB. Samsung's attempt has failed. It is undoubtedly a very significant moment for Nanoco because not only is Samsung hamstrung by a broad definition of MCC in this litigation suit, the same construction can now be applied to other litigation which confirms the broad scope of Nanoco's IP in this field. Most importantly, the court has ruled that whilst the cluster must have a sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules possess the same relative molecular formula this specifically does not mean needing to have an identical molecular formula mass and size; nor can it be taken to exclude mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of the same.

A hugely important decision and I am now more convinced than I ever have been before that Samsung will LOSE this case, and what's more, I think it will privately admit this now. In my view it will be looking for the best possible negoitated deal - but whether that will come before or after trial I really don't know.

No, I don't.

Just saw that. To my mind that is massively important and very POSITIVE news.

Yes perhaps, Barbon. But the reason for low success rate is obvious. Appellants need to find legal errors in the process as they cannot contest on the basis of a fair exercise of discretionary judgment which they don't like. An appeal is not a re-run of the merits.

Yes, I would think so Mr Nakhla.

* know

Samsung will koenthe odds:

https://lexmachina.com/blog/lex-machina-releases-its-2022-patent-litigation-report/

- 23% of federal PTAB appellate cases that terminated from 2019 to 2021 were ultimately reversed.

- Samsung was the most active petitioner in PTAB petitions filed from 2019 to 2021.

There's a sealed Joint PreTrial order too

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’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 41 and Rule 12. After considering the Motion, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and ORDERS as follows: Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint of Infringement of the ’557 Patent and Count V of Plaintiff’s Complaint of Infringement of the ’068 Patent are hereby dismissed without prejudice.Defendants’ Fifth Counterclaim of Non-infringement of the ’557 Patent, Sixth Counterclaim of Invalidity of the ’557 Patent, Ninth Counterclaim of Non-infringement of the ’068 Patent, and Tenth Counterclaim of Invalidity of the ’068 Patent are hereby dismissed

But Nanosys don't seem to be making much money from this business venture of theirs

If you want my opinion the whole industry has an issue with branding. Too many confusing acronmys.