Member Info for Feeks

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with you say below Barbon

I am not sure why you have singled me out on the hair comment @Lord WM ! ?

I had forgotten it made it to 21p quite as recently as that. As I recall it made a dramatic move upwards in a short space of time for seemingly no reason at all - but it lasted no time . Having lost a small fortune on this company over 2 decades I'd be very much in favour of some answers!

I haven't loiked but the commercially sensitive stuff on damages will all be redacted, so maybe a reason?

For balance:

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/REPLY-to-Response-to-Motion-re-133-MOTION-for-Reconsideration-re-84-Memorandum-Opinion-CORRECTED-filed-by-Samsung-Electronics-America-Inc-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00204

It's a tough one to sort out but I reckon there is a potential hook for a later legal challenge by S in the argument it is raising. My best guess is that S will go down at trial if it fails on this point, but will then initiate appeals / legal review to get itself a better deal.

Thank you intrusive, that's pure gold dust - or should I say an il-defined gold cluster (like Banin)!!!!

I pointed out the significance of this issue as soon as S raised this argument. I am glad Nanoco delivered such a strong reply. The Banin misquote looks distinctly underhand and something of a lawyers trick looking for any way to support S non-infringement argument. By my reading that whole thread is dead in the water without this MCC challenge being upheld. The.claim construction result followed by PTAB has shifted everyrhing right in N's favour with this being the result.

Needless to say I am totally in agreement with you Hawi.

"you cannot ascribe statistics about other cases to this case unless you can realistically assume this case is similar enough to those previous cases. Whilst there will be similarities there are also many things about this case which sets it apart in one way or another from the population used for that 83% statistic."

I think it is a mistake to think of this in terms of needing to review the specific case details to work out whether the case is similar to those in the 83% of the 17% category. All the cases are the same in regard to one important common denominator:

All cases involve a plaintiff and a defendant, and those parties are in dispute because they have not resolved the underlying dispute SO FAR without the need to COMMENCE formal litigation. This is usually because each party has a totally different of opinion on what is the correct outcome or balance of risk. But unless one or other party has no chance at all of winning (and has received that legal advice) then each party is choosing to embrace a large amount of risk by choosing not to settle The pressure to settle comes very close to trial when reality dawns and the middle ground will seem more attractive than before / legal positions ave been tested etc... For players like Samsung and its lawyers they will be well used to the power of brinkmanship to get the best deal.

Looking for scraps on sensor developments Infound these two articlea which are interesting. Recent newa of a big investment for StM in France and automaker VW positioning itself to overcome global manufacturing shortages for sensors:

STMicroelectronics, GlobalFoundries to Build New Chip Plant in France

https://www.thefastmode.com/investments-and-expansions/26162-stmicroelectronics-globalfoundries-to-build-new-chip-plant-in-france

Volkswagen to develop new semiconductor with STMicro amid chip crunch

https://www.reuters.com/technology/volkswagen-develop-new-semiconductor-with-stmicro-amid-chip-crunch-2022-07-20/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35398996/

Short-wave infrared (SWIR) image sensors based on colloidal quantum dots (QDs) are characterized by low cost, small pixel pitch, and spectral tunability. Adoption of QD-SWIR imagers is, however, hampered by a reliance on restricted elements such as Pb and Hg. Here, QD photodiodes, the central element of a QD image sensor, made from non-restricted In(As,P) QDs that operate at wavelengths up to 1400 nm are demonstrated

Screenlearner, yes the judge picks the multiplier number (up to a max of 3) once wilful infringement is found by the jury. The jury decides the actual damages amount not just what model applies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZQlOxc0hPA

https://youtu.be/0esg-HFbRkw

To answer your previous comment Troublesome, there is not a hair's breath between"expects" and "hopes" in CEO language for that RNS. In any event I was going by the rather more detailed explanation given by BT during investor presentations which everyone heard like I did. The current narrative here looks like an obvious attempt to divert attentiom from the significance of the upcoming trial. It doesn't wash with me. Failure at trial would be a massive set back and continued hopes of contract news is really no substitute. For now, everything hinges on a good result at the trial.

He has already made his views crystal clear on this:

"Why should I have any feeling about anyone here? I find it presumptuous of you to assume I want an apology. I don’t, it’s the internet where people talk pointlessly all day often to others whose real name are unknown to them. I’d be very insecure to let any of it upset me and so would you.

I quite often switch off and don’t read back and yet I seem to be doing okay."

All of which has not yet occurred, so just like I said then. Your post of 09:54 could be designed to mislead, I really don't know, but when BT uses the phrase 'visibility of orders' he has very deliberately NOT announced that such a thing has happened. Without giving that context your quote below is misleading IMO

You are wrong Hawi.

BT has told us he hopes to be able to report news of visibility of contract orders in H2 of CY22.

Have a nice day.