Member Info for Feeks

Doc 84 is Judge Payne's order after the Markman claim construction hearing and so this appears to be Samsung's appeal against that Order, in which case I don't understand it either because someone here said this had been concluded.

The motion is doc 132.

We had doc 127 recently overruling the objections to Judge Payne so not sure why the motion has beem filed

Sorry to confuse and alarm. That appears to be merely the text of the draft Order filed by Samsung as part of its motion, not the judge's Order.

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DKT. 84)Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 84). The Court, having considered the same and any responses thereto, is of the opinion the motion should be GRANTED.The Court hereby construes the term “molecular cluster compound” for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,803,423 (“’423 patent”), 7,588,828 (“’828 patent”), 8,524,365 (“’365 patent”), 7,867,557 (“’557 patent”), to mean “clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound are identical to one another in that each has the same molecular formula, mass, and size. Mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of two or more clusters are not molecular cluster compounds.”

https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/services/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-blog/china-increasing-compensation-for-wilful-infringem

"In this blog we look at a recent decision of China's Supreme People's Court where it awarded the highest amount of compensation in the history of trade secret infringement cases and subsequently set out guidance for compensation in future cases, which will be a powerful deterrent to infringers.

Summary
On 3 March, 2021, China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) promulgated the "Judicial Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights" (“Interpretation") to give guidance on the application of punitive damages in civil cases of intellectual property (IP) rights. Just before this, in a case known as the "Vanillin trade secret case”, the SPC awarded the highest amount of compensation in the history of trade secret infringement cases, increasing the amount of compensation from 3 million in the first instance to 156 million in the final judgment.."

Lovely stuff!

"Ecclescake - 'Samsung will argue royalties on panel cost ex works'. Have they ever sold panels to an independent company, so as to establish a true market price? Sony and Panasonic have both been mentioned in the past."

I don't see how the panel cost is a guide to the cost of licensing cad-free QD when the QD were being incorporarted into panels without any license being taken. There is just a manufacturing cost and the patent rights would have been wholly discounted....?

Just checking my understanding 9pleasae correct and educate as you see fit!):

Isn't it the point here that the QD had to be incorporated into a panel that needed to be manufactured with the QD deposited onto a film before the rest of the panel was assembled with protective barrier layers were added. In N's case it was DOW doing the job of creating the QD enhanced film and it would have cost S about $100 (?) per display to buy it.

We need to deduct these extra input costs from the consumer sales price to work out the net sales margin per display after the approx. $1,000 mark up to the consumer. Under current statute and case law N could argue for a percentage of the enhanced net profit per display by working out the difference in margin between non QD and QD displays - e.g. 40% - minus the extra production and other extraneous costs such as marketing.

There you go again NigWitty. Now we are a cult !? We are just discussing legal principles and how they might apply to this case. Please tell me, as it is important:

1. How do you suppose this case will go on for several years if S want to particularly in light of the points raised in Sammy's post?

2. How you believe the court will go about calculating a "fair" amount of damages.

NGR I've said it before that I would not be unhappy if the trial was delayed. I'd especially like a contract announcement before the trial as it will lift the SP and bring a greater awareness of Nanoco's business to ootential investors

Hold on, the purchase was dated 27 June 2022 but the sales were dated 17 Novemner 2021. I am stumped by that, does anyone know why they are reporting old sales?

They also bought 91,004 shares. Why would they do that if they were also selling?

It was oversubscribed at a point you could sell next day for c.42p. That makes sense as a buyer.

News on the Asian customer might come next.

My research says you are spot (or else I am a fool too), but one thing I have never got to the bottom of is "infringement". Did I read somewhere that Nancoo pulled apart the Samsung displays and were analysing them for 5 years before taking on the legal challenge? N needs to show a preponderance of evidence (51%) that Samsung infringed, and if it does, the rest of it will be good news to share price whatever the final damages award.

Also, I'd like to be clear on the numbers sold.

I've done much the same thing too.

I've often wondered about that too and made the point ages ago that ME probably would have spent a good chunk of it on fancy premises and employees so I don't think it is necessarily such a bad thing for we investors, provided the case is won before Nanoco goes bust

I was out all day on Friday so just catching up but you are quite right, it was the one from Friday. I receive updates on this case to two separate email accounts - one is paid and so they come through to me quicker. But indeed this was the same Order again but which only came through Sunday.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038

I've not read it yet but sounds potentially significant

No NigWitty the jury will not be asked to uphold any patents. That part of the case is done and dusted. Nanoco merely needs to prove infringement now.

Pressed send too eay

..... then the market is not assessing things accurately. It is inperfect and there is, in my view, a blinding investment opportunity

I'm scratching my head with your 13:55 post NigWitty because its a big departure from your position last week when you were arguing pretty hard that some commentators here (myself included) must be wrong about forcasting the significant potential for a larger award because the market is invariably "right" and the conclusions reached by inexpert PIs must be wrong. But if you are correct that the true risk / reward in this case is truly accessible to just a small band of the world's best patent lawyers (I actually disagree with that viewpoint for a few different reasons, and also disagree with the notion that the lawyers must disagree with each other in this case as we simply don't know their advice and issues of validity and infringement rely upon technical expert evidence in any event).

I spoke to an investor friend about it briefly and his attitude was "It's a gamble", and warned me not to put any money in it. But when I probed him on it he knew nothing at all about Nanoco except that they made QD, which I think he googled whilst we were speaking. Enough said, he had utterly no interest to find out.

Not everyone has time or inclination to do so, especially when taking a sophisticated view on risk does not mean analysis of hard data but might involve paying legal counsel to advise. Not every share is like that.