Member Info for Feeks

https://mobile.twitter.com/microsaltinc/status/1530228964878426112?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

It's a bit better than that Hawi. S has to go into the trial in Oct/Nov without being able to question validity on the same invalidity grounds or anything it could have reasonably raised at PTAB and that doesn't alter by appealing the PTAB verdict. The submissions around Fintiv essentially cover this (it was agreed between S and N that this was the basis for a stay in the trial and I believe tbe point is backed up in judge-made law were it not for the unequivocal agreement between the parties as that issue is raised too). The way I would assess it now - but DYOR - is that S will desperately need to succeed in putting the trial date back - but that it will fail in that mission - and we will know this very soon. That will leave S weak at trial and so ultimately it will need to win a lot of ground on PTAB appeal just to stand any chance with an appeal against a trial result in N's favour. I'll be happier if we get a trial result rather than a settlement as N has nothing to fear and it will give visibility to N's losses, finally.

It might come as a shock to a few on the ADVFN board judging by some of their comments over past few weeks. It only made sense for S to appeal regardless of the merits and whether or not S intends to go into the trial

a chance to "buy" lower

In my experience "negative" news is never baked in - everyone wants results and outcomes tomorrow - but this is exactly how to make money investing. I really don't see how the SP pre-trial, will be so low as it is now. There may be a chance to by lower, but if so, probably not all that much lower.

I would that the current price wholly discounts the possibility of a commercial contract landing in H2 2022, and that is fair enough in my eyes.

Agreed Matty boy
I don't think this idle speculation is adding much to the debate. Personally, I am a little surprised that the SP has settled around 35-37p mark, as I thought it would be 40-50p, but in my view that will be the floor come the time of the main trial hearing. For now, I suggest everyone takes a well-earned break during this small period of wait before things get interesting again!

My take on things FWIW:
1. Litigants will often be having conversations about whether they can reach agreement to settle so I expect this will be ongoing in the background. I expect the conversation is now around the sort of settlement figures Nanoco was originally asking from S due to the successful progress of this case so far - but probably even more now due to increased display sales and improved confidence in the case - we shall never know! S will need to up its offer if it wishes to avoid trial. N is holding all the cards right now, the question is what sort of offer it wants to hold out for...? No need to engage with S on this; it is for S to put forward an offer.
2. S will appeal PTAB
3. S will argue the trial should be delayed for PTAB appeal; N will argue the opposite and the trial will go ahead because the judge is in control of the docket and PTAB 47-0 indicates that waiting for an appeal is not in the interests of justice when the case is ready and waiting for trial.
4. Possible risk that the trial will be heard no in Q4 2022 but in Q1 2023, just to fit in with court and parties lawyer's diaries

Risks and Opportunities:
- News of a settlement could land at any time (but most likely not before 2 & 3)
- Risk of temporary SP drop on news of 2, 3 or 4, but if so, it's a massive buying opportunity IMO.
- Any news of commercial contracts win H2 2022 could create a massive upward revaluation. I don't hold out much hope for this just because new tech launches always seem to get delayed, but if it happens the whole ball-game improves for Nanoco shareholders and its directors, and this will help the litigation too.
- Regardless, IMO the SP will be appreciably higher by time a trial starts and that for those prepared to wait the current price offers good value in the same way it was when it was hovering around 10p at the inception of this legal case.

The cash might not hit the books in one go as it depends on what is agreed. Nanoco may agree to being paid in installments, but if so I would expect Nanoco to announce that fact.

Royalty rates are normally commercially sensitive aren't they? It's normal for out of court settlements to remain private, and it hardly matters if Nanoco gets the financial deal it wants. If its good enough for Nanoco to settle from a position of strength in the litigation then its good enough for me.

BBC News:

A subsidiary of the mining and commodities trading giant Glencore has pleaded guilty to seven counts of bribery in a London court. The firm also said it will pay more than $1bn (£800m) to resolve similar claims with the US and Brazil. The UK's Serious Fraud Office said it had exposed "profit-driven bribery and corruption" across Glencore Energy UK's oil operations in five African nations. The firm will find how much it must pay in fines at a sentencing in June.

Not only has BTB gone, but his entire posting history has been wiped. Very odd......

I thought this might happen. The market is not yet pricing in a win at trial; it is also unsure of how much the damages will be; and most importantly IMO #4 below: "Maybe investors are put off by the fact that Samsung can string out having to pay Nanoco by launching various appeals - again Samsung can drag out things by two+ years"

What the market is undervaluing right now IMO is the fact that stringing out the process makes no tactical sense (because Nanoco is financially secure for the duration of the case) and no financial sense either because it is likely to have to pay a wilful infringement multiplier of up to 3x damages on all historic damages up to the date of trial. In my view Samsung's best bet now it has lost at PTAB is to reach a negotiated settlement and that is what I expect to happen (after it has appealed PTAB to keep the pressure on N).

If it is anything like the UK concept of judicial review, a tough objective standard is applied before the court will reach a decision quashing a judge's decision. It is a purely legal review process so you normally need to find errors in the manner in which the case was decided - it is not enough just to find disagreement with the way the judge exercise his discretion (to dismiss the petition in this case). This typically requires a legal error based on something like a misunderstanding of the law, or use of an incorrect assumption about what a particular process or patent involves. So, there is plenty or room for lawyers to get creative, but most appeals will fail because it will be difficult to identify genuine mistakes which also made a difference to the outcome.

Thought I read somewhere it was 28 days. Have you got a source for that please Hawi?

https://doi.org/10.1002/msid.1306

Despite Challenges, QD Vision Laid the Foundation for Quantum-Dot Displays

https://www.techblick.com/masterclasses/colloidal-quantum-dot-technology-in-industry

The final point which also militates towards renewed attempts to settle instigated by S is that S lost the claim construction hearing (Markman) on 4 of the 5 constructions (with one draw) so as a result this has reduced it's hopes of winning at a contesfed trial. If we do reach trial then IMO it will be because N has confidently rejected S best offer to settle on the basis it stands more to gain by rejecting this and by obtaining a trial verdict.

The following narrative makes sense to me:
First of all, one must remember that it is Nanoco that is suing Samsung. S's original strategy (or hope) would have been to avoid being sued either by buying the technology or a licence on the cheap, and/ or by dragging its heels to the point N went out of business. This didn't work.

An obvious litigation tactic is to invoke PTAB to create delay and uncertainty, and this carries through to making an appeal now regardless of the overall legal merits. S was no doubt hoping that it would have succeeded on at least some of the unvalidity claims thus creating pressure on N to accept a "reasonable" offer to settle. That it didn't knock out any claims gives N a high level of confidence of succeeding at trial and therefore the level of any 'reasonable' settlement value will have increased.

In my view the main considerations are financial, for both sides. What benefit does S gain from a trial it does not expect to win. ANSWER: not much. What can it hope to gain from settling now? ANSWER: S avoids a finding of wilfulness which could lead to triple damages. It also avoids the risk of the court setting a future licence fee / royalty rate at a time it is greatly expanding use of its QD, and the risk of accepting N's argument that historic damages should be computed on the basis of something more than just a standard loss of licence fee / royalty. These are massive risks for S in terms of what it might pay and the dial has moved up significantly on where S would need to pitch its offer to settle due to the unanimous findings of the PTAB judge. Equally, N must decide whether to accept a lower overall financial deal on the basis it makes better business sense to get paid out sooner and which avoids the risk a jury would reject its argument that it should be compensated more than just a royalty.
S's first hope will be to obtain a further stay on the trial, but if it fails to do that, there are powerful reasons for both sides to settle BEFORE the trial.

The move to Runcorn might only be for the purposes of saving money and extending the cash runway. But of course it is also consistent with an expectation of the start of production contract revenues.

That figure will be appreciably *higher* now given the sale.of displays has nearly doubled since the 14m was touted..

First point - The funders are acting on a discounted fee basis. The normal arrangement is that Nanoco would pay an uplift on those fees if they win. The discounted fee is recovered from Samsung as damages. However, the uplift is not recoveable from Samsung. Hence Nancoo stand to retain 50-80% of the damages award.

Second point - Yes, the reason I am bullish on the size of the likely damages award is that I believe the straight royalty method is insufficient given how much Samsung used QD labelling to drive this new product market, capturing 90% of it and selling their QD displays at an enhanced premium. That's why former CEO Edleman previously talked about going after the $14bn enhanced revenue which was generated as a result of the alleged wilful infringement. That.figure will.be appreciably now given the sale.of displays has nearly doubled since the 14m was touted.