Member Info for Feeks

Steakandale you are dead right.

However I also agree with Hawi that the narrative here if some claims fail will be that Nanoco's case is creaking and that we will get a lower damages award. Be prepared for that misinformation folks! It's certainly my belief - and the company can usefully clarify this - that infringement is an 'all or nothing' question.

Amerloque your first definition uses the express term 'mixture' so it is clearly within the scope of the definition. But obviously the whole argument does not hinge purely on this single point

Agreed Hawi - there seems to be an assumption that damages ratchet based on how many patents have been infringed. I dont think it works that way. The important point is that Samsung could not have produced the goods lawfully without taking a royalty on all its sales.

It says, bottom of page 1 - "However, the alleged prior art references only disclose a mixture of solid-encased
QDs in a liquid. This is not an emulsion."

So perhaps this answers the point I raised in my post earlier at p.45 of the transcript. There are some difficulties with attributing the sort of intepretation Samsung seeks to give Dubrow.

The paper I was trying to find is no.12 of the filings. I commend reading it to all Nanoco shareholders. It provides unvaluable details about thr methods and patents and really instils confidence about the strength of the litigation case before PTAB

I believe it is the latter but I too would like that point to be confirmed. I can see how the number of valid patents whi h are upheld would play into the amount of any future royalty

I'd be absolutely escatic if every single one of them is upheld. If that happened the share value would rocket. I am tempering my expectations though.

The point is covered from 18 mins onwards here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY

In my view BTB's 'contribution' provides ample opportunity to clear up any lingering doubts.

One other point- any trial delay just brings us.closer to commercialisation occurring first so funding issues aside does it really matter?

BTB because one has to apply Fintiv and both sides agreed to an initial PTAB decision should come first. BT has quoted you the legal advice on this important and very obvious point. The propsect of a further delay to the trial is remote though no doubt S will try. The judge is in control here. The trial process only requires PTAB to arrive at an initial decision. What you suggest is that the PTAB tail wags the dog and it doesnt

Hawi - except like I said in my post below an emulsion IS a mixture. I don't think it is the best point, though true enough the embodiment might just said emulsion and it doesnt do that. Thats the issue with Samsumg's Dubrow argument. It isn't straightforward and it relies upon patching together multiple paras which arguably relate to different methods and marerials as Galica himself pointed out. That's why i think this one is on a knife edge. It clearly wasnt so clear and obvious that Samsung knew how to make Cad free QD!

Thanks for the helpful replies everyone. I'm off work today so have a little time on my hands

I've raised that point before. I dont know either BUT .... don't Samsung have to prove that they used a different method to produce the QD (if so what?) which also conflicts with their current argument that it uses prior art. I dont see how a non- infriglngement argument can succeed if Samsung is pursuing that line. Hoping someone can enlighten me!

In Feb 2021 someone (Amerloque) posted a link to Nanoco's reply to the Samsung petition. Can someone re post it please or tell how to.scroll back without having to do it one page at a time ?

What really caught my eye is how they have adopted Airspan tech to create private 5g networks so you could set up a controlled grid on a large farm or mining site. I can see that being the first route to adoption.

Pressed send too early.....

For my part, I believe it will be a split decision as I am not convinced the Emulsion argument will win through, though I share the view of the poster who said they thought the cluster compound argument was plumb LBW in favour of Nanoco.

It is worth recalling what PTAB has said about Samsung's case at PTAB as quoted by its own lawyers:
https://www.kirkland.com/news/in-the-news/2022/01/samsung-gets-ptab-to-review-5-patents

"Overall, the board found these factors supported instituting the review. The PTAB then found that at least one ground of obviousness or anticipation in each of the IPRs — although not all — were likely to be successful."

From my inexpert eye the Emulsion issue seems to be a close run argument. Clearly one of the main obstacles is Dubrow's direct reference to an emulsion in one of the paras. One has to hop around these paras to complete the picture but I note the judge's last question (from memory this is on page 45) then asks why this could not just be shorthand where Galicia replies 128 of Dubrow refers to a mixture not an emulsion.

But an emulsion is nothing but a special kind of mixture. Against that interpretation I would say that one has to go through a contorted sequence of steps to reach the conclusion that this was all prior art but if so why had the invention not been commmercialised ? As one poster has pointed out Samsung were trying very hard to succeed but could not seem to make sense of any of this before it worked with Nanoco. That point was not rasied in the hearing and does not crop up in the transcript.

What do people think will happen to the share price if there is a split decision on the claims?

For my part, I believe it will be a split decision as I am not convinced the Emulsion

In my view the losing party is likely to appeal any bad result at PTAB so that would include Nanoco although we have so far mainly talked about appeals by Samsung.

Hi Nanonano -

I would agree that Palomaki has talked a lot about QD Vision, but he worked at that company, and they were early pioneers of QD tech in displays so naturally his focus would be skewed towards them. I don't think that the Nanoco article is overly critical. But it did come at a time when the share price had crashed after the cancellation of the contract with the US customer.

Palomaki has been noticeably silent on the Samsung litigation but as a general market commentator hoping to snare speaker roles at various events he needs to be a bit careful not to say too much until the result is known, given that he will be mixing with these companies.

Are people also aware that Palomaki's is a close buddy of Jonathan Steckel from their QD Vision days where Steckel was one of the founders? And what of Steckel's role now? DIrector of advanced technology intelligence in imaging at STMicroelectronics.

* different

I'll accept yours is not a totally bad point BTB as the phone market is heavily commodotised and cost might be a decisive factor there but we have also heard how the real strength of QD is their potential application to a range of differentiate use cases in sensors. We have evidence of that with the proliferation of customers (5) and development materials (8) since July 2021, so its not just about STM and of course they do themselves have 1,000's 0f customers.

One thing that struck me most about the podcast is when towards the end Polamaki referred to the general stability of working with the QD materials even compared to 5 years ago. This factor has obviously improved markedly in a short of time which makes commercialisation easier to achieve