Interesting to see the cement about Runcorn tucked away in the RNS,it'll be interesting to see if any STM related announcement comes in the near future. Fingers crossed the cake is better than the cherry.
Would the $6 figure need to be adjusted for inflation given that it was from a hypothetical agreement in 2015 ish? The bank of England inflation calculator gives about a 20% increase over that time,although a figure for the US may be different.
If found it on https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-the-patent-box
From what I can see it would be classified as "infringement income"
I think the corporation tax rate is about 10% for ip litigation proceeds iirc. Means a few more quid if nothing else .
Correction 0900-2126 apparently.
Some talk of nano on the burford capital board. Might be interesting to keep an eye on to see if anything is mentioned if anybody fancies a change from the 0900-1645 circus we have seen of the last few days.
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=BUR&share=Burford-Capital
If the funder did that they would lose all of their investment,that doesn't seem like something an intelligent company would do
"lower end of court award speaks to me of a settlement figure derived from the cost of qd film rather than Samsung profits
Tell him not to worry about saving up too much,I've got a beer with his name on it. Maybe even a kebab if things go well over the next thirty days.
I'm hoping nano have stuck to their goal of a settlement representing the global market. If the US market represents about a third of total sales that will be in the region of $1.2bn but there are so many variables in play it is almost impossible to say how much it will be for. The horse trading behind the scenes will be almost impossible to second guess,in happy to let the board and the legal team do their jobs. They've been stellar so far. The next RNS will be the most interesting one yet.
USD to GBP rate looking good
Ii just quoted me 72p
Long ten minutes coming up...
You beat me to it!
I'm hoping nano include damage to the business and lost opportunity in addition to lost fees in their definition of fair value
Samsung now moving into in car display using "Patented Samsung technology deliver(ing)HDR-level performance, with cadmium-free Quantum Dot technology, higher efficiency and readability under harsh environmental conditions (temperature or sunlight)..." That is "Enabled by patented Samsung technology" via Harman (a Samsung subsidiary)
https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/harman-announces-ready-display-transforming-consumer-electronics-display-experiences-for-the-vehicle/
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/harman-unveils-ready-display-tech-for-cars-claims-home-entertainment-image-quality-207726.html
Just a thought but hasn't the 63 day period for Samsung to appeal the ptab decision now lapsed?
I would have thought that if Samsung were fully committed to fighting tooth and claw then they would have gone down this route. Unless it is an unintended tacit hint that they are aware that their argument doesn't hold water.
Tin is an element and contains nothing else. No lead is in pure tin.
To me,the recent litigation update announcements has resembled something similar
to a Facebook argument,albeit with high stakes, between two teenagers. In one RNS we are given the statement "So we are going to trial. We are in a strong position..." Followed by one which states "We are in a strong position..." then "The change in court date is one minor downside..." And "We will remain patient...".
Obviously legal team is speaking to legal team day to day but I think it looks like the recent releases have been nano management trying to reach out to samsung management in a slightly less prejudicial/official way to tell our Korean friends that
a) we know the strength of our case.
b) we know you have to go through the motions so as to not appear weak to future litigants.
c) we have the funds to be patient.
d) we would like to settle and get on with life but if you want to go to court then we can go to court as we think the outcome will be the same.
Admittedly I could construe this as bravado on nano's side but the Markman results and the fact that our backers will have pressure tested the case before committing their cash makes me think that this is based less in BTs' confidence than in the expert legal opinion he is being given.
Logically I'm leaning towards a settlement prior to any court date (whenever that may be) but when human factors are included in any argument there is always a chance the unexpected may happen.
Denial of Samsung's request for exclusion of testimony that should be