Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
idontmessabout I think that is probably one of the main reasons Nano waited (alongside others ie;funding,patent investigation etc) but I think that Nano will be easily able to say they waite due to a variety of factors ranging from not being 100% Samsung were using the tech to negotiating with them to try to settle things amicably. Samsung have obviously been deceptive and vague in their actions but,luckily,that is a sword which can cut both ways legally.
An extract from The Texas Law Review;
..."Gilstrap said he requires the parties in patent cases to enter into active mediation within 30 days of his issuing what's know as a "claims construction order." That order essentially defines the extent of the legal protection that the patent provides.
"My thinking is that this is probably the first point in the development of the patent case in which both sides can accurately evaluate their standing in the case," Gilstrap said. "It allows them to realistically assess the strengths and weaknesses of their cases."..."
Gilstrap said the Eastern District has "tenacious" mediators, who will try repeatedly to settle a case if initial attempts don't work.
Gilstrap=The judge presiding over the Nano case.
So,to me,it looks like the Markman hearing is the Judge banging Nano and Samsung's heads together and saying this is how legally each of you stand.Then from that each company's legal team will start actual negotiations (which make sense for all concerned as the Markman judgement will in essence provide a framework for them to work within and base numbers on)
After this,between March 21st and October this year,we hopefully have an 88% chance of waking up one morning to quite a nice RNS mediated surprise.
I think that what we sue for is one thing but what the court awards may be quite another. I think the two main methods used to calculate damages awarded are the Georgia-Pacific hypothetical which envisages a hypothetical licensing agreement between the two parties and then may be increased if the court deems the transgression "wilfull" and the analytical method which assumes no agreement between the two parties and is based on the actual or projected profits (using Samsung's internal figures) obtained from the infringer.
By the looks of it there are quite a few more,all of which are quite detailed and complex so I think any attempt to guess it may lead to inaccurate figures due to the risk of guesses compounding each other during the calculation but a general heuristic seems to be the "25% rule" which states that the plaintiff usually gets about 25% of the profit obtained by the infringer.
A rough calculation would be;
Assumed profits=$12 (ME's figures) thus 12x0.25=$3Bn
Current $ to £ is about $1=£0.75
3Bnx0.75=£2.25Bn sterling
Share price would then be about 2250(£millions)/306(shares in issue)=£7.35(ish) per share
Then we get into the murky world of ongoing licenses to allow use in Samsung's £10Bn factory and the increased value of the Nano IP from all of this.
A $3Bn settlement is well within the realms of possibility in East Texas,a total IP settlement bill for the state courts was approx $19Bn a few years ago,especially as the presiding judge has a pre-trial settlement rate of 88% (the highest in the state) with some legal publications naming his cases as being "rocket dockets" due to the speed of their settlement after Markman hearing.
Apologies for post length.
Surely assessment of any aspect not covered,deliberately or otherwise,in the patent would have formed part of the due dilligence? And as such,considering that someone has elected to risk their cash to bankroll court proceedings on the basis of this then the prevailing opinion of Mintz et al (with bods specialising in IP) must be that anything not included within the patent does not impact the validity of said patents.
Couple this with the assumption that said bankroll-er will have performed their own,and assumedly independent,legal pressure testing of the patents prior to committing their cash and I think that our chances are pretty healthy in this.
Admittedly this chain of reasoning relies on a lot of assumptions of common sense...
First post and pre-empted on it. Damn!
'the Funder can expect to receive a multiple of their invested capital in the event of a settlement or judgement in favour of Nanoco'.
To me this would indicate that the funder would receive a portion of the award based on their outlay for it. Ie;TPF lays out £10m for staffing, research,etc and then receives £10m x "Y" with Y representing an agreed upon multiple,say 5 or 10 for the sake of argument.