Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Does anyone have an view on the mention of the denial of Mr.Weinsteins' opinions on convoyed sales? A quick Google shows that "...convoyed sales are product sales made at the same time as infringing products. For a sale of a non-infringing product to be considered a convoyed sale,the non-infringing product should be "functionally related" to the patented item" with the court finding at least circumstantial evidence of convoyed sales and a feasible nexus to connect those sales to the accused products it would be interesting to see what else nano has found Samsung to have been up to.
"We are also seeing an increase in enquiries around Nanoco's unique and patent protected CFQD®..." This bit is encouraging,not seen the ® before
You are watching too much TV. If Samsung were caught attempting to influence a jury member they would be crucified. This case will be small beer to Samsung in the grand scheme of things,why would they take a risk like that when they are highly likely to have similar cases with the same judge for the same problem?
I couldn't be happier in that case!
@Sammy88 the only issues I can see are that I don't think the wilfulness multiplier can be applied to damages which aren't derived from license fees which would have been otherwise been paid. I think they would only be applicable for damages at the lower tier of the Edison estimate.
The other point is that there is precedent for US courts to award damages for global infringements which may be occur in nano's case so there is always the possibility of that happening (see WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations https://www.mondaq.com/patent/1107464/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases).
Personally I agree with you that the "it would be larger than any previous award " argument isn't worth much. Once upon a time Newcastle United paid a world record £7m for Andy Cole, look at transfer fees now. Records are often surpassed and rewritten.
As for the market being wrong,I also agree that happens all the time. Occasionally the market is out and out wrong but often it is just slow at catching up. I would be happy to say that if knowledge of the case (and this discussion board) were more widespread we would see a higher price than we currently have.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the figures you've posted recently are shown to be pretty accurate in the near future.
I don't remember seeing them but I would be interested in reading your thoughts
Sorry that was poorly written. The Edison note from 14/5/20 stated 14 million units in the US over the previous five years,from memory I think they almost doubled sales during the first year of the pandemic and then had a normal sales year in 2021,that makes me think approx 2.8 million units a year since 2015 plus 2020's extra sales is approx 24 million units (including the first six months or so of this year). By the looks of it my previous numbers may have been a bit of an overestimate but I can't find any mention in the Edison notes to say the figures they used are for anything but the US market so I have always assumed global figures which may be used for settlement/ damages would be about three times that. Obviously I appreciate any input from more experienced hands than myself though,keeps my feet on the ground!
I thought the figures in the Edison notes dealt with just the US market?
If samsung have moved 30 million units in the US to date,accounting for 1/3 total sales we could feasibly say that globally they have sold 90 million worldwide. We know nano favour a global settlement to end this. Edison assumed $14-18 per unit in license fees. A back of a cigarette packet calculation would suggest that a settlement based on license fees (at the lower end of potential outcomes) would be in the region of $1.26-1.62bn. We know Samsung will favour a settlement at the lower end whilst nano will obviously want one from the upper end of outcomes (a share of total profit for the market-from the Edison notes). Given the strength of nano's results so far (Markman outcome,ptab outcome,Samsung's failure to have MCC redefined) I would say that we may feasibly be in with a chance of seeing an outcome in Edison's middle damages bracket (a proportion of the profit uplift gained from the quantum dot component of the product) and something in the upper half of this range at that,after all the display is a large part of the value of a tv-software/hardware may contribute but they are bit part players supporting the star of the show,a TV without sound is still a TV,without a display you have a radio.
The question I'm interested in right now,apart from size of award/settlement,is whether we will see a large payment with a decent contract or a decent payment and a large contract. I'd be interested to read some alternative views.
Looks like nano's hand has been strengthened in both any settlement negotiation and potential trial process by this. If anyone wants to watch the trial,the stream can be accessed at http://streams.txcourts.gov/ apparently. It may be entertaining to watch mintz deliver a live action version of the sometimes scathing submissions we've seen on the dockets so far. Especially if Kirkland repeat their umm-ing and ahh-ing from the Markman hearing.
I think that's a great idea.
https://www.displaydaily.com/article/press-releases/quantum-dot-and-microled-pioneer-nanosys-secures-over-50-million-in-growth-capital-financing
Nanosys securing some investment recently. Interestingly the article mentions they have "As of the first half of 2022, industry-leading consumer electronics brands have shipped more than 60 million devices in over 850 unique products from tablets to monitors and TVs with Nanosys’ proprietary quantum dot technology"
A new filing from nano "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice by Peter F Snell on behalf of Nanoco Technologies" probably nothing but his LinkedIn page states he drafts IP license agreements. It would be interesting to know whether it's an attempt to send a subtle signal to Samsung ahead of the conference in August or just nano preparing their team for said conference.
I agree,what I am thinking is that whilst Samsung didn't know how to get the process started,they seem to know how to keep it moving. If they know how to use the patents in their current form now I would assume they wouldn't need much more guidance to continue to do so. Interested to hear any opinions though.
A buyout now is unlikely but after a successful court case who knows? Anyone could approach a company with validated patents in a potentially high growth market with a decent offer as the risk will have reduced significantly with the right outcome.
They've been using the patents well enough to warrant a court case for infringement.
Quantum dots in medical treatment/imaging could potentially be massive. Nano is involved with research at UCL at the moment but research is ongoing across the world, non-toxic dots have the potential uses ranging from surgery to drug delivery and diagnosis/imaging. Lung cancer is a particularly promising area right now https://cancer-nano.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12645-021-00077-9
Has anyone else read document 173? It seems to say that Samsung's motion for reconsideration of the courts' claim construction,the only claim I'm aware of samsung challenging was the definition of MCC's,was denied by the judge on 6/7. Document 173 states it is in reference to document 84 which is part of the Markman construction verdict.
I know some here were worried that this may have seriously damaged nano's case if Samsung had been successful.
That may be the single most impenetrable sentence I have ever read,depending on whether the motion was filed by nano or whether the reply to the reply relating to the response to the initial motion was filed by nano it could be interpreted a million ways from Sunday.
Once we see a joint notice of settlement and motion to stay filed we'll know to expect THE RNs though
I think it is important to be aware that US courts are able to consider and award damages for global infringement and have done so relatively recently one example being the WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that profits lost in foreign markets for IP patented in the United States can factor into final damage calculations (https://www.mondaq.com/patent/1107464/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases).
Equally,I don't think any damages awarded by the court are up for negotiation and reduction by Samsung. Samsung can,and likely will,appeal any award but they will unlikely be able to use them as a staging post from which to begin negotiations with Nanoco. Also this would be a double edged sword for Samsung as yes appeal may well reduce damages,but as long as infringing sales occur damages derived from them would no doubt accrue also.
I always thought a buy out was the most likely outcome but I think things have gone past that point now and that a large settlement and decent contract is the most likely outcome or,albeit less likely,a trial with attendant appeal followed by record damages award.
Personally,I've never even considered the fact that Samsung will need to have indemnified downstream users of the technology and it is this that makes me feel that
a)a global settlement and drawing a line under the issue is the most probable outcome
b)this board is one of the most thoughtful and well researched I've encountered and I appreciate each posters contributions. I almost regret that at some point in the future we will only have boring things like new contracts and guessing future dividends to discuss!