Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
I don't think Samsung have ever denied using the process just that the process wasn't patentable
Could it be argued that it is a case of Samsung' throwing the applications at the wall to see what sticks in the hope it could be used to weaken nano's negotiating position and reduce any settlement figure as a consequence of this? Like the challenge to the MCC definition and the application to delay the trial (albeit only by a few days) this could possibly be part of a strategy to keep chipping away at nano's position and weaken it piecemeal.
Given the sheer volume of patents to consider in any new product/process I was worried that it may be used as a defence in court but apparently not..."In East Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap allowed a willful infringement claim against HTC Corp. to survive a motion to dismiss based on an alleged policy of not reviewing other people’s patents. Gilstrap said such alleged willful blindness was a substitute for actual knowledge."
By the looks of it,ignorance of infringement is not an impediment to a verdict of willful infringement either..."Where ignorance has come back to bite companies is when judges are deciding whether to enhance damages. Sandrik noted a company was dinged in New York federal court for “ostrich-like, head-in-the-sand behavior” after it was informed of alleged infringement but didn’t investigate it."
Both sources- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/paying-more-in-patent-damages-a-puzzle-ready-for-high-court
Obviously not relevant at the moment but may be useful to know in September or when considering the factors which may be involved in settlement negotiations and what Samsung need to consider if they decide to take this to court.
I don't have the reference to hand but I'm sure it has already been posted that an appeal will take up to 12 months,18 months in exceptional circumstances. Not years,I think that concept came from beingthebanker. In any case,the longer Samsung string this out the more nano can claim for damages.
I've read the RR board for a while now. I've also been reading the post histories of some of the more optimistic posters here. I would strongly suggest other investors do the same before making any decisions about their cash in the near future.
Wouldn't we be able to reasonably guess the settlement amount once nano accounts are released? There wouldn't be much to use to camouflage a large cash injection.
Thank you, I may show the "actual scientist" line to my wife the next time she brings up a Google search....
I apologise for the essay but I feel that worrying about a jury being bamboozled by complex science disregards the fact that nano's arguments are more easily demonstrable and understood than Samsung's nebulous and confusing points.
People believe what they can understand. Read the submissions and ask yourself,who gave the more straightforward answers? Who seemed to try to confuse you less? Whether a person understands them or not they are more likely to believe what they find plausible as it is intellectually easier and people with nothing to gain or lose from a decision will usually follow the easier path in making that decision.
Obviously all my opinions though.
I have a degree which involves a significant amount of chemistry-both organic and inorganic,as well as a significant amount of physics. In addition to this I obtained an undergraduate and masters degree from a university which specialised in the formulation of medicines. As part of my job I deal with emulsions,suspensions and mixtures along with their manipulation on a daily basis. I have also read the submissions of both Samsung and Nanoco.
I am the first to admit that I am not of the calibre of Cossairt and her PhD colleagues but I feel I am reasonably qualified to at least pass comment on what I have read.
I would agree with Nanoco's definition of an emulsion. It is not 100% correct as technically an emulsion is extremely hard to define,and this is reflected in the Markman transcripts, but it is more "correct" than Samsung's version. With regard to MCC I believe Nanoco have a very convincing argument based on the physics and chemistry they present. As I said at the time of Samsung's Markman presentation being made public-their definitions are confusing and require leaps of faith more than logic and chemistry/physics. I cannot see how they will hold up to scrutiny and expect them to perform poorly in court when under pressure.
Samsung may be trying to adjust the terms of the discussion,as this is likely their best chance,but they cannot amend the science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is an emulsion or MCC.
Obviously anything can happen in court and Samsung may well try to use new arguments, but some points Nanoco could use have also been conspicuous by their absence. The emission spectra,for example,of MCC's will be quite specific to their physical and chemical characteristics and may be said to resemble a fingerprint in some respects. Spectrometry is the analysis of emission spectra and is in common use in courts in the UK and abroad being both extremely accurate and reliable. Emission spectra are what you see when you perceive colour. Samsung Qd TVs are colour. I feel that if this makes it to court,high concept samsung "science' will be shot down by relatable more readily understood arguments.
The Edison note outlines some likely methods which may be used to calculate damages. They do state license fees are at the lower end of what can be expected. They don't, unfortunately,give any guidance as to the likelihood of one method being chosen over the others. Happily even license fee alone could be substantial given the ability of US courts to award damages incorporating global revenues.
I suppose it will ultimately come down to their timelines,risk appetite and finance demands. If LOM make x9 on their investment they may well take less but I can't see the logic in not waiting a year or so for more
If the court awards damages to nano then what the company is worth has little to do with whether Samsung will pay or not. They pay it or are found in contempt. Equally I would be disappointed if nano was sold for $1bn. If I were nano's major shareholders and I knew that if I waited at most a likely 12-18months from judgement for $4bn I would reason that I've waited this long and the market is only getting larger in the meantime I'll either sell for a significant proportion/full balance of said $4bn or wait until I get the cash AND keep the business.
I can't see any reason for nano accepting a low ball offer for the company, especially now after the ptab. As for a settlement,I can't see it being too far short of a court award for reasons above either.
Didn't ME,towards the end of his tenure,state nano were looking to claim for damages along the mid case of the Edison note? A share of something along the lines of $14bn at the moment?
I think it's a huge positive that the funder will have a say in any outcome here as no doubt they will have gamed out any future negotiations in a similar way to their past pressure testing of the legal aspects of the case. I think they will most likely be aware of the best outcome nano can hope for l,given case strength etc,and be fighting to get it. This is probably just as important as the legal know how they have paid for in my view.
RG may have been selling to get some free cash to put into THG, he's involved over there now as well by the looks of it.
I think a finding of willful infringement is reasonably likely given the range of evidence in the public domain (ie;the now infamous,on this board anyway,email to nano from one of Samsung's boffins). However I won't be crying too hard if nano don't get any uplift in damages from the court as
a)I think nano will be looking for a share of Samsung's profits gained using the tech rather than lost licensing fees
b)I feel the real money will come from a supply/licensing contract with Samsung. I'm sure nano will extract maximum value if Samsung make them go to court.
Having said that I'll be surprised if the case makes it that far. I'm leaning towards a buyout if I'm being honest.There is way to much money to be lost at court/made over the next 10+ years at stake here.
I would expect nano to refuse any settlement and demand the maximum damages via trial if that were to happen.
If they lose in an east Texas court I imagine they would soon be found in contempt and extra fines,probably due to the court rather than nano unfortunately,would be levied.
Judge Gilstrap has already previously mentioned some measure of exasperation with Samsung's conduct in this trial as well as previous ones.Given the inevitable reappearance of Samsung in future patent disputes playing the court for a fool would be a terrible business decision for them.
I'm looking forward to the discussion around acceptable settlement amount and future contract terms over the coming weeks. The next few months should be interesting,and hopefully profitable,for us all!
I'd be happy seeing a x1.5 multiplier attached to the total global figure