Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
There aren't many,if any,discussions of the topic that I could google up.Quite a few sources discuss award calculation though and a majority that I found seem to generally follow this statement from https://www.mondaq.com/patent/1107464/how-are-damages-calculated-in-patent-infringement-cases
"American courts use lost profits and the failure to collect a reasonable fee from a licensee to calculate a damages award. Determination of the former depends on proving notable demand for the infringed invention and demonstrating you could manufacture and market the IP as your own product or service. "Enhanced" (i.e., punitive) damages may also be awarded in cases of willful infringement, maxing out at three times the figure arrived at after standard calculation. "
I also found this gem "Additionally, since 2018's WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, 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)
Apologies if this has all been done to death before but it would appear lost profits on a global market scale can certainly be awarded by US courts and I thought it would be worth bringing up the point to refresh memories.
It would be interesting to know whether that would be true with a settlement/damages award.Would 4 claims upheld give more to nano than just 2 or would the number of claims upheld be irrelevant with the court just viewing Samsung to have infringed period?
You can find the court documents and replies/sur-replies here;
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00182
You need to create an account/log in using Google but it's pretty fast and easy to do
Why would they appeal a settlement. Isn't a settlement extrajudicial and used to avoid court proceedings. What would be the point/possibility of appealing something they agree to?
I agree that Samsung have presented many points challenging nano's patents however in order to fulfill preponderance of evidence those points must convince three judges that they are more than 50% likely to be true. Nano go into clear detail addressing why each point isn't likely to be true in their submission.
I take comfort in the facts that,from memory, at least one of the judges has a background in chemistry and that the judges are actively engaged in trying to understand the processes involved (see the section at around page 70 of the recent transcript in which one judge gives Samsung's legal team a pretty hard time) This suggests to me that Kirkland will have to work to get that >50% likelihood.
No matter how many points Kirkland put forward each one will have to be backed up with credible science/citations in order to exceed the 50% likelihood figure. Given that one of their own experts in the Markman hearing shot some sizeable holes in their argument it would appear that some of Samsung's arguments are a bit shaky under scrutiny.
In addition,if we compare the straightforward nature of the nano arguments compared with the rather esoteric explanations from Samsung then there is also the possibility that Occam's razor will give our Korean friends a bit of a haircut. I will be very surprised if all our patents make it through unscathed but equally I will be surprised if none make it through at all,the sheer number of points we are asserting works in our favour somewhat.
Did we hear any more in relation to the top ten East Asian chemical company mentioned in July last year? The first phase of things was due to complete h2 2021 and that "The agreement outlines two further phases that are contingent on the success of the first phase and have the potential to run through to the end of [the 2022 financial year]," company adds. I would like to hear about progress with STM on Tuesday but I'd like to hear about what,if any,progress has been made with this as well.
Amer that's an excellent point I hadn't thought of before. Samsung are arguing that a posita would know how to make quantum dots but their posita couldn't after five years. I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned in the recent ptab transcript to be honest.
I'm not sure whether the factory was an attempt at influence,I'd love it to be though. Spending $10bn on a factory to try to possibly influence a verdict/award must mean that Samsung are terrified. Or that the potential award will be orders of magnitude larger than $10bn.
I can't see Samsung spending that much cash on the off chance of affecting a verdict/award when they know if they offered half that nano would likely bite their hand off for it.
Over the next few days it will be interesting to see whether the recent rises have been due to GMT reducing/closing their short in response to the recent transcripts,although the volumes seem to be a bit small for that. If that is the reason why then maybe someone should call Teton capital to let them know what's happening. They've had a short for the last 10 or so years and look to have forgotten about it.
The court case probably complicates what they can do/buy I imagine.
For balance I think it is worth pointing out that the Edison note gives three main ways that damages may be calculated and that we seem to be focussing at the lower end of things. Samsung will have to consider the possibility that any award may be issued under the basis of one of the higher award tiers. From memory I think the previous nano CEO mentioned going after a portion of Samsung's profits gained from qd use,something like $10-14bn off the top of my head so it may well be a possibility.
I'm all for keeping a cool head but if we are suggesting future possibilities it's important to look at the whole picture from worst case to best case scenario.
It's difficult to say whether the toluene does indeed play much of a role as Arovas seems to tie himself up in knots Vis a Vis nomenclature of multiphase systems. At one point it looks like he states toluene cannot be defined as either solid or liquid (p15 line 7-8) which makes defining it's state properties difficult (ie;would it be a solid in liquid suspension or a liquid in liquid emulsion). A few lines later states that the state of a material is defined by the solvent rather than the solute.
This would indicate to me that we have two grey areas. One being the initial state of the toluene being essentially undefinable and the second being do we define it's state by the phase it is contained within or rather the global solvent everything is contained within. So all Samsung are doing here is trying to muddy the waters with semantics in my view,even professionals have difficulty defining multiphase compounds. In the UK I know we call these compounds systems rather than mixtures/emulsions due to the difficulty in defining them. This is Samsung trying to complicate the situation with overly complex and abstract arguments.
In addition,on page 17 Arovas describes the three phase aps-qd-toluene as being two immiscible liquids and a few lines later (p18 line 3) states it is a suspension. This is incorrect,two imiscible liquids are usually described as an emulsion system whilst a solid suspended within a liquid is a mixture,in addition he later goes on to define toluene as being a separate phase due to its dissolution of hydrophobic styrene components. I think the best Samsung can hope for in this part of the argument is a 50:50 draw. So it is possible that as Samsung haven't 100% proven their point in this,in my view at least,it may well be a nano victory.
I don't know about that,it all seems rooted in what we know so far.Points 7,8 and 9 could be viewed to be dependent on the previous factors mentioned in the post but certainly not unreasonable ones
Somebody is a speed reader and liked what they saw,at 1606 they bought 974868 shares...
Just shown up now,anyone more experienced know what they are? Error,short opening/closing?
I'm not sure they need a large workforce,I'd imagine that the size of the production vessels/facilities are most likely one of the main factors governing production volume. Equally licensing agreements mean nano probably won't need to produce many dots themselves to make money. Most of their workforce would be in research and development I would say,quality over quantity in that aspect is the way I'd like to see them go there
That would depend on how many analysts are even aware of nano,much less watching the case from day one. Not many I'd wager, especially with all the recent eye catching covid stock action over the last two years. I can absolutely understand the argument of why hasn't the share price risen on the back of this news but if every share was worth the correct price there wouldn't be much profit to be made on the stock market. There will always be a lag between value and market realisation of said value,maybe we are just in on this one early.
Looks like Samsung is basing their argument on the view that "well our expert says X so X is correct". Also,I noticed the contrast of Dr Green's wordy jargon filled statements with cherry picked ones from Dr Cossairt ie;"Sure. Add more salt." Suggests to me a subtle attempt to attack the credibility of Dr Cossairt.
Reading Samsung's presentation gave me the feeling of walking into a chemistry lecture half way through where the main battle was to try to workout the background to what was being said rather than to try to understand the implications of what was being taught but ending up feeling a confused and unable to make an educated decision when asked a question by the lecturer. Samsung may have a plan with their submission.
1.Confuse the audience with jargon filled and unexplained complex arguments,thus destabilising your target audience.
2.Attack the credibility of the other guy.
3.Present an explanation given in complex form filled with formulae and unexplained scientific principles which,by contrast,must be the correct interpretation.
To me this looks like Samsung are trying to rely on marketing an image around an answer more than the content of one and that is something I imagine is done when there is little content to rely on. Obviously I am a bit biased though.
Clear,concise and straightforward in explanation. Each point Samsung makes looks to have been described,addressed and rebutted with what look to be almost embarrassingly simple explanations in some cases,the combination of Banin and Bawendi methods for example.
The highlighting of the almost random nature of some of Samsung's combinations of processes/research are repeatedly pointed out along with concise explanations to explain why they wouldn't work/be applicable which do Samsung's credibility no good at all. Even some testimony of Samsung's expert Dr Green is weaponised against them in;the combination of Banin/Farneth which is pointed out as being incompatible due to Farneth using a solid catalyst while the Banin method requires a liquid one-with the note that this would make Samsung's proposed SLS process highly unlikely to even work much less be as/more efficient than nano's.
Personally I'm very happy with what I've just read,obviously Samsung's submission may change that but they will have to put in an impressive performance to do it.
That makes for some interesting reading! Additionally I seem to remember that Mintz had recruited an expert witness specialising in damages calculation at the beginning of proceedings with his own impressive reputation to boot. The next few months will be an interesting time,even more interesting will be how any potential damages/settlement are issued;large initial payment with reasonable royalty going forward or reasonable initial payment with a large royalty attached.