The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Let them drag it out. A court award,even after any post appeal reduction, will still most likely be larger than any settlement Samsung will offer.
The longer this process takes the more Samsung box themselves into a corner.
Not sure where the greatest damage is sustained there,the credibility of Dr Green or Samsung's case. I think Dr Green may be out of his depth dealing with Dr Cossairt. I find it hard to believe Samsung think they can rely on him to help edge their case to a favourable verdict,it'll be interesting to see what they are actually going to rely on for a viable defence/strategy in the case.
There was a similar pattern yesterday afternoon as well.
Multiple patents being assessed and only one needing to be upheld to move litigation forward.
Independent third party funders having stress tested the case and happy with the level of risk.
Top level legal team happy to stake some reputation on an outcome.
Positive Markman hearing outcome.
Released testimony which hasn't exactly covered Samsung's case in glory.
Large Swiss bank happy to take on a chunk of the company-and will have no doubt done their own due diligence.
There is always going to be the chance the patents will be invalidated,but on the balance of probability I think there is a greater chance of success.
If nanoco as a company go under the legal action still proceeds,unless I'm mistaken. If that happens I would assume the litigation funders and major shareholders would go for the maximum possible financial outcome.
Samsung would most likely want to settle for a one off payment to no doubt cover the US and RoW. They have probably sold about 60-65 million units,based on unpaid license fees alone that would stack up to 60x$16=$960m. Then you would have damage to the business to account for. In my view this is going to cost Samsung in the region of $1.5-2bn at the settlement stage. If nano are going after a share of Samsung on a unjust profits basis we could be looking at about $12bn (possibly increased as this number was from about two years ago) given that a general heuristic is to be awarded approximately 40% (a figure given as a general guide by some on the internet so make of it what you will) of the amount claimed against it could also be significantly higher. I remember a discussion on this board about eighteen months ago that seemed to roughly suggest a figure of $2-5bn then as well.
Nanosys are developing solar windows using indium,zinc and cooper based dots. Interesting use of quantum dots.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/09/quantum-dot-solar-window-with-3-6-efficiency/
A new work package for a European electronics customer has just been announced,bit light on detail though.
Thanks for this Hawi,the updates are very much appreciated.
Anyone have any ideas as to why PricewaterhouseCoopers need an extra two weeks? Good to see that "The Board confirms that trading for the year ended 31 July 2021 was in line with its previous expectations, that its expectations for the current year are unchanged, and it is not aware of any material audit issues" but I find it hard to believe that the auditor simply missed a deadline
Good find! It looks like Samsung are confident in their future ability to produce quantum dots without interference.From what we know it is unlikely that they have their own process to do so (or a redacted description would have been released) or that nano have no chance of protecting their patent (otherwise nobody would risk their money to pay legal expenses) I can't imagine that nano would agree to what they have already without being confident of the outcome and they are currently guided by some of the best legal minds in the business.
I think Samsung will obviously try to save face but ultimately know how this will play out. They have probably already budgeted an amount for settlement/damages,all that really remains is to let things play out. The more money Samsung puts into quantum dots the more I believe in the outcome here.
Not sure if anyone has seen this.
8 October 2021
NANOCO GROUP PLC
("Nanoco", the "Company" or the "Group")
Notice of Results
Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other specific nanomaterials emanating from our technology platform, today announces that its final results for the year ended 31 July 2021 will be released on Wednesday, 20 October 2021.
There will be a conference call and webcast for analysts and investors at 10:00am on the morning of the announcement. Details of how to join this call will be published with the preliminary results announcement or register in advance by emailing nanoco@mhpc.com.
- Ends -
Looking at the company long term will their supply chain be a factor over the next 5 years? 3d printing will more than likely negatively affect sales of physical product over the medium term and Warhammer+ has been poorly managed from its inception,I can't see the company making profits from these areas in the future. My main worry is the IP of the company,I can definitely see GW as the next marvel once marvel are out of ideas but my main concern is that the market gw are aiming at isn't right for the grimdark nature of their flagship 40k product. Age of sigmar doesn't have the traction to be a success on the scale of 40k. 30k may become an equivalent but it lacks the storyline depth needed to become a major product line. In my view the cost charged to the consumer,and hence profit extracted, is only sustainable if said consumer is an adult with disposable income. These customers are attracted to gw products in large part by their storylines and aesthetic. They have grown up with games workshop and their interest was sparked by the John Blanche inspired IP of the 80's and 90's not the primaris and poorly executed comicbook products we have seen recently. In my view the artwork, physical products, storyline and copyright protection point to a planned company sale in the near-medium term and that if this does not take place then the company will turn out to have put all of its eggs into the wrong basket of consumers. Having said this,if the company can make it work then the returns to them will dwarf those marvel has made. If it does work I think it will become a larger franchise than star wars,the IP has infinitely more potential and could easily run for decades.
If you would like to know a quick history of Cpt.Jack Churchill's exploits then check YouTube and search "count dankula jack churchill" a legend of a human being. Incredibly humble humble chap.
If their tech can get Aussie PBS approval then Pharmac in New Zealand will follow suit reasonably soon after. NICE in the UK could potentially come next. Light therapy has an increasing body of evidence building up behind it. Between direct treatment and sensing/diagnostics,the healthcare is a market with huge potential. Research is apparently ongoing regarding quantum dots and direct blood/capillary glucose monitoring which will be a massive market if nano can make it work.
Isn't he one of the busiest judges in this field as well? I would think that hearing more cases would inevitably mean he is more likely to potentially have "conflicts". Having said this I doubt he would be unaware of the fact that his work may be under more intense scrutiny than that of his colleagues,maybe it could be argued that as a consequence of this he will be at pains to be a seen as a paragon of fairness?
Also,if this were a potential problem then surely it would have been addressed previously in his career?
The only thing I can find it mentioned in was the quantum dot market report that was released back in march this year. Purely a forecast the writers made by the looks of it though.
https://touchdisplayresearch.com/?page_id=5649
Speaking personally it would depend on the offer made really, technology is a market where almost anything can happen. Who's to say another company with an even better/cheaper dot isn't just around the corner or another Samsung-esque situation where the company loses patents? At the moment Nano looks good for the long term but if a decent offer was made I would be happy for nano to accept it.
Having said that,I'm equally happy to play the long game as I think the quantum dot market is potentially massive and nano have the backroom talent to capitalise on it.
The articles 2028-2032 seem to be a combination of definitions of basic chemical terms/compound characteristics/Markman recap and process definitions whilst 2033 seems to be the real meat.
At first glance it does indeed appear to be the case that Samsung have a case here,however the discussion that follows the brief (and at surface level analysis Samsung positive) description of Dubrow and Nelson's work points out the obvious differences between the Dubrow/Nelson approach and nano's version. Dubrow and Nelson describe a concept and a general approach that could be used. Nano's process appears to describe a process which is,at surface level,similar but is fundamentally different. The best description I can think of is that Dubrow/Nelson are the equivalent of someone telling you some general directions but nano's process is not so much a satnav but rather a local in the passenger seat giving you directions.
Samsung seem to say that nano's method is obvious and,in a way it is. One way of looking at it is like saying a bird flies because it flaps it's wings which,at a surface level is true but this argument ignores the concepts of power to weight ratios,aerodynamics,muscle/ligament/tendon strength and elasticity,feather structure,air humidity,wind strength/direction....I'm sure you get the idea.
My background isn't in inorganic/physical chemistry or,indeed,physics but I am quite impressed with this response-from a specialist chemist with a PhD,who works at an outstanding research institution and graduated from another which is so renowned the TV show "The big bang theory" depicts people who work there.I mean no disrespect to Dr.Swager in any way shape or form when I say this,I say it to emphasise the calibre of the man's achievements.
I am looking forward to see how Samsung counter this submission if I'm honest as the quality of their response will likely dictate the quality of their case going forward. Unless they produce some original, previously published,research it may be difficult to evidence their prior art argument. I don't remember any such research being submitted by their legal team in the Markman submissions but rather a collection of Dubrow/Nelson derivations which they still needed nano input to make work.
The potential ability to perform near patient,non-invasive, u&e/liver function tests/glucose analysis,haemotinics et al using dots will give revenues to rival/exceed display if nano can make it work. Dots in insulin pumps/blood glucose sensors are especially exciting. NHS spend on the current generation of pumps/testing strips is huge and growing and that of the Americans/RoW even more so. A cheap,reliable and reusable sensing system will be readily adopted by any healthcare system. In a few years healthcare has the potential to be a major new market for nano.
Some good numbers given for sales over the last two years there. Mass production of qd TV screens is slated to start late 2021 for a 2022 release as well. (www.google.com/amp/s/www.techradar.com/amp/news/samsung-qled-samsungs-latest-television-acronym-explained) I can't see Samsung wanting to risk willful infringement level damages given the way their sales are projected to go over the next few years. I think that agreeing to a stay to the trial may have been an excellent move,nano can narrow down their case to the strongest elements whilst Samsung dig themselves deeper into a hole by selling more infringing product and investing in production facilities.
Samsung must know the situation they are in. Given the fact they are confident enough to be moving forward with their qd TV plans I'll be surprised if a court case happens. Unless the patent review blows nano out of the water I think they'll settle given what may potentially be at stake for them.