We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I know that people are are aware of the deposition of one of Nano's experts on 29/7/21 for the PTAB (it is this chap-https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/mark-green) He seems to be well respected in nanoparticle research including some of the fields in the disputed patents. An interesting point in his professional bio is one of his research projects aimed at developing an aerosol containing molecules which are a conjugation of DNA specific molecules and quantum dots. One part of the molecule binds to a target and causes the quantum dot to fluoresce thus highlighting an area to be sterilised/cleaned.The project is specifically aimed at covid detection on surfaces and has been funded to the tune of almost £400k due to report back in August next year (https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/projects/discover-aptamer-biosensors-for-the-detection-of-sarscov2-on-surfaces(a7b55bce-9903-49cb-bd26-29ca8bbff1c7).html). I can't see cadmium being included in the dots used for obvious exposure health risks.
The development team believe that the technique could easily be applied to a wide range of other bugs so if it works it could become standard issue on hospital wards.If it can be used for something like 'flu then I could see that being a decent seller to the public as well.
Share buy at 16:17 of 1,115,235 shares. That's a shade over £234k. A nice little vote of confidence from someone.
I agree it seems predatory but this is the way of the world. The strong do as they will whilst the weak endure what they must. However,should the litigation go our way the position of the company will fundamentally change. Should the patents be ratified then contracts and licensing agreements should come and a market Samsung will have essentially created for us should open up as well.
We can view this as financiers taking advantage (which,let's be honest,is what it is) or more sanguinely-as an entry fee to the next financial level for the company. It is almost £10m. That's a lot of cash,but if it gives nano access to a market valued in £billions it may be a worthwhile sacrifice.
If nano agree to a settlement then surely they would want an ongoing license agreement to be part of that in order to secure the future of the business. An injunction would take time,money and eliminate a future revenue stream if a court granted one.
In my view,if a settlement was agreed I would assume a clause could be added,or may already have been added to the initial funding agreement,so that any licensing deal would give the third party funder a cut going forward even if only for x number of years/until £?? has been paid. The funder must know that a settlement and licensing deal is at least a possible outcome so I would assume some arrangement would likely have been made to accommodate this scenario. If this was to be the case then we may find that a settlement and license is what they would push for given the potential future scope over the coming years. Almost anything is possible here though,an interesting 12-18 months lie ahead.
After reading the RNS it would be interesting to see what nano would define as a "modest" and "more substantial" award. Retaining 50% of a modest amount Vs keeping around 80% of a substantial one could be quite a range
Totally missed that part of the RNS.My mistake.
Ther's definitely a chance with LG being the company,if it were LG chem LG are about to market a new type of "nano-cell" TV and specifically mention conforming to RoHS environmental considerations in their marketing.
"...designed these new TVs with the environment in mind, and received Eco-Product certification from SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA of Switzerland. This certification considers four environmental criteria over the product life cycle, including recycled material use, energy consumption/efficiency, ease of disassembly for recycling, and hazardous substances (RoHS and REACH)."
From https://uk.pcmag.com/tvs/134212/lgs-quantum-dot-nanocell-mini-led-tvs-available-in-july
Quite a lot of info is around regarding Samsung actively chasing LG's TV market share so the pressure is on LG to up their display game,the new flagship LG QDTV's start at something like 65 inches so their offerings are a bit niche at the moment but these models may be used to develop processes for production at scale.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsungs-qd-oled-could-be-coming-to-steal-lg-oled-thunder-4130533
The potential chance of two TV giants fighting it out using nano dots would certainly spice up the next 12-18 months.The only people who tend to profit from war are the ones who supply weapons and ammunition or,hopefully,cadmium free quantum dots.
No hyperbole intended with the last sentence,I just cannot work out what Samsung think they can gain through this strategy
Seeing as we are able to see the benefit of this stay to nanoco (streamlining our case before court etc) where is the benefit to Samsung in it? Now that nano have an idea of a maximum likely timeframe Samsung's bargaining position is only weakened as nano now know when Samsung must make an offer by and are thus able to decline offers until they get to a number they find acceptable or a potentially very expensive trial and damages award happens. The timeframe may have been lengthened but the result appears to be unchanged. I just can't work out what Samsung hope to achieve with this tactic. They seem to be almost wilfully surrendering an advantage and I cannot see how anyone can make such an error which makes me wonder what I'm missing. Does Samsung honestly think they can win this?
It's a pretty bold strategy to annoy the judge overseeing your case...unless you don't think you're going to be up in front of them that is.
From memory it was stated that the funders would receive a multiple of their investment rather than a proportion of the settlement,legal fees are covered by the third party funder so I would assume that would come out of their end of I understand correctly.
If nano get an out of court settlement then I'm sure they would ensure an ongoing license fee as part of said agreement. A takeover at this stage may be a possibility,it may not, the situation is a bit too murky to say in my view but that's not to say that when the dust has settled we won't receive an approach for one.
With their remorseless push in the qd arena I think Samsung have boxed themselves into an expensive corner. As time ticks down,costs and settlements tick up. Logic dictates that at some point the financial cost of settling will outweigh that of court and disruption of future business activities. Mintz are giving Samsung enough rope to hang themselves here. As has already been mentioned today, conversations are most likely happening about resolving this maybe not between nano and Samsung but certainly within each company.
Roy Weinstein was one of the team that worked on the kaist Vs Samsung case to come up with damages. Working with the same judicial team as nanoco Vs Samsung. That worked out reasonably for kaist from what I remember.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5b18b0688f67d660f1a29306/amp
I've just noticed that only one of the summary judgements requested mentions that Samsung want a verdict of no infringement and no damages (the '068 patent-putting quantum dots on a polymer film ) which was one of the patents we thought of lesser importance to the case although it is a patent nano could ask to alter,so maybe Samsung are trying to get a judgement set in stone before they lose that one as well. A bit cheeky really,asking for a review of all patents but then saying "but not this one". The rest of the documents are asking for a verdict of non infringement of the patents. Samsung are asking for a lot of technical witness testimony to be excluded in whole or,again cheekily,in part. Nano ask for just two to be excluded Vs Samsung's five. Samsung's specifically request that testimony regarding damages from a Roy Weinstein. I wonder what he could have said to upset them?
An 8 inch folding display and anticipating shipping 15-20 million units in the first year of launch,looks promising.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/foldable-iphone-leak-reveals-huge-8-inch-display-and-the-release-date
https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/02/kuo-apple-expected-to-ship-20-million-units-of-first-foldable-iphone-in-2023/
NIDGM; I think nano would have to offer Samsung a license under FRAND legislation that would be fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory so as to allow competition between companies downstream of itself. Personally I would like nothing more than to see Samsung absolutely hammered with a licensing agreement it would have to accept in order to compete with its market rivals but I think we will have to rely on the courts in that respect.
Personally,like BeContrarian, I am leaning towards the view that by agreeing to something which at first glance appears to disadvantage them, nano appear to be in the driving seat at the moment. I'm hopefull that ddubya's insightful point below may be the reason why.
Thanks to Lobo for the always appreciated points he always brings and thanks to all posters on this board. I watch many boards and have yet to see one which matches this one for its quality and insight no matter the SP.
I can only see nano agreeing to something beneficial to the company, especially given what we have seen regarding the strength of their case. Although given Samsung's track record a settlement negotiation may end up being strung out to as long as a court case would take. I'm sure Mintz have this all in hand though. On the balance of probability this looks promising...
Samsung tried a similar tactic with Solas before their court case as well. It was denied "...Judge Gilstrap reminded that district courts “typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage, including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay will likely result in simplifying the case before the court.” He said that the motion for stay was not approved because the case is in an advanced stage, and a stay would prejudice Solas who has already taken a financial hit during the proceedings."-a quote from Gilstrap himself.
https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/intellectual-property/judge-blocks-ipr-stay-in-samsung-patent-case/
Nano could probably make the case that points 2 and 3 are fulfilled,I have no idea about point 1 but I can't see granting stay as being anything but negative to Nano (financially anyway).
Surely if Samsung receive a guilty verdict and are thus found to be selling an infringing product it would be much easier to obtain an injunction? I would have thought an injunction a reasonable chance given a guilty verdict. What is the point of the court if they can't enforce a judgement after it has been handed down?
If a court was to decide Samsung had broken the law then I would have thought they would use their full powers to ensure that such an offence was punished and prevented from happening further. Otherwise what is the point of them and why have patent law at all?
Given Samsung's investment in new product lines and manufacturing facilities I am assuming Mintz will apply for an injunction at the first opportunity they can in order to focus minds and open cheque books. The threat of an injunction would likely be one of nano's main weapons and a tool to be alluded to in the mediation discussions in August.
In case anyone was still worried about the stability and effectiveness of nanoco quantum dots Eunjoo Jang published some work recently extolling the benefits of Samsung's cadmium free quantum dots,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1771-5#ref-CR4
The "excellent efficiency, colour purity, reliability and cost-effective fabrication" of the dots is specifically mentioned, they also make a mention in the abstract about using hydrofluoric acid in their process to create the dots as well as one or two other factors I've seen mentioned elsewhere.
FYI this is nanoco's patent and process for making dots using hydrofluoric acid and some other bits and pieces www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015101779A1/en&ved=2ahUKEwidxrTfqYDxAhVEiFwKHfj3ABoQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2XgYij4ZaETFCiGEHSNg_n
Obviously I'm not saying both processes are likely to be slightly exactly the same and hence result in vaguely identical dots but it is good to know that wherever Samsung got their process from it works and that the dots "could soon be usable in commercial displays."
So we have an answer straight from the horse's mouth. The dots work and are viable.
Looks like one of the top bods at Samsung is having some sleepless nights,obviously googled "East Texas" and "Gilstrap"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/samsung-heir-lee-facing-dollar45000-fine-over-alleged-sedative-use-source/ar-AAKHrtL?ocid=ientp