The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
A deal with apple would be fantastic but,over the longer term,the medical side of cadmium free quantum dots will quite possibly dwarf display. More and more research is coming out regarding imaging and drug delivery options- all of it is positive. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/10/3308/html
Things will start with imaging/scans but rapidly develop into targeted drug delivery and that will be huge. The above article details some research using proteins as biomarkers for disease progression/drug delivery with incredible sensitivity/specificity. I've rambled about this before but the potential in healthcare is incredible, reducing costs/toxicity whilst improving outcomes/safety. Nano has been quietly filing patents in this sort of area for the last few years https://patents.justia.com/patent/10064943 . I would love to see the company use Samsung's financial apology to springboard this research into something marketable.
The Justia patent details a method which "can be used to track diseased target cells by non-invasive imaging in the near-infrared range. Additionally, the probes can induce cell death of the target cells via photodynamic treatment" Ie; track a target,destroy it using light and then ascertain the degree of therapeutic effect without surgery.
To me this looks like one of two things . One being a damage limitation measure. Samsung have essentially admitted defeat in the courts and now look to be waiting for PTAB to invalidate some patents in order to reduce the size of any damages they must pay.
The other is that Samsung are still stringing things out in the hope nano accept a lower settlement by telling them that even if they win in court it'll still be up to a year/eighteen months after that before you get paid. I can't see nano being worried about waiting a bit longer after all this time so I'm inclined to think the former is a more likely explanation.
Hopefully the court sees this for the tactic it is and awards damages artificially high so they can be reduced to a level which would have been comparable to those that would have been awarded anyway. I'd be very surprised if a court did that though.
Given the fact that Samsung are using Nano patented processes for production at scale (allegedly) I'm not sure production at industrial level will be the underlying issue. As for if the dots were good then nano would do something with them I didn't think that was nano's business model. Samsung certainly seem to think the dots are good though and have certainly done something with them.
I think the dots are fine. Producible at scale and effective in use. Just ask Samsung.
The longer this lasts the more it will ultimately cost Samsung.They must know this. We may see a dilution but Samsung will pay neither more nor less.If the company becomes an IP shell then most likely the same thing.If Nanoco go bust and disappear the litigation still goes ahead I believe.I don't think Samsung can count on Nano disappearing any more.
This makes me think that if I were Samsung I would be using everything at my disposal as a negotiation tool.Samsung are basically trying to use one of the last variables they have control over.Time. Most likely to prolong negotiations and to see who blinks first.Given that the litigation proceeds whether Nano disappear or continue I'm not sure that time is as valuable to Samsung as it once was as ultimately it will run out.The more of it they use the more it will ultimately cost them to do so.
As I write we are looking down the wrong end of a 10% SP change so I understand that it may be difficult to be positive but Samsung are running out of options. IPR may not even find in their favour after all.As has already been said if they are contesting the patents then they are tacitly admitting they have infringed them.This is not a tactic that will strengthen their case in court and Samsung will be aware of this. The court case may be delayed or it may not,but it will happen and by the looks of it Samsung think their case is as weak as we do.Nano's case is like a boa constrictor,once Samsung are in things are getting tight and tighter.The end may be tomorrow or next week but it is inevitable,all that has changed is the timeline to reach it.
My plan;Sit tight.Have a brew.Carry on.
I have no idea what it means but apparently Samsung submitted an updated evidence list to Mintz and the PTAB on 14/5/21. A letter between M. Pearson to M. Newman and the claim construction order being the new aspects. Probably just routine I imagine unless anyone else can shed some light.
Interestingly I note they also list a chemistry textbook that was out of date and replaced before I even did GCSE chemistry never mind A-level. Not quite cutting edge.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F16
Some really exciting research coming out of QDs in healthcare from nano's partnership with University College London which was the subject of an innovate grant in 2019.By the looks of it UCL and the Prof. Nano was working with have recently found a novel way of treating pancreatic cancer using quantum dots which has shown great promise (https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.0c00317) which has led to the research team "... currently working with UCL Business to commercialise this work in order to take it to the next stages of development."
Lots of other research has been done over the last few years but it is really picking up in the medical field,especially over the last 6-12 months in the realm of cancer treatment and imaging. All centred on cadmium free dots,all looking promising and highlighting the low toxicity. Dots can apparently be used to target drugs to tumour tissue,improve drug effect and reduce toxicity in use,medicines typically take a decade to come to market but recent pandemic events have shown us that if there is an immediate,glaring and obvious need for healthcare exceptions can be made.It would be dificult to argue cancer wouldn't fit that bill.
Agreed,even if a PTAB IPR is granted there is no guarantee it will go Samsung's way. It looks like a measure to string out an anticipated appeals process post judgement in the hopes that it will cause nano to go belly up. Although the case still proceeds.At most it can take 18 months to hear an IPR and then,in a worst case scenario,the duration of a retrial (minus time for evidence discovery,Markman,IPR etc) ie;not long.
Granted IPR may present a threat to any trial verdict but it may also represent an admission of weakness in their case for Samsung. Why go through all this palaver if you were confident? It almost feels like damage limitation to be honest. Akin to Samsung saying "you have our settlement offer accept it or have another few year of legal wrangling".
If PTAB is used as a tool for legal action or settlement negotiation it smacks of a kitchen sink defence. If this is all Samsung have left in their arsenal I would say that it bodes well. After this what is left? A trial? ......if only there was some indication of how that may go...hmmm.
Ultimately I view it like this. The company has waited years to get to this point,obtained financial backing, recruited an excellent legal team,essentially won a Markman hearing and still has a snifter of contracts despite contested patents. Samsung have the potential of a patent review which may or may not potentially go their way. Who looks like they have an advantage?
Hi nanonano,would you say that $300m/yr figure relates to Samsung alone or all players? I understand it is difficult to assess a global figure so I'm assuming Samsung alone but it would be interesting to hear if there are any ideas out there relating to potential global licensing income in the future.
https://www.arelaw.com/images/article/link_pdf-1-1415047685-ARElaw_Understanding_PTAB_Trials101414.pdf
I found this quite useful,it details timelines etc.
Would Samsung be able to rent said factories to Nanoco at a peppercorn rate to allow a supply to be produced instead? Depending on where the factories are they might not be worth as much to Nano as Samsung to due potentially difficult supply lines and the logistical hassle of staffing/running/supplying said factories so I hope Samsung doesn't try to offset some of the cash settlement for them or at least if they do I hope nano accepts them at a much reduced value. Excellent point though! That will definitely spice up any nascent settlement negotiations which may be about to happen.
Nano didn't contest the definition of polymer (point e I think) and the definition of emulsion reads,to me anyway,as a bit of a 50:50 one. I think nano's constructions for the first three points were found in favour of (definition of molecular cluster compounds, conversion and first semi conductor material).
The case doesn't involve Samsung,I shared it as I felt the case had parallels which mirrored the nano/samsung case. Obviously that case involved the shape of a molecule rather than a process of production but I feel the arguments made may have some crossover between the two. I just wanted to make the point that if an IPR is granted it may not go entirely samsung's way.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1062112/ptab-restates-that-not-all-combinations-of-molecular-modifications-are-obvious
From a PTAB decision issued 16/4/21. This patent dispute essentially appears to centre on how closely the molecule of one company appears to resemble the patented version of another company and how the structural changes were "obvious",so not the same as the nano case but some of the analysis may be applicable to any IPR the patents are subject to if we replace the concept of molecular structure with quantum dot production process.
Three highlights of the article commenting on the PTAB decision;
"This case reminds us not only that the USPTO is not entirely free to reconstruct claims out of a patchwork of prior art based primarily on hindsight..."--The Samsung Markman submission could be fairly described as a collection of statements relating to prior work already published rather than an original/novel production method.
"...it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound."--Samsung did not submit any reasoning behind their search for what they claimed to be their,different, method of producing dots.Rather it looks like they produced a collection of previous research answers rather than any reasoning as to the questions they asked which led to said answers. The patent equivalent of shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it.
"The PTAB therefore overturned the examiner's finding of obviousness for a lack of a reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound..." Patent upheld.
I think that is due to a technology being adopted as an industry standard and in order to avoid litigation under FRAND legislation where the tech must be offered to all market players at a fair,reasonable and non-discrimanatory rate (which would mean we couldn't single out Samsung for punitively high licensing fees if they mess nano about,as I had hoped,unfortunately) although being a company the size of nano would a fair rate to all players have a disproportionately large effect on revenue compared to that of a multibillion company like Ericsson?
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/ericsson-and-samsung-settle-patent-dispute
Ericcson and Samsung have agreed a global "multi year" patent agreement.
Just to play devil's advocate,if nano were to win and an injunction was to be served to Samsung. What is to stop nano telling Samsung that they want the first x number of years worth of licensing fees up front before they would petition for injunction annulment? If Samsung dithered then their current plans for qd screens would be in jeopardy and their competitors would be able to bring potentially superior products to market before them. They've already spent at least $10bn on a processing facility in Texas. At what point would even the mighty Koreans have to admit defeat. The longer they dither the more qd units they sell and the greater the potential damages they may pay. US courts can decide to award global damages bit surely Samsung must realise that if they don't then any unpaid bills will just be moved to licensing charges,if I had all the advantages (think injunction, patents,licenses) that is what I would do. If nano win they have the advantage here. Court awarded global damages or not nano could well make them pay regardless-just over the longer term.
On balance I think we shall see something in the middle ground from damages/award. Maybe a bit more than US alone but a bit less than global.
Just to
Fingers crossed Brian Tenner is our man then! A court win will give him plenty of resources to hopefully push the company and the need for manufacturers to license from us will give us a revenue stream moving forward to help keep the momentum going. I'm going to have to rethink my post settlement strategy now amerloque
My mistake,Dow provided dot's under a license agreement.
Great minds think alike I see nanonano!