We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Looking to the future,how does everyone see the future for nanoco? Assuming a win in court/settlement and subsequent licensing agreement with Samsung is there a possibility of action against Dow/LG? Will Samsung's current market share become our own and if so where would that lead financially?
I know we are all aware of the dire implications of losing proceedings as these have been discussed in previous posts over the last year or so but one avenue I think may be worth considering is what may lie after the court case. The current global market was worth about £5bn last year. It looks like this figure is only going to grow and cadmium's days seem to be numbered.
Samsung's share was about £3bn of the global market last year. Would it be reasonable to assume that would become nano's? I'm not going to lie,given a decent settlement/award I would be tempted to cut and run but the more I think about it the more I think we may be missing the woods for the trees. Given a successful outcome,the next five years may be even more profitable than a best case court award.
Wouldn't the need to pay the huge price to entice shareholders into accepting an offer discourage companies of using this method to make litigation go away or,conversely,if you are going to pay a large sum anyway why not pay a bit extra to own the IP that made the offender so much extra revenue in the first place-they know it works,they know there is a market for it.Settlement/damages represent a bit of a sunk cost anyway so if you think you are paying out no matter what why not pay out more to buy something which you can use to generate revenue/licensing fees in order to recoup some of that cash you are inevitably laying out anyway?
The argument that the larger the award the more likely the chance of a bid due to these factors could be made I suppose. From what I understand apple have a bit of a reputation (as did microsoft in their early days) of buying companies specifically for their IP so things like this may happen from time to time. I think settlement is the more likely option as any bidding war for nano would quickly come to outweight a sttlement/award figure,and if samsung don't win any war they will be giving a company swollen with their cash to a business rival-quite embarassing,but if QD are potentially as big a market as has been previously mentioned anything is possible.
It's always going to be a possibility but given how illiquid the stock is it seems to be quite tightly held and in that case the holders are holding because they see the potential gains to be made. I think any takeover,hostile or otherwise,won't too cheaply done. Another possibility is that if it is Samsung buying through a proxy then they are maybe preparing for a large settlement or buyout and relying on a hefty share of the company in order to negate a portion of their outlay.
I think their legal guys have more than likely gone over recent events and given the thumbs up,if they had heard something others would have as well and piled in by now. The question I would like to be answered is whether the increase was part of LO's plan all along or an additional purchase on the strength of recent events. A 1% increase isn't much if it was budgeted in already but may be quite telling if it was over and above what they had originally planned. LO may have heard something or they may not but their actions are saying something loud and clear in my view. Swiss/private banks aren't known for rash gambles.
The nano submission looks a lot clearer and more concise than Samsung's. The forthrightness contrasts sharply with Samsung's overly wordy and needlessly complex presentation. The constructions for definition of emulsion and polymer reflect what could be seen in a textbook and the fact that nano is able to cite precedent regarding terms of degree not rendering a patent indefinite bodes well seeing as this formed part of Samsung's argument in their submission.
Admittedly nanoco's job is easier than Samsung's in that they are defending terms and processes for which they are deemed to have originated the language used and thus have an advantage,my feeling is why would Samsung attack an opponent's area of strength like this? That strategy is not how wars are won ask Sun Tzu or Von Clausewitz. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that Samsung have nothing else to offer. We all know that we aren't privy to much information here so there are many unknown unknowns but I'm pretty sure that if Samsung had anything up their sleeve we would at least have an inkling by now.
I'd be surprised by anything the court would agree constitutes an adequate reason which may be used to delay the case. A pandemic wasn't viewed as good enough to do so nor were any of the other previously submitted reasons. I assume all evidence discovery has been completed and now that the patents are in the process of being defined there can't be many,if any,legal boxes left to be ticked either so that is one less avenue of potential delay as well.
If Markman/IPR go in our favour,which I believe they will (if IPR doesn't a district court need not take any notice of it due to the differing standards of evidence required by courts and PTAB apparently so we may not have to worry too much there even if an IPR is granted) I think the only real question after that is whether we see pre-court settlement or post verdict damages (and I assume a brief challenge from Samsung over the size of said damages). Happy to hear alternative viewpoints though.
https://www.mckoolsmith.com/assets/htmldocuments/2021%2004%2029%20Hedonic%20Regression%20Shows%20Promise%20For%20Modeling%20IP%20Damages-Law360.pdf
An available link for the same article.
From an article from law360-the recent record breaking settlement between Intel and VLSI was calculated on a basis of the perceived proportion of a products value attributable to how much satisfaction/pleasure a consumer derives from a given characteristic of said product (The Hedonic Model).In VLSI/Intel cases the satisfaction gained from improved CPU performance and reduced power consumption. The legal team behind it believe that damages awarded were higher as it was easier to present various factors to the jury through tables/graphs and simple calculations as well as more accurately (their opinion) reflecting the contribution the infringed patents made to the product as a whole rather than when considered in isolation. If we consider this from a QD/display point and the impact improved picture quality has on how much a customer enjoys their TV/mobile phone screen and thus how much of the purchase price is attributable to this aspect of the products then we could do quite well. I can post the article if anyone would like to take a look (2000 words though).
?
His work on issue preclusion may be relevent to Samsung. Depending on their strategy they may be looking at forming a settlement which covers a global agreement and want to make it air tight with no chance of further legal challenge from Nanoco or they are so sure of victory that they are looking at the next step and protecting themselves from rechallenge/further litigation. From what we already know,and admittedly my own biases, I'm hoping this may be a tentative hint towards a one off global solution for Samsung being considered.
https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2018/06/whats-next-for-issue-preclusion-and-patent-invalid
The longer they wait then the more they'll pay ultimately.
https://mksupport.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/litigation/files/D/49/92/TexasWesternDistrictCourt_6-21-cv-00411_complaints.pdf (Filed on 26/4/21)
Samsung in trouble again for using virtually the same modus operandi in a different tech field (apps).The court submission states they (Samsung) knew the technology used,the fact it was patented and that they used each exact step of five allegedly infringed patents in their own version (Samsung Gallery) and did so knowingly.They are being pursued for wilfull infringement,lost profits et al.
The case is in West Texas and Samsung have built a $17bn factory near the town the court sits in.Reading through the submission it all sounds very familiar,it'll be interesting to see Samsungs' strategy approaching this case and how closely it mirrors the Nano case.If the Samsung response closely matches the one they gave to Nano it may indicate that they are essentially going through the legal motions rather than preparing to mount a spirited defence of their position.
The best part is where they say that it “...is our civic duty and responsibility to pay all taxes...”.Truly a paragon of moral virtue.
The settlement results of the recent Solas case may be worth watching as well as Samsung are seeking clarification as to the conversion of unpaid royalty fee to a lump sum payment as part of settlement.
If Samsung don't receive a judgement in their favour they state they plan to request a retrial as they believe the jury received incorrect instruction regarding damages calculation as well as wllfulness and infringement (https://www.law360.com/dockets/documents/60817c4712138c017c0440fa) as well as decisions regarding admission of certain pieces of evidence. A redacted copy of their submission is available at the above link,from what is available to see many of Samsung's points seem to be of a similar nature to those mentioned in their Markman presentation in that they seem to focus on lexicography more than anything else (one argument they make is the definition of a curve vs an edge as Samsung changed the shape of one aspect of a Solas patent and now believe it is totally different from the original patent),one point related to the application of willfulness Samsungs legal team made was that in their opinion it was never proven that Samsung "...had a specific intent to infringe at the time of the challenged conduct." which given Nano's presented email exchanges will be very difficult to argue with a straight face in our case.
They then go on to make points outlining several aspects of "the court" making incorrect and prejucicial errors in jury instruction regarding points of law as well as the actual verdict form that the jury was given in order to give their verdict.I imagine they are wangling for a High Court review as criticising Gilstrap and his court isn't going to endear them to him.
Couldn't link the article so apologies for the copy and paste.It looks like it is possible that even if an IPR verdict goes against Nano-the judge may still have grounds to ignore it if it wasn't reached in time.
Samsung also found by the judge to have lied under oath on several occasions.
Enhanced Damages Stay In $19.2M Samsung Patent Ruling
Law360, New York (April 27, 2017, 6:17 PM EDT) -- A Texas federal judge Thursday found a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling was not grounds to cancel an enhanced damages award against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in a patent suit brought by an intellectual property firm.
U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III did trim the award from $20.9 million to $19.2 million to reflect newly available sales figures, he found both that Imperium IP Holdings is entitled to ongoing royalties and that the patent board's rejection of one of the patents in suit came too late to allow reconsideration of the award.
"On August 24, 2016, the court issued its enhanced damages opinion and entered judgment against defendants, and the board issued its decision on December 1, 2016. Since the board's decision was not in existence at the time of the judgment, it is new evidence and cannot form a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(2)," Judge Mazzant said.
At issue in the case were U.S. Patent Numbers 6,271,884, 6,836,290 and 7,092,029, held by Imperium, which cover different aspects of taking a photo or image with an electronic device, court records show.
The jury invalidated one claim of the '290 patent as obvious during a February trial, but PTAB's December decision then invalidated the '029 patent, according to court records.
Following the trial, Judge Mazzant decided in August that Samsung's infringement had been intentional. He cited evidence that allegedly showed the mobile maker lied under oath several times.
In the latest ruling Judge Mazzant found even if the patent board ruling was not new evidence Samsung's conduct at trial justified the enhanced award.
In a separate ruling Judge Mazzant adjusted the approximately $7 million awarded by the jury to $6.4 million to reflect first quarter 2016 sales data produced by Samsung after the trial, reducing the total damages to $19.2 million.
In the same order he also said an ongoing royalty should be awarded.
"After reviewing defendants' sales regarding the accused products through the first quarter of 2016, the court is convinced that there is evidence of ongoing infringement," he said.
Counsel for Imperium declined comment. Counsel for Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Thursday.
Imperium is represented by Alan M. Fisch, William Sigler, John T. Battaglia, Jeffrey Saltman, Silvia Jordan, David M. Saunders, S. Desmond Jui and Sruli Yellin of Fisch Sigler LLP.
Samsung is represented by Jesse J. Jenner, Alexander E. Middleton, Courtney Marie Cox, Kevin J. Post, Matthew R. Shapiro, Rebecca R. Carrizosa, Samuel L. Brenner, Scott S. Taylor and Steven Pepe of Ropes & Gray LLP, John F. Bufe and Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton PC, and Clyde M. Siebman of Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith LLP.
The case is Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., case
When Jon-hee Han dismissed "no plan" regarding supply and demand for OLED panels is he saying that they have a plan in place to source components or that he was dismissing no plan,ie;many options were on the table,in order to get them? The former option sounds more likely (and potentially beneficial to us) than the latter in my view.
Hopefully something comes from it. I seem to remember someone found a recent Nano patent relating to improved dot performance and production methods of dot's in the blue/green range so you never know.
If anybody fancies some light weekend reading take a look at;
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB105907689084616400
And
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/business/roche-in-advanced-negotiations-to-acquire-igen.html
To make a long story short,Roche pharmaceuticals took a license on a niche technology with potentially massive applications (if you have had a hospital visit in the last 20 or so years you have had a test using the amino acid technology in question) and underpaid their royalties. Roche were taken to court and made to pay damages,although not mentioned in the articles I know from a previous colleague (a Roche drug rep) that the licensing fees were increased to Roche by such a degree that Roche ended up having to buy Igen in other to compete with Pfizer,Astra Zeneca et al. Initial Igen damages were bargained down on a technicality so the company took the decision to essentially force Roche to buy the IP outright in a subsidiary company formed for which Igen a accepted cash and share offer to distribute to it's long suffering shareholders.
Granted this was 2003 but the technology in question was in its infancy (underpaid royalties were less than $0.5bn-althoigh at least some were paid) and was regarded as having the potential to make huge strides in patient testing. Which it has.
Mr Tenner,if you're reading this I'm available for a chat anytime. I'll take beer in lieu of payment.
Nice to see the bid price slowly creeping up.
If Samsung are confident enough to drop a massive amount of cash then they are indeed confident in the future of the technology and their supply of it. Nobody becomes a business as large as the Samsung group just throwing that amount of cash about. This is just common sense.
To me this means that they either have the ability to make their own or have plans to use someone else's dot's. Samsung would patent their own version,who wouldn't? I haven't been able to find any Samsung patents. Samsung haven't presented any patents as part of their defence. If they could save some cash and do this they would.
Samsung are putting a lot of cash into a production facility for which they have no patented products/processes. This is a huge business risk. You don't get to grow to be Samsung taking risks that don't pay off.
If Nano get the nod from the Markman hearing then Samsung know the jig is up. An IPR may happen or may not but Samsung are a business,they know that if the IPR doesn't go their way they will spend a lot more on damages than a settlement. Rather than what Samsung will be happy to offer I believe the question is increasingly becoming what Nano will be happy to accept. The longer this process takes,the better. IPR presents an increasingly risky strategy for Samsung. You don't drop $10bn on a factory on a risky strategy.
Long story short,if Markman goes our way it's only a matter of time. The,redacted,transcripts were released a few days ago. The sp has risen after this fact. If it walks like a duck,quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...