Member Info for Intrusivethought

Maybe. Hansol have made and continue to make a very tidy sum from the tech though, and all without any ownership of IP. I tend to believe that the (on the face of it) disappointing resolution of the Samsung litigation was more about comprehensively establishing the validity of the IP rather than quantum of damages.

Yep, market traction and the lack of, that's the risk.

That was always the plan Nanonano, had Samsung not screwed them over. Display licensed to third parties. Materials for electronics applications produced in house. Life sciences business spun-out.
Display was to be the first area of commercialisation and so initially the largest market. Electronics (more than IR sensing) has the the potential to dwarf display, eventually.

Yes NG, the filed patents are in relation to lead QDs.

Both pending.

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2596227A/en?inventor=Hao+Pang&num=25&oq=Hao+Pang

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2599111A/en?inventor=Hao+Pang&oq=Hao+Pang&page=4

Indeed. Are you aware of any patents filed by QS by any chance?

That's a fair analysis Nanonano. However, if the sensor products incorporate 2D materials, the relevant patents will have a much longer remaining life (12 yrs +).

The seeding patents are pertinent to at least one of the 2D patents. This may have been an important factor in the apparent urgency to resolve and estabilsh their validity vis-a-vis Samsung.

Yes, I do recall BT mentioning this.

Material B 2D based? Quite possible. Nanoco's 2D material patents are exceptional.

Yes, I agree. Just think it could have been made more clear.

Anyway, I'm probably being pedantic.

Are SD part of the settlement? Or is the settlemnt only pertaining to Samsung Elec/QLED?

It does not make sense to me.

Yes, on the basisthat they only manufactured the LCD panel for Sam Elec and had nothing to do with the Qds. It was Sam Elec that inserted the quantum dot film and branded as QLED.
With respect to QD-OLED, it is SD that produces the panels and incorpoates the Qds, hence they should have been reincluded in the litigation and the damages models updated accordingly. If no settlement, it would meant having to relitigate SD entirely separately.

In the Solas case Samsung Display was explicitly cited as a defendant. Why not in this case? And why were the damages models not updated to include QD-OLED panels? I still find it very odd.

Although there might be some crossover.

Nope.