Member Info for Intrusivethought

I expect it will be successfully opposed.

Will such ever apply to Chinese state-owned enterprises?.... the biggest IP thieves of all?

Good lord. Sigh.

Noted..... again. Thanks Oprah.

Honestly.... WTF?

Sorry, wrong.

Right. I'm out until after the trial. ATB people.

I must say that I am inclined towards your position Feeks. Having said that, in terms of my own investment, I view anything above the minimum that has been guided as a bonus.

Did Samsung infringe? Absolutely. Regardless of their working together etc, their QDs show signs of molecular clustering. The chemistry speaks for itself.

25% or thereabouts of gross profit is not unreasonable. And there is legal precedent for such damages being awarded to patent h9lder, even when licence arrangements conferring a much lower royalty with other entities already exist.
Nanoco have to make the case. But it is more possible than some may think.

I might be wrong, but I was sure that one of the seeding patents being litigated had a remaining life of 5 years or so?

True, the molecular seeding patents are the most critical. Fortunately, Nanoco possess more recent granted patents relating to improvements to the original molecular seeding invention that enable the mass production of CFQDs of superior quality. Furthermore, they hold patents with a longer remaining duration pertaining to QD surface chemistry, inks etc that are very relevant to QD-OLED/micro led colour conversion (are Samsung Display infringing upon these with their QD-OLED range of TVs? Possible?). And then there are the very recent patents pertaining to electroluminescent QDs/2D materials.

Yep.

lol.

Also Sammy, if determined that Nanoco's technology was the fundamental driver of consumer demand, the the reasonable royalty will be a % of the entire sale price of any infringing product rather than profit margin.

I can't diasgree with that Nig. I too am being cautious in my expectations but hopeful of a 'bonus' award.

It is a possibility. How likely such an outcome will be depends on the strength of the case Nanoco put forward. All speculation until an actual award is made.

Sammy, the jury can award a 'reasonable royalty' (rule of thumb 25%) in excess of what may or could have been agreed between the contesting parties previous to any infringement occurring. And there is legal precedent for this.

Can't rule it out Nig, I agree with you there.

Thanks, I know all of this. My point is that commercial production of our IRQDs is expected in 2023, so any potential iphone utilisation of the material will be for the iphone 15 at the earliest.