Member Info for Intrusivethought

A method producing dots exhibiting properties identical to Nanoco CFQD, I should say.

If Samsung have invented a method of producing high quality CFQD at scale, why haven't they patented it? No answer required.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210223005847/en/Solas-OLED-Files-Patent-Infringement-Lawsuit-Against-Samsung-in-Germany

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=60129

https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-develops-industry-leading-blue-qled-technology

Utilising Nanoco’s proprietary technology no doubt.

I completely agree JBongo.

Hmmm...... Nanosys make cadmium free yet Samsung used and continue to use (as far as we know) Nanoco technology. And is there a product currently in the market that is 100% Nanosys cadmium free?

Yes time will tell.

£101.70K buy?

Interesting.

https://evertiq.com/design/48889

Thanks Hawi.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t 14th September also the deadline for Samsung Display’s response?

I'm quite confident the patents are valid. It's worth noting that separate to the litigation partners' due diligence re the Samsung infringement case, the likes of Dow and Merck will have undertaken their own due diligence before entering into their respective licencing agreements.

And still the curious case of Samsung Display....

If the patents are not valid, ergo nothing has been infringed. It looks to be all about the validity of the patents.

Remember that Nanoco and the litigation partners have undertaken extensive due diligence, including independent expert analyses. They have also conducted a mock trial.
Samsung’s response is all part of the game. It’s highly like that settlement negotiations are also taking place in parallel and the counter claim is to some degree intended to strengthen their hand in this regard.

As it stands, if this goes to trial, on the balance of probabilities, I strongly believe that Samsung will be found guilty of wilful infringement.

Game on.

Scare tactics PPE. Trying to put the frighteners on Nanoco. If Samsung had any valid case they’d have done something about it a long time ago.

Game on. A counter claim of some form or other will have been expected.

Also, at what cost/price point is the Hyperion film being proffered? Is it being subsidised?

I agree ddubya. Just when nano were on the cusp of traction in display via AUO, Nanosys rapidly produced their hyperion film offering containing 100% cadmium free red dots, to which AUO abruptly switched. How did Nanosys produce/obtain these dots.

Will be interesting to see if the judge expedites a trial date.