Member Info for JBongo

I guess the Backer would have put that money up if applicable. Would be a real test of how confident they are!

Any idea when we'll hear more about the German litigation? I'm sure it was said that they could grant injunctions quickly - in a month or so in some cases.

Just done a stock check on Amazon and they still have
28 weight check kits
27 intolerance kits
20 vitamin kits
20 heart health kits
And no reviews. So looking like 0 sales for Amazon in a little over a month. Not great. We can only hope they've been selling on their website....

Hopefully the Covid kits are still selling well and we get an announcement around the results time that boots or Lloyd's will stock the wellness kits.

Very true troublesome. It's easy to say that in hindsight! I am grateful that I was aware of Nano in the first place. Not entirely sure how I became aware of it... divine intervention maybe.

I had a little top up this morning at 51p (sadly not the £225k buy that went through). I'll say it will be my last top up, but it probably won't :D still kicking myself for not buying more at around 10p when I was considering it.

Saw this mentioned on ADVFN. Job at ST micro for a QD production engineer. Wonder if that means our relationship is about to move to the next level?
https://stcareers.talent-soft.com/Pages/Offre/detailoffre.aspx?idOffre=20787&idOrigine=502&LCID=2057

Although one of Trumps court cases is cited in that docket that morbox posted. So he is relevant in some way to our trial!

Very interesting Morbox. It's like blankety blank - impossible edition :p

Think that's the first we've seen that pretty much confirms that Samsung made an offer for Nano.

My guess is that we never really wanted to sell the company, we just wanted Samsung to put a value on the technology/relevant patents so that we could use it in the upcoming litigation as a base which Samsung wouldn't be able to argue below.

Well we (read, our legal team Mintz) requested a jury trial. They could have just gone with a judge trial. They clearly believe that a jury gives us our best chance of victory and then higher damages.

I might create a new ****tail to commemorate the occasion... an East Texas Iced Tea... or a Bloody Samsung... maybe even a Piñanocolada.

Regarding what Steak & ale has mentioned, I found the example of Juno/Sloane v Kite. Ptab upheld all claims in the sloane patent. Juno/sloane were awarded 1.2 billion by the district Court in california.

The appeal court then reversed the award. Stating:

"Substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict in Juno's favor on the issue of written description. For the claimed functional scFv genus, the '190 patent does not disclose representative species or common structural features to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to distinguish between scFvs that achieve the claimed function and those that do not. Accordingly, we reverse."

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2017/01/ptab-upholds-sloan-ketterings-cancer-immunotherapy-patent-iptab-litigation-blogi

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=14518050060626900226&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Hope this isn't too stalky, but I think this is lobo87's seeking alpha page. He has the same username and talks confidently of litigation. Seems he may have just moved on from nano.

https://seekingalpha.com/user/51561091/comments

"The litigation funders cut is a cost we could do without"

Ah, but conversely, we couldn't have done without their funding. Let's not get too greedy, they deserve a payout from this for taking the risk.

Interestingly you can also spell it Hybris.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-11176373/UK-tech-firm-Nanoco-steps-fight-Samsung.html

Different link to the same article

UK tech firm Nanoco steps up its fight with Samsung https://mol.im/a/11176373 via https://dailym.ai/android

Says we're looking at UK and China litigation next

Agree Screenlearner, unless including the low model is some kind of psychological trick. Similar to how apple use the decoy effect when pricing their phones. I'm no psychologist, but maybe including a low model would make the jury more likely to plump for the 'middle option' as a compromise in their mind (when in reality it is a very large amount)

Yes I wouldn't turn my nose up at $500m.
I'm not sure why Weinstein in that same document is quoting the Allenby survey, which seems to have come to a much lower ~$130m estimate. Bit confusing that he has two damages estimates. Unless I'm missing something.

I seem to remember Edison or BT talking about the middle model being $1000 per set (as that is the difference between the QD and non QD models) and the higher model being $2000 per set as the QDs wholly enabled the TVs. Both of these are a massive step up from the ~$50 per set that Weinstein is suggesting.

Do we think that the three damages experts will be explaining one each of the damage models to the jury? I.e. one arguing for the low damage model, one for the medium uplift and one for the large, wholly enabling award.

The experts opinion that was in the heavily redacted post on docketbird a couple of weeks back seems to be arguing for ~$500m damages. I would hope and imagine the other experts would be aiming higher than that.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/Exhibit-1/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00150-002

Mo money mo problems amoloque!