Member Info for JBongo

Morbox, exhibit V and Z are not redacted and are both about the sales, so possible that the redacted ones are about that as well.

I still wonder if the sales process was all just part of the litigation plan. I'm not entirely sure how, but it wouldn't surprise me if nano use it in the case somehow.

MC, BT didn't actually say the
"Placing the fate of his company in the hands of a jury gathered from the small Texan town of Marshall is risky."

Bit. That was just the paper building up his actual quote:

“You could end up holding your head in your hands even if you win,” he said

Which could be taken from anywhere and could have been taken out of context.

You can read that without being a subscriber.
Poor article anyway. I highly doubt Nano will be saying: "jury members, please don't consider giving us a penny more than $500m. We don't want to be greedy now"

Yes I'll sell you my shares for £1 each now. Then buy them all straight back on the market for 42p. How are you paying ;)

Yes, my guess is that the funder wanted to see the first few hurdles of the court case/ptab overcome before they committed to the next litigation.

They may have even been badgering nano to start the next litigation, knowing that there was a possibility than nano might make enough from the US case to fund their own litigation in other countries.

Becontrarian. The only trouble with a share buyback if we get a big award is that the share price will presumably shoot up to meet the value of the company with the new award (minus any risk from appeals etc). That means the company would be paying an inflated cost to buy back the shares.

Pah. Website blocked. It was a list of supposed rampers for Nano anyway (on pumped or dumped website)

No.1 ramper was Nitwit

You need to click on the 'share chat' tab for Nigwits old comments.

This made me laugh, given Nigwittys hate of rampers... http://******************/rampchecker/rampcheckbytidm.php?search=NANO

You're officially no 1 Nigwit!

Great news about the Germany litigation. Hopefully they will find Samsung SCHULDIG.

It did make me laugh regarding the oneplus phone injunction, when I looked it up on google, the first thing that came up was oneplus' tagline for their new phone: "Never Settle"... https://www.oneplus.com/de/oneplus-3
Maybe a subtle hint to their accuser?

I expect Samsungs defence will be about as robust as its PTAB application...

Koss did make an SEC filing though, stating:

In connection with its ongoing intellectual property enforcement program, which includes lawsuits alleging infringement of patents relating to its wireless audio technology, Koss Corporation (the “Company”) has granted licenses covering certain Company patents and expects to realize approximately $10 to $14 million in net proceeds, after fees and expenses, in the current fiscal quarter.

Screenlearner.
I thought S had already appealed (or had started the process of) the ptab result)?

I know BT stated a while ago that the backers had already agreed to fund any appeals though.

When I last checked the stock levels on Amazon on 7th Aug, they had
28 weight check kits
27 intolerance kits
20 vitamin kits
20 heart health kits

I've just checked again and the stock levels are exactly the same. Suggesting 0 sales in 2 weeks (or a big coincidence). Bit worrying.

The article seems an unnecessary hatchet job on BG and James. Guessing someone at bloomberg fell out with James at some point... It's easy to use/make up quotes from 'employees/acquaintances who can't be named and who may or may not have their own grudges'. Give me a break.

Loadsoflolly:
"The proportion of unquoted holdings is also a potential issue. Look what happened to Neil Woodford's funds when he strayed away from bread & butter income shares into unquoteds. But the difference is SMT's management does at least have some experience & track record) in investing early (often pre-IPO)"

Another, very important difference is that this is a closed ended fund, where NW's was open ended (and supposed to be investing in income stocks). 0% chance the same will happen to SMT.

Indeed. There is one definite set of winners in litigation!
I read one of the affidavits of one of the expert witnesses the other day and it said she was "charging her usual hourly rate of $700". Must be nice work if you can get it!

Because Samsung requested it and Nano decided not to contest. Probably as that was the easiest way to get rid of that claim

Intrusive, I'm pretty sure they're just limiting the amount of things they have to talk about in the trial. They only have a week for the trial after all. The RNS states there are 4x the number of green dots (as they are smaller.)

It seems a shame to have to drop things from the case, but I trust the decision makers that it shouldn't hurt our chances

Indeed troublesome. Somewhere even quantum dots can't shine...

Interesting video of a look round the Nanosys QD labs that I found on Youtube. The guy talks about the manufacturing process requiring heat, so I guess they're using (or wanting to make it look like they're using) the hot injection method.

https://youtu.be/ZFXit3K7rkI

Why would Nano include statements by Samsung that they disagree with in their proposed instructions?