Member Info for JBongo

"IIRC their strategy was to admit infringing all of the patents but to have the patents thrown out"

BT was asked about this in the recent call. He stated that Samsung have categorically not admitted infringement. You can be sure that if/when the court case comes around that Samsung will have a hundred reasons why they didn't infringe the patents. It's up to our lawyers to convince the jury they did.

BT said there were three lines of defence for Samsung (I'm paraphrasing):
1. Say the patents aren't valid (PTAB)
2. If the patents are found to be valid, say it doesn't matter as they didn't infringe them anyway (court case).
3. If they are found to have infringed patent(s), say they didn't add much value to the TVs anyway, so they should only have to pay very small damages (Court case).

I would assume they'd be using the same molecular seeding process to manufacture the QDs, as it's the only way (currently at least) to manufacture QD on mass.

Samsung wanting to use the tech for scroll-out phones apparently

https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/04/samsung-display-has-its-eyes-on-a-new-project-making-quantum-dot-oled-displays-thin-enough-to-be-use.html

The relevant patent:

https://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220220113764%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20220113764&RS=DN/20220113764

It's a sure fire way to make a bit of extra money for Nano when we litigate in the UK Becontrarian ;)
Samsung will be buying me a nice new QD TV with the money we make from them (fingers crossed anyway)

I think Edison are deliberately being very conservative in their approach to their estimate. Basing it on just the value of the QDs in the TV.
I think the high end damages where our ip enabled the entire device and market are also unrealistic (sadly - i do enjoy dreaming as much as the next man) as Samsung could have used cadmium dots.

I think the reality, if we win, will be based on the middle ground - where the CFQD created a lot of value for Samsung and were a key part of the USP. My finger in the air prediction for the US is $2-8bn

My thoughts after hearing the presentatiin were similar to Nanogeddons.
I thought it was interesting that BT said they would look to put pressure on Samsung if they dragged their feet via appealing the court decision (assuming we win). He didn't mention litigation at that point (although he did later on when talking globally), so I wonder what other ways Samsung can be pressured? It seems unlikely we will get an injunction in the US, but maybe litigating against Samsung in the EU countries where he stated that an injunction is almost guaranteed, could be used to pressure Samsung in the US case.

Yes they have said they may go after others when the Samsung litigation is over.
I guess the next company wouldn't be able to stall via the PTAB route either, as the PTAB judges will have (hopefully) just verified that the patents are valid.

Roughly 10% for me

No chance the current managers will go for mining. You're better off looking for another trust if that's what you want.

Or the owner of the shares should get some financial reward for their shares being loaned out. I assume this fee currently just goes to your broker.

It has said that since mid 2021. Hopefully it actually is soon now though!

Yes, that email will definitely come up in the court case and I imagine will be very compelling to a jury.

I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions here Scharn. Truth is we really can't read that much into the FO leaving.

How would lawyers protect Nanoco against hyperinflation? Ask for the settlement to be multiplied by 100000000?

Inflation doesn't just slip into hyperinflation all of a sudden. The inflation in Germany was due to many factors, including debts taken to pay for WW1 and the war reparations they had to pay after they lost the war. Hardly any of the aspects that led to hyperinflation in Germany is relevant to the UK or US. The worst we'll get is high normal inflation.

It would appear I was a tad foolish for waiting until April payday until I added more. Always the way isn't it!

Worth a watch if you have time. "In discussion" with Tom Slater and Lawrence Burns. Always makes me feel better about my investment when I listen to them talk. As much as I like James Anderson, I think the fund is in safe hands.

https://youtu.be/-kok-qObfXs

As far as I'm aware, just a business/marketing decision from Samsung. Maybe they thought the regulations would come in sooner than they have or they just thought it would be a good marketing tool to have TVs without the heavy metal element.

They state on their website:
"Many previously developed quantum dot solutions were based on materials that involve cadmium, such as cadmium sulfide (CdS) or selenide (CdSe). Although these quantum dots share the same advantages as written above, they hold a deadly threat against the environment as toxic Cd2+ ions may be released through nanoparticle degradation.

Samsung’s quantum dots, however, are cadmium-free. They’re based on indium (In) instead. After much research and development, Samsung is currently the only company that produces cadmium-free quantum dot displays. Samsung started focusing on quantum dot technology in 2001, and has since registered over 150 patents on the subject."

Thr court case is about Samsung using our methods for creating large quantities of cad-free QDs and putting them in their TVs without paying us any royalties.

They're not really backing two different horses, just working on different projects with different companies. The QD mentioned in that link were not cadmium-free dots.

I believe ST Micro are working with Nano for Cad-free dots which customers (such as apple) will want in their products.