Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Lombard Odier and Richard Griffiths were buying up until June and then they went private (restricted from trading) on the back of the loan deal they did. I would imagine they became privy to material non-public information at that time related to the litigation proceedings and therefore won't be able to trade going forward. I also suspect this is the reason that Lombard Odier then decided to join the board. It is effectively a private equity investment for them now... I took that as a sign of confidence as they don't have a way out!
Sorry BeingTheBanker, but you are way off. Unless we get a shift in scheduling, the PTAB will rule before the end of May 2022 and that means we are likely to see a one week trial in the fall of next year. Keep in mind that we were on the verge of trial and the process doesn't get restarted, the case was simply stayed...
We are 6-7 months out from when the fun really starts. In between now and then who knows what can happen - commercial contracts, settlement talks, nothing?
Good spot... I have been doing a lot more work but will wait a couple weeks (post results) to share my views - I am pondering a few different things at the moment.
Brandi Cossairt is an extremely impressive individual. Just compare her CV versus Mark Green and it tells you all you need to know. I also picked out that she previously served as an expert in other proceedings, so she will be well trained as a witness.
@Amerloque - Great point re 'the companies mentioned are so common that Gilstrap would never be able to preside over a case'. I think this is the point of the story - corporate plaintiffs do not like the EDTX or WDTX and they want to paint it as conflict ridden so the work gets spread to slower (more tech friendly) courts across the country.
Well said Ecclescake.
What would be said if he personally owned USD$ 10m of index funds which inadvertently gave him larger exposure to the names mentioned compared to the same single stock exposures in her trust... nothing.
Also, saying he had the most conflicts on an absolute basis is deceptive way to portray the data given he has proceeded over the most patent dispute cases over the past decade by a multiple. I would be more interested to see how those numbers look as a % of total cases and would be sure it would tell a different story.
Definitely a corporate hit job on a man of the highest integrity.
I think it is a complete joke and a smells of a personal attack. Corporates hate the EDTX and WDTX because of the swift path to justice it offers, not because it is plaintiff friendly. The latter is a complete myth.
On one hand the first half of the article goes on about supposed conflicts of interest. I am all for a conflict free justice system but let's put things in perspective as materiality must mean something. I highly doubt the that individual patent cases against Microsoft are really going to make a dent in his USD 50k position held via a trust. Then the second half is about patent trolls abusing the EDTX as a path to quick justice. But the whole thing doesn't make sense because he has ruled more cases in favour of defendants.
I am sure the author was very selective about some of the quotes and cases she picked out. I have only heard great things about Judge Gilstrap and his high levels of integrity as a judge and a person. The man is a local legend who spends his time singing church choir and making honey. I don't think he is too bothered about whether his Microsoft position goes up 0.3% on the back of a win against a patent troll.
The WSJ is better off spending more time about the conflict ridden state of congress where the likes of Nancy Pelosi and others are punting single stock options around.
Seems like Judge Gilstrap has a portfolio of US stocks, so we should be in the clear.
Very long one... https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rodney-gilstrap-sets-an-unwanted-record-most-cases-with-financial-conflicts-11632920541
Reads like a personal attack - I am sure the WSJ were handed a loaded gun by somone!
Judge Rodney Gilstrap Sets an Unwanted Record: Most Cases With Financial Conflicts
The patent-law expert took on 138 cases involving companies in which he or his spouse had a financial interest, a Wall Street Journal investigation found
By Joe Palazzolo, James V. Grimaldi and Coulter Jones
Sept. 29, 2021 9:02 am ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT
291 RESPONSES
No federal judge in America has heard more patent-infringement lawsuits in the past decade than Rodney Gilstrap, who presides over a small courthouse in Marshall, Texas.
He also holds another record: Judge Gilstrap has taken on 138 cases since 2011 that involved companies in which he or a family member had a financial interest, more than any other federal judge, a Wall Street Journal investigation shows.
The companies included Microsoft Corp. (53 cases), Walmart Inc. (36 cases), Target Corp. (25 cases) and International Business Machines Corp. (9 cases).
A 1974 federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from cases if they, their spouse or minor children hold a financial interest in a plaintiff or defendant, including the interest of a beneficiary in assets held by a trust.
The Journal investigation, which compared judges’ financial-disclosure forms against their court dockets, found that 131 federal judges violated this law from 2010 to 2018, in a total of 685 cases. Judge Gilstrap had several dozen more violations than the runner-up, Judge Janis Sammartino of California, who heard 54 cases involving companies held in her family’s trusts. She has since directed court clerks to inform the parties in most of the cases that she should have recused herself.
Judge Gilstrap, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, also disclosed one of the largest holdings in a conflicted company. He oversaw a patent-infringement case against a Walt Disney Co. unit while he or his wife reported holding between $100,001 and $250,000 of Disney stock. The plaintiff later withdrew its claim.
VIEW IN DEPTH
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: DAVE COLE/WSJ
RELATED LINKS
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
GRAPHIC: Federal Judges With Financial Conflicts
How the Journal Found Judges’ Violations of Law on Recusals
A Post-Watergate Law Some Judges Overlook
The 64-year-old Judge Gilstrap, one of America’s most prominent district judges, said he believed he didn’t need to recuse himself from some cases because they required little or no action on his part, and in other cases because the stocks were in a trust created for his wife without her stock-picking input. Legal-ethics experts disagree on both counts.
Judge Gilstrap declined interview requests. “I take my obligations related to potential conflicts/recusals seriously,” he said in one of seven emails to the Journal. “Throughout my judicial career, I have endeavored to comply with all such obligations, and I will continue to do so.”
Beyond violating law and ethics, t
This relates to the motion to seal the Corsair declaration ex 2030, Bawendi (Samsung's) expert rebuttal ex 2032, and the Bawendi deposition 2034.
The two sides have now agreed that the Corsair declaration and Bawendi deposition do not need to be sealed but that a redacted version of the Bawendi expert report should be filed or the document should be placed under seal. Samsung argue that 'good cause' exists for sealing ex 2032 because it contains confidential information on Samsung and Hansol Chemical. They mention that 'Specifically, Exhibit 2032 contains confidential technical information and details regarding the trade-secret recipes used by Hansol'.
The redacted version of Exhibit 2032 by Bawendi is filed as well, which is basically him outlining why Hansol's 'recipe' is different from Nanoco's. This is where it all goes completely over my head.
I think that is right, BeContrarian. I think the largest ever patent judgement handed out is just north of USD$ 2bn and here we are talking about investment in 10s of billions to produce next generation displays. No large corporate will get stopped in their tracks by this type of litigation. It isn't bet the company litigation for Samsung. Don't forget that many of the patents we are enforcing expire in the next few years so the tech is not existential for Samsung or others. I think one of the five patents has a longer shelf life then the others but would need to refresh.
Apologies - this was meant as a reply for the other thread.
Good find here. Having flicked through the relevant PTAB decision it appears that Nanosys was showing that the various claims are unpatentable based on prior art. In fact they also argue that combining various different writings would leave the patented claims obvious, so using very similar arguments to Samsung, keeping in mind Nanosys could be considered the alter ego of Samsung. Lastly, the three PTAB judges involved in the decision seemed to all have an educational background in materials engineering and/or chemistry. They could probably pull the wool over the eyes of many of us here but not those folks!
I would hope for the same result!
The question of where the share price could go if we have a successful litigation outcome and genuine commercial traction is a bit of a finger in the air exercise.
I am doing some additional work on damages but see no reason why we couldn't 3-5x (from today's levels) on a USD 250-500m judgement. It could very well end up being more. That will be the first real catalyst and then the 10-20x you speak of is about organic growth and how the market for QDs moves more broadly. That is probably more of a 2-3 year story though.
I would like to make a couple of points.
Lombard Odier will never 'take over' Nanoco. The Nanoco stock that Lombard Odier holds is in specific funds i.e.growth equity funds etc. They have built a large stake over time and clearly maintain a very close relationship to the company, but the funds that hold Nanoco are not 'private equity' funds and it is highly unlikely (if no impossible) that they can take a company private. I would assign the probability of this near to zero. They clearly have a much higher entry price then where we are currently trading and are committed investors, as seen by the loan facility that was privided.
What I think is more likely is that Lombard Odier wants a seat at the table when it comes to settlement discussions. Having been an investor for so long, they will want to monetise this position. Holding ca 25-27% of a company is not something Lombard Odier does in a public equity fund.
I think it is a very good sign. Maybe Lombard Odier do not want this to drag to trial and want to assess every settlement offer that comes through.
What it does tell you is that between the 'non-dilutive' financing instrument and the directorship, they will no longer be able to buy stock. I made reference to this recently. Richard Griffiths and Lombard Odier would have been privy to MNPI in completing a private financing. It is left for us to add more!
Sorry just trying to dumb it down, but yes, preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in a civil trial. In the end, large parts of the US civil system function with juries who analyse the evidence presented in order to determine whether the burden of proof has been met. In the end in a civil trial its about showing there is more than a 50% chance the claim is true and I guess in the inverse in a criminal trial one has to convince more than half of the jury that there is reasonable doubt to walk free or at least for a hung trial!