Member Info for Mattyboy-

Superb news….now keep those supply agreements rolling in.

Seems this board has descended into some kind of self-help confessional....and I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Worst board on LSE by a long stretch.

So two of Samsung's expert witnesses have provided testimony which supports our molecular cluster compound definition and dispels the very defence that Samsung are arguing ie. Banin.

''PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE CHALLENGED
CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
A. Ground 1: No Claims Are Anticipated by Banin
All challenged claims of the ’365 patent require a MCC. The evidence
establishes that Petitioner’s primary reference, Banin, does not disclose a MCC at
least because the gold clusters that Petitioner identifies do not have a sufficiently
well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound
possess the same relative molecular formula as required by the agreed-to definition
of “molecular cluster compound.” Instead, Banin’s gold particles exist in a range of
REDACTED VERSION
Case No. IPR2021-00186
U.S. Patent No. 8,524,365
26
different sizes, and the different sizes are averaged out, and then using the average
size of the particles, it is estimated that the average number of gold atoms for the
particles is approximately 101. Ex. 2030 ¶¶105-108. In its Decision, the Board
agreed that this “argument has some appeal” and further agreed that the reference
“discloses an average empirical formula based on an assumed 101 gold atom core.”
Paper 17, 20-21 (citations removed). However, the Board requested information on
“how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have interpreted that disclosure.” Below,
Patent Owner provides expert testimony demonstrating that Banin’s gold particles
exist in a wide dispersity of sizes. Patent Owner also provides expert testimony—
from its witness and two of Petitioner’s own witnesses—proving that a POSITA(person having ordinary skill in the art)
would not have considered particles with a size dispersity like Banin’s to satisfy the
MCC claim limitation. ''

'Petitioner’s Ground 5 relies on Zaban as a primary reference in combination
with Farneth and Yu. As the Board correctly noted, “Petitioner does not show
sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have replaced the zinc acetate in
Zaban’s process with the Cd10S6Ph12 or Zn10S6Ph12 clusters disclosed Farneth. …
Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
at trial with respect to any challenged claim based on this ground.” Paper 17, 26.
And Yu, has little to do with either Farneth or Zaban as it does not even disclose
semiconductor particles at all. See Section VII.B infra.
REDACTED VERSION
Case No. IPR2021-00186
U.S. Patent No. 8,524,365
3
The Petition’s Grounds 6 and 7 are weaker still. These Grounds combine
Lucey with Ahrenkiel. As the Board noted “those disparate methods involve
markedly different experimental conditions, reactants, and synthetic goals. … this
ground appears to us to be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, rather
than any suggestion, identified adequately by Petitioner, in the asserted prior art
references.” Paper 17, 26-27.
Because Petitioner’s grounds fail to disclose critical claim elements, and there
is no reason to combine the cited references, Petitioner has not proven that any
challenged claims of the ’365 patent are invalid. '

Hard work to read in its' entirety and I haven't but what I did manage to digest before my brain gave up looked very positive towards a decision in our favour.

They were not my words blubutton,I merely copy and pasted them.Ask nuri whose words they were.

Today is not ex divi, it is divi payment day.SP action utterly unrelated.But of course you know that.
You have no holding here.

‘Valued at peanuts now. £1.4 billion and it has half that in cash alone.... so many parts to this company worth that by themselves....’

Recognise this nuri? You should do.

You're so wrong. And you're short.

I have my divi paid on both my AJBell accounts today.

nuri you are a joke.
Stick to the massive value trap that is Capita.....lmao.

Whatever

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/trial-to-test-if-cannabis-based-mouth-spray-can-treat-brain-tumours/ar-AAMS2ON

Shouldn't have bothered coming back if that's the quality you are going to post.

Clearly it’s Clemoc.

Don't be messing with Colleen Sullivan.....talk about beefing up the board.

…..is dogsh*t.

….the recent results were for a period of global lockdown.

Of course revenues dipped.

The world is reopening and our revenues will rise back accordingly.Demand for our products will rise post-pandemic and we have the AWS revenues to look forward to.

Buy.

Patience is the key.
Sold BMN at 3p(at a decent profit) which went on to 48p in short time.

They’re all crawling out today.