Member Info for Mattyboy-

' a final determination by PTAB will be issued within 1 year (extendable for good cause by 6 months).'

Validation of any of our patents under review by the PTAB could well trigger settlement.

Anyone have a time frame for PTAB making a judgement?

I see this as a sharpening of the pencil,a simplified court case albeit the time line being pushed out is disappointing. Non-dilutive support.....I guess they'll be taking a bigger slice of litigation award. Their unstinting financial support for NANO gives me huge confidence.

Tantalising hints at production revenue......one day Rodders,one day......

Having read all the recent posts,I suspect that this stay was inevitable from a legal perspective.

As Tenner said, we have to win PTAB and in Texas.

There is no point in winning in Texas in October and then PTAB subsequently (potentially) pulling the rug from under us and then a retrial as a result.
The upside to all this is that Samsung have now banked everything on PTAB as they have rescinded the right to challenge patent legitimacy in the Texas court which as far as I am aware was their only defence.

Anyone have a timeframe for the PTAB's decision?

Lobo please keep scything through the legalese for us laymen please.

Maybe some form of settlement being discussed?

I haven't sold a single share.
My intention was to see the litigation to a resolution and that is exactly what I will do.

As we approach 'endgame' nervousness and doubt will enter the mind and I think we are seeing that reflected in the SP over the last couple of weeks. Let's hope Gilstrap throws out Samsungs' stay and then October will be on us before you can say molecular cluster compound.
NigeW got me in here(RIP) and I ain't bottling it now.

The effects of our AWS/Snowflake/Microsoft collaborations will not be apparent in the interims.
That is all to come further down the line.

Oh dear,that seems to have hit the mark.
.....iuvenes dum sumus.

Anyone who says ‘brought’ and not ‘bought’…..enough said. I’d guess a poor comprehensive education and an overactive imagination.
Gaudeamus igitur….

Within a couple of weeks…should be.

Welcome on board Shauny. Think you’ll do alright here. I’m looking to bag again within 12 months and a long term target of £20.

Assuming that the Texas court case proceeds before the PTAB ruling, what exactly will Samsung's defence be if the only way they have secured the IPR is by promising not to challenge patent legitimacy?
Patent legitimacy was their defence!

Thanks Lobo....that pretty much echoes what I was attempting to articulate earlier.

If Samsung’s Texas court defence is based solely on patent validity (as I am sure it is) then the fact that they have agreed not to use the PTAB initiation decision to invalidate the patents surely hands us a win?
Samsung are pinning all on PTAB it seems.

Too much coffee.....lobo please put my amateur musings right.

If Samsung were confident of their position then there would be none of these shenanigans.
I feel more assured that the Texas courts will find in our favour.
The way they have had to use legal precedent to initiate the IPRs also gives me confidence that at least some of the patents will be upheld.

So Samsung have managed to get the IPRs initiated on the premise that they won’t try and invalidate the patents in the Texas court.
Would PTAB board still have granted the review if they knew Samsung would then apply for a stay of proceedings immediately afterwards thus potentially pushing the trial date back past the PTAB IPR final decision and thereby making the initial PTAB review decision redundant??
Seems about as smart a move as Samsung were able to make under their circumstances.

I’m sure Judge Gilstrap/Payne will see thru how Samsung have manipulated the PTAB IPR decision.

‘Samsung has said if the IPRs are instituted, it won't try to invalidate the patents in district court based on the same grounds raised at the board or grounds that it reasonably could have raised, the PTAB said. "Considering that petitioner has agreed to be bound by a stipulation that is substantively the same as the stipulation addressed in [precedent], we follow the [precedent] in finding that this factor weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny," the decisions state. Overall, the board found these factors supported instituting the review. The PTAB then found that at least one ground of obviousness or anticipation in each of the IPRS â?? although not all were likely to be successful. ‘

Surely this vastly increases a chance of success for Nanoco at District Court level?
Looks to me like Samsung has got the IPRs initiated by assuring that they won’t use that fact in the Texas court.Seems like Samsung are putting all their faith in the final PTAB ruling and effectively accepting they will lose in the Texas court?

Sorted.

As gloomy as ever BTB.....your posts keep us optimists firmly planted and are always welcome.
(I did like the ‘many multiples’ bit.)