Member Info for Nanogeddon

But there is no reason to believe that this affects Nanoco.

Thanks Nano & Eccles.

Do we know if we have a relationship with Plessey?

Does this mean that they have missed the chance to appeal the PTAB?

BT did say that we will get an RNS when they know we are first in line.

I agree with BeContrarian.
Whilst the a Texas win will give an estimate for the damages award, the German injunction will enable Nanoco to bargain for an amount higher than the Texas damages award. I wonder if a low damages award in Texas would encourage Samsung to attempt to settle at that level prior to the injunction?

Surely the more TVs that sell, the better. Go John Lewis!

Looking ahead to our glorious victory in Germany, and assuming that the validity has not yet been established, the court would require a bond to compensate Samsung for loss of sales if it were to impose an injunction on Samsung's sales.

The quantum of such a bond initially seemed to me to be a prohibitive amount of money, since Samsung would be losing thousands of $ per unsold TV, compared with Nanoco's loss of tens of $ in royalties...

... But I understand that in Germany the strategy is to impose an injunction IN ORDER to bring the infringer to the table for negotiation. The expectation is not that Samsung would forfeit the thousands of $ over a long period but rather that they would negotiate and pay a royalty. Therefore the bond level does not have to be so prohibitive because it only needs to cover a short period of negotiation + the tens of $ in royalties that would need to be returned to Samsung in the event of Nanoco losing on validity.

With that in mind, does it sound likely that we would be able to afford/ be willing to impose an injunction in Q1 of 2024 when the German infringement trial is due to conclude?

Apologies if I have not made my argument very clear.

I value Sammy's input.

I’ve said this before. No one is interested in your childish accusations.

Is Ericsson vs Apple first in line for 5 December? I seem recall we had a trial in September that was reported on in the news but we were not first in line and we were kicked.

I must say that was a very polite response from NGR.

If Samsun is buying time to gain market share, perhaps the strategic time for them to settle is when they have a supply deal set up with most of the big players, eg Apply using Samsung display, together with Sony, Philips, etc?

Don't read too much into that... I wasn't being literal.

These really are for w***ers...
...but whatever makes me some money...

Surely if a valid patent has to describe the technology sufficiently well that a POSITA can produce the tech without needing to perform an undue amount experimentation then Samsung would have been able to infringe the patent anyway if they chose to do so.

The directors deserve their share of the spoils.

Gotta be thankful that Samsung is setting us up with a great distribution channel.

Very much looking forward to those royalties.

FDred, I don't see an argument for delaying due to Samsung's investments in the US.
1. Samsung are still going to sell products in the US.
2. They can't delay forever. If you had any argument at all about bias towards favouring Samsung, then the only way to act on that would be to bribe the jury or for the judge to reduce the damage multiplier. Not very realistic.
The German case is independent of the US case.

Thanks Intrusive. Just listening to BT now (approx 1 hour in to the Investor Meet Company presentation). He doesn't believe it is possible to manufacture CFQD at scale without using Nanoco's IP.