Member Info for PJT12

I don't feel that strongly about awards but anything that reflects a person's lifetime of study, hardwork, discovery and achievement deserves as much respect as recognition, imo.

Might be useful to define "label expansion" for thosewho don't know:
"Typically, when FDA approves an expansion of the indication for a drug, it means that additional clinical data have shown the drug can safely and effectively treat patient populations other than those for which it was originally intended."

"Well like all prizes Nobel's are a bit silly. "
Churlish and offensive?

Bottom line in simple terms: The CRL from the FDA listed the issues they needed to address. They would not have resubmitted unless confident they had overcome them all.

I do think the CEO is trying to set a neutral tone in today's RNS in order to avoid over-stating their confidence and looking foolish if unsuccessful with this latest FDA application, something that WOULD amount to incompetence if it happened a second time, imo. It is not just the FDA who should be working to a "high bar". This bit caught my eye too: "We, and our suppliers and providers, continue to interact with the FDA as they review our NDA and we move through the process toward our goal action date of 30 September 2022." I suspect some of those suppliers might have changed since the CRL, hence the ongoing questions which are only to be expected. That said, onwards and upwards. GLA.

The only thing that will get us a good settlement is the strength of our case. Samsung are perfectly capable of assessing that and it is sometimes better to leave your enemy in doubt as to what your next move will be. The reason the German move was so good was because it was totally unexpected. We need "actions" such as that rather than "words" which, imo, come across as just that.

To quote The Art Of War, and this strikes me as something that some of our politicians would also do well to learn: "“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

Did the judge set the length of the trial and how much / what can we read into the relative shortness of it?
Put another way, I'm wondering if the judge is expecting proceedings to cut to the chase (the level of willful infringement) fairly early on. Or is that just my wishful thinking?

Do we have any idea whatsoever who the funder might be?

Cheers for the article. Surprised the did not mention the previous resounding Nanoco victory over Samsung as we headed towards this case.

Fair point :)

Gotta say that this is one of the best BBs I've seen on LSE to date, if not the best. Thx again to those who've made it so.

......make that "patent infringements" where Samsung is concerned.

Apple also has a factory in Austin, Texas. That's another company name that could subconsciously influence the jury's minds when talk of Samsung and questionable patents is raised, so there's some balance. Personally, I don't see the US/UK relationship influencing them.

................and just for good measure:

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=samsung+cadmium+free+quantum+dots

I'd imagine that many of our more knowledgeable posters on here will already be familiar with the following site but it may also be useful to some who are not familiar with it. It gives the basics but also details continuation updates for each Nanoco patent:

https://patents.justia.com/assignee/nanoco-technologies-ltd#:~:text=Patents%20Assigned%20to%20Nanoco%20Technologies%20Ltd.%20Preparation%20of,cluster%20compound%20to%20the%20material%20of%20the%20nanoparticles.

Call me pedantic, Sammy, but shouldn't that be "gamblers love a gamble". Investors look longer term.

17 Feb 2020 saw the first RNS notifying us of this litigation. For those who have not done so already it is definitely worth starting at that point and reading all the subsequent news that outlines the path that has brought us to this point. The Nanoco board, from what I can see, has placed the company in the enviable position of being able to punch well above its weight through its funding deal, the clout of their legal representatives and the appointment of the respective experts, all through some very savvy decision making. Samsung is ordinarily able to bully smaller companies in order to ride rough-shod over them but that is definitely not the case here, as we have seen to date. That RNS history demonstrates to me why that is and how we could not wish to have a more thorough, patient and professionally ruthless team fighting our corner, whatever the outcome. With all I have seen and heard to date in mind, I definitely know which corner I'd rather be in come Sept 12, whatever the outcome.

If it wasn't for that 1972 failed 11+ I too could've probably gone on to contribute more to the conversations currently taking place on here :)

This is possibly a questionable thing to say and its obviously overly simplistic on my part but here goes......
We can analyse the likely outcome and nuances of this case until the cows come home but our chances of spotting something that our funder and the Mintz Lawyers haven't through pouring over it with their fine tooth combs is miniscule, otherwise they would not be willing to take the risk they are based upon their due diligence. Whilst fascinating through providing educational insight, isn't the bottom line that we will always be ultimately gambling on our lawyers against theirs, a jury that will be able to grasp the technicalities within a tight timeline and, ultimately, a case that could go either way?

SteakandAle, please do continue to post as your input on here is invaluable, imo. Perhaps not to the extent of it being tiring though.

Amerloque, great point! Guys, sincere thanks for the responses, especially those from the evidently knowledgeable here who've clearly put in a lot of time and effort 'delving' in order to understand the complexities of this case. Your time and willingness to share is greatly appreciated.