Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Robbadob I expect the tender will be accepted. The institutions who vote have already said as much. Most private investors don't bother to vote. In any case I think plenty will vote in favour.
Given the current low share price I think tender and cancelling the shares is sensible.
If (and it's a big if) the company go on and become commercially successful, the buyback will have benefited us all
Https://youtu.be/eONWY3kbZc0?si=4q1E14xodTeDUJMf
Quantum dot electro emissive display, prototype generated by sharp. Dots provided by nanosys apparently
ST are going to push swir tech as much as they can
https://st-videos.s3.amazonaws.com/SWIR-sensor-based-on-quantum-film.mp4
Thanks to Activmojo who posted on afvfn
Article by J Streckel (of St micro) looking at micro led qds etc
https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1422
No. But they kept adding work packages every 6 months and the last one was for one year. It is true that they don't need to update but they means they have stopped working for st, pending a production order, unless they announce further work packages
An Apple patent reveals a new approach to implementing Face, Touch and Iris ID sensors under future device displays & more
Possibly not til 2025
https://www.patentlyapple.com/2023/03/an-apple-patent-reveals-a-new-approach-to-implementing-face-touch-and-iris-id-sensors-under-future-device-displays-more.html
The German case would rule after the US case but before the US appeal. I believe BT had started German courts don't issue damages. They issue an injunction. Do we still Samsung selling tvs and that forces them to reach a financial settlement. The point being as part of any agreement reached with nanoco they would have to drop their US appeal. That's why they have timed the trials this way.
Separately in the q&a BT said that invalidation on grounds of sufficiency were not a material risk, sounded to me he dismissed it as strongly as he could
Just for clarity. Docket 213 Report of mediation
"The above-captioned case was mediatedby David Folsom on Wednesday, July 27, 2022, between Plaintiff, Nanoco Technologies Ltd., and Defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.The mediation session has been suspended. The undersigned mediator will continue to work with the parties in an effort to settle.Signed this 28thday of July2022"
I don't see how Samsung can run any cogent invalidity arguments given the ptab result. Docket 86 which was their motion to stay the trial stated
"Even in the extremely unlikely case that none of Samsung’s IPRs ultimately result in the cancellation of any asserted claims, this case will still be simplified because Samsung will be stopped from re-arguing invalidity to the jury based on grounds raised, or that could reasonably have been raised,at the PTAB."
Further
"Samsung has also stipulated to Nanoco’s counsel that it will not pursue invalidity challenges in this court based on the specific grounds that were raised in any instituted IPRs or on any other grounds that could have been reasonably raised in these IPRs, placing those anticipation and obviousness grounds squarely before the USPTO."
Can't even try to bamboozle the jury
I agree steakandale. I wonder when he will rule on the claim construction? That seems to be Samsungs main defence. I would be staggered if he rules in s favour.
It's been 2 weeks since nanocos last and final reply, so hopefully rules soon