The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
A number of the dockets have been released from the paywall including 204 which is Samsungs reply to nanocos response. I assume nanocos further reply (docket 212) would be released from paywall in a week.
I think it's worth a read, notwithstanding our lack of expertise
It must be for the judge. Even then I believe he can dismiss it, so find in favour of nanoco or can allow it which would surely not then use Samsungs definition, but would need in effect a new Markman type hearing
I've been looking at docket 173 which is nanocos reply to Samsungs motion to reconsider the claim construction. It's now fully available unlike the later responses. Nanocos lawyers are using quite strong language asking the court not to be fooled, and expressly accusing Samsung of missing bits of quotes to mislead.
Is a good read and I can't see the court ruling for Samsung
If you follow the link for Bradley Caldwell posted by Hawi, in his bio it mentions a case involving smartflash llc and winning 532mill from Apple
Unfortunately it doesn't mention the case was subsequently thrown out on appeal and the patents regarded as invalid. I think we are on firmer ground with the patents being validated at ptab, but it shows again the reason Samsung carry on is that the court system is generally favouring big tech
My understanding is that at the ipr they accepted the markman court definitions. Are they trying to say they (nanoco) used a different definition to get through the ptab process and then want the original definition in the Texas court. The ipr records do not support that
Their whole game is to try to get the banin reference back in. Assuming the judge knocks it back again then i think they (samsung) are stuffed
I think it's because Samsung would pay Dow and Nanoco then get a cut of that. I think Edison used 20% to Dow and then 10 % of that to Nanoco,. So as you say 2%
I think that was when they expected maybe nearly all lcd tvs would get qdots.
I don't think they realised samsung would price the tvs against the oleds whilst making massive profits
Anyway dow are not involved so Nanoco should get the full amount
I can't find the full order that hawi posted but the basic order is
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038
Yes. To me that looked like further news there soon.
Hopefully find stay on court case lifted next few days/weeks
I think funding amount will be announced tomorrow. Looking at the broker applications (no more than 5%) could the total raise be close to £6mil?
Alan00
In todays trading update there is this very brief mention:
The Board will now press for, and is hopeful of achieving, a lifting of the stay in the case in the very near term. This is expected to lead to a rescheduled trial in Q4 CY22 where the jury will consider the questions of infringement, wilfulness and damages, with the PTAB having settled the issue of validity.
I've been listening to the interim results again
https://youtu.be/BDWwHZFFWFY
At about 22.30 BT says how after a successful IPR and potentially before the court case they might start to reach out to potential customers of Samsung informing them of our ip and the infringing court case allto put dinner pressure on S
I suppose it was inevitable, not least because they will want the stay on the court case to be maintained and if they did not appeal what reason could they give.
I don't really understand how it's so easy to appeal the ptab process. Just say they did not consider it properly and that's it?
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Sony-s-Bravia-A95K-QD-OLED-TV-takes-on-the-Samsung-S95B-in-a-new-hands-on-video.622259.0.html
Sony are releasing a qd oled tv. The panel is made by Samsung. Not sure Sony would be too happy if down the line their tvs get pulled from sale
In the litigation RNS it states
The Board and its advisers are reviewing the detailed ruling by the PTAB with respect to all of the claims and patents. While Samsung can be expected to appeal the final PTAB decisions, the Company believes it is likely that the stay on the court process will now be lifted at the hearing scheduled for 2 June 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas. If the stay is lifted, pre-trial motions will then be considered by the judge and the Company expects a revised trial date to be scheduled for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2022.
I've been looking back at the original submission for a trial. I have wondered that despite the clear evidence of Samsungs and nanocos relationship, how do you actually printer that Samsung uses nanocos process?
In the trial submission, which essentially repeats the same claim five times once for each patent it states:
" 50. Nanoco has made a reasonable effort to determine the process used by Defendants to produce, at least, QLED TVs containing Quantum Dots. Exhibit 7 demonstrates a substantial likelihood that, at least, Defendants’ QLED TVs were made using Nanoco’s patented process. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, at least, Defendants’ QLED TVs should be presumed to have been so made, and the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on Defendants, to the extent they assert that it was not so made."
So that looks like Samsung had to show they do not use the process?
There whole document is worth a read
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00038/195566/1