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.
Good commentary Feels.
A couple of points:
1. I don't see how it makes sense for Samsung to settle shortly after having lost at trial. It makes much more sense to settle pre-trial and get a better deal. Which is why I still think a pre-verdict settlement is very realistic.
2. I wonder if the relative lack of institutional interest is down to the inability to invest much capital, given the small market cap.
No time for a takeover now, the process requires a least a month and the company would hardly drop the lawsuit until it was completed.
The reason why Samsung never made an offer is that it would have completely undermined their argument in court that Nanoco's tech was unimportant. And with Lombard owning over 20% of the shares and close to the board, they probably wouldn't have got away with a price any less than a settlement valuation.
Good spot. Nothing new in it but good to see some coverage.
It's a shame no media outlet has looked more closely into the potential max damages. The $500m figure is from the expert witness in Oct 2021 and is based on sales up to that date.
If the Judge gives his verdict in Q2 2023 that's another 18 months of sales, which probably doubles the total sales given they are growing exponentially. Add on pre-judgment interest (probably adds another 20% to damages) and possible wilfulness multiplier of 1.5 and this clears the $1b mark easily.
Anyway, we all know this already and there's not much point complaining now, but it does demonstrate how superficial media coverage can be.
Sadly, Samsung can still get out of this now in a better position than they would have been in had they obtained licenses at the beginning of making QD TVs. If they get a high damages with wilfulness verdict, however, that probably won't be the case.
NGR, I think it's more common for settlements to occur on the eve of trial than during the trial. I still think there's a very good chance of a last minute settlement here, but if the trial gets going I won't be holding my breath.
Do we know approximately how many QD TVs Samsung have now sold? Looking back at the Edison notes, where they estimate $200-250m low end damages for US sales. However, they used that number in 2021 and haven't updated it since.
To be honest, NicetoMichu, I'm not worth anywhere near £600 but it all reflects the firm's service. Partners get charged out at over £1,000/hr but frankly that can be cheap when they give expert advice on matters worth billions to clients.
No offence NGR, but you couldn't afford our fees anyway. I get charged out at over £600/hr and I'm not even that senior. We don't typically represent individuals but when we do the in-joke is that we don't represent millionaires.
Anyway, this argument is silly because we're trying to identify the *one* reason why BT is going to Texas, when there are several reasons why he's going. But in terms of importance, his main objective will be to obtain a settlement. The fact he's there for 10 days suggests he'll arrive a couple of days before the trial for any negotiation, which may or may not be formal mediation. Ultimately, Nanoco don't want to go to trial and neither do Samsung. This is not the kind of case that goes to trial, where you have a clean sweep at PTAB and don't much to suggest there wasn't infringement. I imagine Judge Gilstrap would be pretty cheesed off if it does settle.