Member Info for SmithyB

Https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00532/nanoco-technologies-ltd-v-massachusetts-institute-of-technology

Yeah Bawendi was one of the listed inventors on the patent that ptab ruled unpatentable. would need the poster to come back and tell us in plain english how this threads through to nanosys

https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-00532/doc/summary/2

Nano beats an MIT owned patent at PTAB in 2016 here - if anyone feels like using their company email address

https://www.law360.com/articles/814387/ptab-nixes-claims-in-mit-owned-quantum-dot-patent

Doubt Shoei had any choice but to instigate once LG had settled and others (Apple) in the supply chain expressed concern. Well, actually they could have taken a license as soon as LG folded but infringers never do.

They really should RNS on monday.

Counterclaim

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61367121/Shoei_Chemical_Inc%2C_et_al_v_Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd

Looks she didn't get all the time she asked for, 9/1/26 deadline for the answer. This looks like it will zip compared to Texas. Only reason i can see for no rns confirming that after taking advice from counsel they didn't go with counsel but went with someone familiar with the apple supply chain and will be contesting the declaratory judgement - is they will be counter claiming infringement by shoei.

Anyway a working xmas for our lawyer and some nano staff.

I see we have asked for an extension too - looks like they will contest. RNS surely.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61367121/Shoei_Chemical_Inc_et_al_v_Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd

Good spot. At least we CAN say xdr is LG. A lot at stake for shoei if these too are to have qds next year.

Buzz you have a very similar style to someone else who is bleak when they have traded out. As you will have scrolled down Ross Young's post and will have seen him asked who supplied the dots and have seen him answer nanosys/shoei reading your posts becomes a waste of time because of your dishonesty.

I have shown you Young saying that apple's dots came from shoei. You cannot even re- read the last few posts.

Learn to read. No one should have the patience to reiterate.

Mr Young says shoei provides the dots for the lcd that the mac pro uses. Another poster on this board suggested LG as the lcd manuf. The questioning in the shoei complaint seems to support this.

https://x.com/DSCCRoss/status/1857208745014776215

Other than samsung no one had made sufficient revenue from infringing nano to make it worthwhile. Mac pro changes this.

Nothing is certain and nano should roll over if they are not above 90% certain, they can hang it on heat injection method if they want to. What i don

't agree with is the idea that somehow nanoco are only discovering now after knowing nanosys for about 15 years, that nanosys claim to use a different synthesis method.

My ten minutes with ai on low levels of cad in cfqd been interesting to me. I suggested nanosys in anticipating a patent challenge from nanoco might be making cfqd with a core of say inp and then adding a trace of cadmium at something like 40ppm just so as to say we are not completely cad-free. Ai put the probability at 60% if it had considered nanoco. That would mean it had already been declared to apple and that if nano decided to go forward defensively it should get to material lab tests early in discovery to ascertain any traces of cadmium. At that point probably best to go home with patents intact and lowish legal costs than argue that the main operating part of the qd structure is cad free. Then again have they already done a breakdown of a mac pro and found no trace.

Broken record i know but apple have an environmental commitment to no more than 50ppm cadmium in all parts of its products (20ppm in battery cells).

According to ai 100ppm cad dots would be pretty rubbish

Short answer: The EU RoHS 100 ppm cadmium limit is not meaningless—it would effectively prohibit traditional cadmium-based quantum dots (CdSe QDs), because their performance depends on having cadmium as the core material at concentrations far above 100 ppm. That’s why exemptions exist: without them, Cd-based QDs cannot be manufactured at useful quality or efficiency levels

If shoei admit in court that there is cadmium in all dots supplied to lg, then lg will have to find another qd supplier for apple.

Apple are cad free. In your scenario the traces of cad are so low apple can sleep easily. So apple are lying or their supplier is lying to apple. this is problematic.

This is about apple, not much point in reading what you wrote