Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Regarding the settlement versus court case. For what it’s worth it is my experience that major organisations only consider these decisions at board meetings close to the time when decisions are needed. There are usually so many other things important to discuss, and this is something that will surely be put in front of the main board when a slot in a board meeting presents itself. Although big for us PIs and huge for Nanoco, this decision probably doesn’t rank too highly for Samsung. I would also offer my opinion that If their lawyers, perhaps to save face who knows, recommend that there is even a slightest chance of winning, then they will go to court. It seems second nature to these guys. And by wrote they will appeal everything.
It will only be if perhaps a senior business leader sees a business opportunity in settling and takes that proposal to the board that this will go the other way I would say.
Reputational damage I think is minimal here for Samsung. TVs catching fire, mistreatment of employees, gross misconduct of a board member, flouting export control laws etc all weigh far more heavily than an IP battle that consumers have little interest in. Perhaps if it were taken up by a UK government department and the media involved in that perhaps, but personally I doubt it. Who knows, but personally I expect to see this in court in the autumn and if we are lucky in the case then straight to appeal. All the while however the Share price will be rising, each time a hurdle is overcome. So the commercialisation of products is critical to keep the cash flowing.
Hope I’m wrong and there’s an imminent windfall.
Just opinion, no hard facts to go on. I also repeat the earlier poster who wishes Lobo all the best and hope he/she could pop in at some point and lend their opinion on matters.
Thanks for the responses-
BeContrarian- do you think it’s possible they can introduce evidence from this point or is it all locked?
Basscadet- I wonder if the burden of proof is therefore on is to prove the MCCs are present and that they cannot be found by any other means?
Thanks to all for exploring this argument. Tomorrow might well be the last day we can top up at a silly price and trying to decide how much to throw in here - I am heavy on this stock like most I’m sure, and every day I get heavier!
Thanks Nanonano. But I am interested in what their defence will look like. What will they argue? I doubt they will come to court and just say ‘fair cop guv, got us there’. There must be something they’ll throw out right?
Would anyone be willing to try and articulate the short case regarding the trial later this year? I think we are all well aware of the long case, but I’d like a more balanced view if possible. Would anyone be willing to throw out some of the pitfalls which might lay in wait at that trial, no matter how unlikely they seem to us at this stage?
Thanks for any contributors
How about priority date versus prior use? Any things we might have overlooked there? Have all documents really been fully submitted for the trial- is there really no case against the infringement being made? Are they all public?
I don’t know if what I’m about to say has already been covered, there are so many overlapping conversations. But my understanding is it doesn’t matter how many patent claims make it to the court case, either Samsung have infringed or they haven’t. If they have, even one, then they must pay compensation. No more compensation is claimed if more claims have been infringed. I will be very happy if just one valid claim makes it to trial, as long as that claim can be proven to have been infringed. Sometimes different subject matter, and hence claims, have different priority dates which might affect damages calculation or infringement versus prior art.
But I do concede that if only one claim of one patent remains intact then there is more of a target for any appeal to shoot down.
Hi Feeks. I too have previously expressed an opinion that we lose the emulsion one, but are edging it on the MCC ones. For me it’s off to TMO on the MCC rather than plum but I remain hopeful!
What is interesting for me is how strong the infringement case will be for the MCC infringement alone- I don’t have an opinion on which of these patents is easier to prove infringement of.
PTAB appeal I believe is a substantive review, not just point of law, but with existing evidence or anything newly submitted. Ie I wouldn’t expect new depositions (e.g of existing witnesses/attorneys) unless from new parties with new information. But it will be a reconsideration of the validity of patents based on all of the arguments submitted by both sides, again. By a different ‘appeal’ board.
I agree that the trial will focus on the question of infringement to determine that ahead of discussion on damages due.
My understanding of patent cases are that they ARE a second opinion and no new evidence needs to be brought, although of course not to do so would give the appeal board very little to go on. All new evidence is submitted in the usually way ahead of trial, and then the new panel sits and deliberates on the evidence just like the first board did. This seems unlike court cases where I agree new evidence is required for an appeal to be allowed
To try and provide balance on this board I’d volunteer that I don’t see it as 5 sufficiently independent patents, but 2. There are 4 very closely related patents and to play a devils advocate role- if one of those patents were to be wholly invalidated it is more likely than not that the other 3 would too.
For the two patents it seems to me to be one based on a linguistic argument surrounding what a posita would understand of a meaning versus an alternative used in the prior art, and the second(4) are a series of inventive step arguments. These are notoriously subjective.
Regarding claim construction as I’ve described previously I don’t see we have 47 claims that need to be invalidated I see it as substantially less due to the inter-relation of claims.
The difference between legal bases for invalidation/decision used between original examiner and PTAB completely baffles me to be honest. A patent is either valid or not. It shouldn’t be valid or not based on different rules applied by different people assessing it. I was amazed to read that on this board recently- and thank you to whoever posted that.
So I have reduced by around 25% personally. I will be miffed at losing the multiplier on the 25% but would be devastated by losing the lot if it goes the other (wrong) way.
Just my view. I’m still 75% in on my original (over exposed) position. Good luck all in the coming days. If things go with my 75% this will still be quite a life changing outcome for me so everything crossed here… and thank you for all the massively informative information posted on here. This BB is by far the best I am on.
Thanks for the research Morbox. To your comment around just 2 in 25 being a split decision, it’s worth remembering the construction of claims in patents where mostly all sub claims derive from the first independent / main claim, with narrowing refinements in the subsequent claims. Claims often tumble or hold based on the validity of the main claim. In some territories, and I think the US is one, you can have several independent claims.
Can’t see behind the firewall, but it seems there is still ongoing activity in regards to the case in Texas
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038
Not all IP is disclosed in the form of Patents. Know-how is hard to replicate and it is far from clear than anyone could just take this tech and run following a negative ruling. Someone still has to know how to run the whole process start to finish.
Thanks BC. I’ll admit to not being in the slightest phased by the week defence S have put up over the last few years in this regard, it’s just last minute jitters as you say. Until now I’ve always been very bullish. You’ll know how lots of us got devastated by SNG last month so it’s left me edgy of losing the lot so to speak. Thanks for your insights.
I’d appreciate peoples views on the specifics of the PTAB proceedings. Personally I thought number 1 was a toss up between us, and the second set of 4 we had much stronger arguments but I really didn’t think Newman had a very good day. I thought he relied a bit on emotional and evocative language a little, and the ‘obviously this can’t be the case because.. clearly none of that makes sense’ a little too much - which kind of assumes the examiners are skilled technically enough to get his opinions. Rather than coldly pointing to the evidence and the presented testimonies.
From what I can tell S seem to be arguing a fairly baseless case, but I thought under the circumstance did that as well as they could.
I’ve attended oral proceedings in the EPO on several occasions in the past and didn’t agree with the judges conclusions, and was left feeling that they are easily swayed by linguistic arguments. They are by no means subject matter experts and rely on logical argument presented. That said, I haven’t attended an infringement proceeding and know the rules in the states are different to Europe.
What we’re other peoples specific thoughts on the proceedings? Thanks for any feedback - I’m over committed here and getting concerned about what might happen if the judges have (another) bad day.
This appears to be an excellent result for Nano. Only 1 patent needs to have been infringed for successful outcome, with appellants maximising their chances by challenging as many patent infringements as possible. If, as the RNS appears to confirm, this result means 4 patents meanings have been upheld then this has to be a very strong result