Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Nig now filtered, had enough, on the off chance please let me know if one of his future incarnations (I’m sure he’ll expire in this one again soon, it’s about time) mentions anything vaguely of interest. Ta.
Cool heads will prevail HH. In the absence of any control over the situation I’d advise you either sell at this level if you believe all is lost, or sit tight and see how this shapes up.
If none of you can reconcile the past to present then I’d suggest there may more left unsaid.
Your beliefs- we had a watertight case and a trial looked far more promising than the deal we have now arrived at - only two possibilities:
It wasn’t a watertight case and the validity aspect was too big a risk to defend in court, and hence the current deal may then appear a better deal than most are shouting about, or
The deal looks too bad to be true and so something must not be being said.
Around a year ago when I said I preferred a trial than a settlement I gave the reasons that a settlement often leaves too much hidden behind NDAs so that short term you don’t really know the full terms of the deal, and hence correct valuation is impossible. That must be where we are now.
It is a strong possibility (if the first option above isn’t true), that the numbers don’t add up because included in the deal there is a forward supply agreement where N supply an agreed quantity of product at agreed rates, potentially above fair market value, to reduce Samsung’s admission guilt to the market and their shareholders.
This is a very common outcome, I have personally witnessed these settlement arrangements.
If it’s true, then sometime down the line a company the size of Nano will have to reveal a new supply deal that it has made and you’ll either tie up the dots or believe it is a new supply contract.
I reduced my holding prior to trial for belief it was the first option listed above, or at least even though we held the better argument N had more to lose and so would be willing to cut deal. If this scenario is true I always believed it more likely that S was approached not the other way round as most here believe.
But as no one here believed this possibility then I’d suggest you consider the second option, and in that case there is every chance of a very healthy share price being realised here, once supply contracts, albeit names undisclosed, have come to light.
So for me, if it’s the first then what’s done is done and no point losing your marbles over it HH,
If it’s the second, and I am minded currently that this is actually the case now, then sit right and the share price will lift as Nanos fortunes improve significantly.
Everyone far too quick to dismiss dual sourcing and ongoing supply of CFQD to Samsung. Seen many times, a settlement appears too bad to be true, but behind the scenes other confidential ongoing supply agreements have been reached
Thanks for the replies, and PT for bringing this back up. My experience, firmly in the engineering world, is that dual sourcing for supply chain risk mitigation is commonplace and even mandatory when risks rise and risk committees get involved - they seem to rule the world these days!. I don’t know Hansol, their ownership, and how many factories they have in different geographic locations. I know no one here expects an ongoing supply agreement to replace that from Hansol, and neither do I, but I’m minded to think an ongoing supply agreement could still be on the cards. Even if it is as a supplier of new materials for development with the backup as an alternate if things go t/ts up.
As I say, it’s possible this side won’t get initially communicated as part of a no-fault settlement.
Gotta say it’s hard to weed out useful messages from the 8000 garbage ones these days.
Has anyone in amongst all this rubbish discussed the possibility that N become a dual source provider for S going forwards? That’s how some of these types of arrangements have ended up that I’ve been close to, and unless I’ve missed something specifically ruling that out I’d say that’s a contender here.
The downside as that these arrangements are almost never disclosed, so it would have to be dug out of ongoing organic growth forecast - which luckily for N presently shouldn’t be that hard to do.
That is the common way to come to an arrangement as forward estimates are changed into a supply agreement. The initial payout will be lower - which chimes with some of the current pessimism, but ultimately it’s a much sweeter deal going forwards in terms of company valuation.
Please only respond if you have something constructive to say. Thanks.
Thanks for the considered response BC. Firstly, of course I hope you’re right, hence why I still have a large amount invested.
To your point on the arguments that will ensue in court, the main point that I make is that it might be very clear to all that IP theft has been made and dubious business practice observed. The jury could easily be swayed that S have acted unlawfully here. Unfortunately that isnt what is being tried in court. It is patent infringement.
If S can show, as I described, that it took an excessive amount of experimentation to achieve process then they are in the ballgame. If a patent validity challenge is upheld then it doesn’t matter if the jury find against S on the matter of infringement, there is no patent to infringe. And as I’ve said before, each claim is open to this same argument, one falls they all fall. Timing of earlier collaborations and what would be an apparent change of heart regarding patent worth are not relevant in this.
Fingers crossed BC that I dont follow you down the rabbit hole for a second time like Feb SNG.
Nanonano- good points about the ongoing and even more valuable organic business. Previous false dawns leave me wary, but agreed this is the real opportunity here if it comes good.
Not hard to understand HH. I have a fixed amount I am taking to trial which is not changing, and the rest I am trading - selling around 50 and buying (or was hoping to) at around 40 each time we go to trial lol. My complaint last week was that I now have a cap on the amount I can trade.
Your point Intrusive?
I’m with NGR on this one. I reduced my holdings twice, once ahead of the IPR due to strong arguments from Samsungs legal team, and further when it became clear that aspects of validity are yet to be tested at trial. The reason for the further reduction at this stage is that the chances of N winning a validity argument at PTAB are higher than at trial in my opinion. Samsung’s argument at trial is that it took lots of experimentation to develop the process, and here is all the evidence, presented i’m sure in a very persuasive and eloquent way to a jury of lay people. It’s an easy argument to make, and a more difficult one to defend if you look at it objectively. And I’m sure everyone here realises that there is no infringement argument to defend if this one is lost, let alone award.
So I’m down to a half my original holding ahead of trial.
Cue all the usual board cheerleaders to come defend the alternate view.
Anyone use T212?
They won’t let me buy any more Nano due to some kind of risk profiling they have recently introduced. I’m maxed out apparently. Ridiculous platform. Gonna move. Any recommendations for free trading platforms?
For me it would depend on the nature of the case loss. Losing on invalidity grounds has more far reaching implications than losing an infringement claim. But also, if the case were lost on validity grounds that would definitely go before the appeal panel in Washington with a much greater chance of success - if we can assume that ultimately the patent is valid but the jury were found wanting on this occasion. Many variables! Depends on how the case were lost as I say.
I found this an interesting read. It left me with a sense that through all the twists and turns, ups and downs, justice will prevail in the end in this system. When one party is truly, clearly guilty of IP theft, they can employ many tricks to draw out a process, but ultimately they will pay. Samsung will know this, and know that ultimately they will need to settle to avoid an even worse judgement. Think it’s a little out of date so awards figures aren’t too relevant.
http://bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/basiclit.pdf
Hawi, I’ll try again. I’m not arguing or advocating any position and am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I am not trying to support any such arguments with any evidence that you seem to require. I merely state facts that anyone can Google. Hopefully these facts around patents are helpful in everyone’s investment case. You can literally Google anything I have said and see for yourself what is required to patent an idea. I’d encourage it, as we are all seemingly placing a lot of faith in a legal system that isn’t currently fully understood.
Hawi, I’ve merely stated facts around patents and patentability. Difficult to point to cases that prove the law around patents? Perhaps any patent that has gone through the courts?? Sorry but your request makes no sense. You want me to point cases that have won by x amount in Markman, and Y amount in PTAB and still lost? It makes no sense to me. If you want proof about the facts around what is required to successfully patent an invention then numerous websites you can Google deal with that. I have put numerous links on the subjects in here.
I am not here to try and convince you of anything. Just informing the group of what I know about patents and how it relates here. And as far as I’m aware everything I have said is correct on that topic.
If the patents had gone through opposition and appeal hearings these would be judged by three judges, but a single examiner grants a patent. As far as I’m aware anyway. Perhaps there are cases where the case is shared in some jurisdictions? But I’m not aware.
One from my experience
Hopefully PJT. That’s where I was putting my money next week, and now next month. It would seem likely the jury would have been faced with a credible expert from S claiming the patents weren’t sufficiently described and an equally credible (but in a different field, ie law not the prevailing science) expert in the form of the original examiner. Unless the jurors had a bad day, you’d have to hope they sided with the examiner. The bar should have been too high to decide otherwise.
This is all in the absence of knowing how Nano’s team would have fought the argument. They may have a killer punch we don’t know about on that matter.
And therein lies the argument PJT
Yes PJT, too simplistic, she isn’t a POSITA she’s a subject matter expert.
Hawi. The IPR didn’t have no value, far from it. IMO by far the riskiest element of patentability, is the inventive step argument. It is totally subjective, and you can easily argue both sides and convince yourself both ways. In getting past inventive step, and novelty, the only aspects left to contest are the two we’ve mentioned Sufficiency and Support.
With Inventive step still in play, it wouldn’t matter how confident people were of infringement I wouldn’t have given better than even odds to succeed at trial. But I’m sure you’ll have statistics on that. With inventiveness dealt with the remaining validity arguments are much easier to follow and IMO much less risky for Nano.
Was it worth an extra year? Depends on your investment case. For me the share price over the past year, and reduction in risk at trial says it was worth it.
Could someone please post a link to the transcripts for the PTAB oral hearings, if they can lay their hands on them
Thanks