Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Really sorry Amerloque, my post from 18:25 referenced you rather than troublesome from his 18:20 post. You were in there so it was a subliminal slip! Lol sorry.
Completely different question on a wholly different topic…honest guv.
Does anyone happen to know from the years of following this case and all of the earlier discovery that went on - what MCCs Samsung use in their recipe for their scaled up production?.. are they the same ones Nanonuse or different ones? Long shot sorry, but in case someone with that kind of knowledge was listening.
Thanks again to all posters here, fonts of all QD knowledge!
And yes no worries Hawi, all good
Lol BC. I posted that this morning which is what started all this. What I’d like is if anyone can recall seeing what Nanos response to that would be? Thanks
Ok, I can see there’s not much point me continuing with this discussion as it’s turning too much into a debate about peoples views on strength of our case versus what I was wanting which was a discussion around the technical argument which is coming our way on sufficiency.
It’s quite tiring to be honest trying to answer all of your objections to what I’m saying, and as I’m not getting much traction on my questions around this versus the effort I’m putting in I’ll just back off.
You are right BC, a while back at PTAB decision time I was wary of their decision and reduced by around a quarter in response ahead of that decision. The wrong choice in hindsight, but with the facts we had about both sides of the argument at that point it was the right decision for me. Patent litigation is a risky business and I have been absolutely utterly convinced before to a degree it is difficult to explain and still a tribunal has found against one of my patents, so I’ll remain wary whilst validity is still in question.
Everyone’s appetite for risk is different, mine is clearly less than the majority here so I’ll just keep monitoring the details of this case, and if I feel there are risks which I can’t quantify I’ll reduce again. Good luck all with your own strategies.
Always happy to jump back in on this topic if anyone has some detailed knowledge to help me out. Thanks in advance of that.
Joint notice of agreed motions BC. But what that specifically means I don’t know. Sounds to me like they have been agreed by both sides though.
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2020/03/24/i-didnt-mean-to-do-it-a-post-halo-good-faith-defense-to-willful-infringement/
Repeated post from earlier - explaining how a defendant would inform his patent attorneys of knowledge of a patent he will later rely on as evidence that they deemed it invalid and hence infringed knowingly, but in ‘good faith’.
I love the certainty with which you can dismiss these arguments Intrusive. Perhaps you are more knowledgable about the patenting process than you have let on previously?
Unfortunately for me I haven’t faced a US court when defending a patent, just European ones, so I’m not as up to speed as I’d like, perhaps you have some experience you can share to back up your ‘fanciful’ accusation?
Sorry for being the continual bad guy here, but just wanting an honest debate and hopefully a hole in my argument as I want a win as much as everyone. But Amerloque, we currently have no evidence that they didn’t inform their patent attorneys from the start of the presence of this patent and it’s inadequacies. Something which sounds like a great idea in hindsight to me, but as practiced as they are in deceit possibly a SOP for them?
I’m afraid the answer to that would be pretty much the defence they will be using in 3 weeks. An invalid (in their eyes) prior disclosure prevented them.
WhatDoIKnow12
Your question earlier:
RE: CaseToday 10:36
Sufficiency has concerned me, but I think Samsung can only argue that there is not sufficient detail in the patent for a person skilled in the art to make the process work if they admit that the know how was disclosed to them during co-operation with Nanoco. On the other hand if they claim that they developed the know how themselves, from the published patents, they are saying that a person skilled in the art can make the process work and so they destroy a sufficiency argument.
Unfortunately all they need to do is the first bit. All they need to do is prove the patent is invalid and that’s the end. Doesn’t matter where the info came from, there’s no patent, so no infringement.
PJT. I’d also love to know how much the judge will help guide the jury during trial. Regarding your other question, this is taken from one of the pre-trial motions. Maybe it helps.
JOINT NOTICE OF AGREED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff Nanoco Technologies Ltd. (“Nanoco”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or Samsung”)
submit this Joint Notice of Agreed Motions
in Limine. The parties agree that they, their counsel, representatives, and all witnesses tendered by them (whether live or by deposition) will not mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the matters set forth below without obtaining a favorable ruling from this Court outside the presence and hearing of the prospective jurors or the jury ultimately selected in this case. Both parties will also warn and caution each witness to follow the same instructions.
1.
Any reference to any inter partes review proceedings. This MIL does not itself prevent a party from impeaching a witness with a statement made during such proceedings so long as such evidence is proper impeachment. In that scenario, any such impeachment shall not refer to, show, or mention the inter partes review
proceeding, IPR, or the PTAB, but may be referred to as a statement to the Patent Office.
2.
Any reference to any opinion of counsel or the absence of any opinion of counsel
3.
Any reference to any party’s market capitalization, total revenues, total profitability, or share price.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in this MIL is meant to address whether the parties can discuss the per-share or total value set out in any proposal to acquire Nanoco.
4.
Any argument, evidence, testimony, or reference to a party’s fee arrangements with counsel or how this litigation is being funded or burdens borne by any person or entity in doing so.
5.
Any reference to forum shopping or suggestion that the Eastern District of Texas is the
wrong venue for this litigation.
6.
Any suggestion that a party has engaged in discovery abuse or litigation misconduct, including reference to discovery disputes and rulings.
7.
Any argument, evidence, testimony, or reference to a party’s retention or use of litigation consultants, including jury consultants, trial consultants, shadow or mock juries, or focus groups before or during trial
BC, I’m absolutely convinced our legal team are all over it, they wrote the supporting documentation that we are now seeing in the dockets months ago. They will have a strong argument like they had for the arguments raised in the PTAB.
It doesn’t however mean there isn’t an argument to be had, in front of an uneducated (in this field) set of jurors, and therefore a risk associated. Just like with the PTAB, I hope more documents will become available to us to be able to decide more about the strengths of the argument we have on this. We were well informed ahead of PTAB decision by the transcripts. Does anyone know whether we will be able to see these arguments as they are played out?
BC. It will be addressed and we’ll need to argue it. I said I think it’s nuts that a jury would be able to even consider such stuff in the limited time they have which concerns me - they will easily be swayed by the most eloquently put argument I guess. It represents risk to this that I didn’t think existed a week ago.
Personally if I were a juror I’d probably consider that the patent examiner were a pretty knowledgable person and I’d just have to trust their thinking and not overturn the decision unless something very clearly wrong were put in front of me. Unfortunately I can’t speak for other jurors.
In my field of engineering sufficiency is easily argued as very limited examples or embodiments need to be presented in order to satisfy the sufficiency criteria. But for the biochemistry world I read that the bar is much higher to defend sufficiency. I wish I could remember where I saw that discussion, I’ll repost if I find. Where quantum dots fit into that spectrum I have no idea.
Samsungs argument appears to be that our claim1 is broad enough to cover all MCCs (good for the infringement case) but our description only goes into detail about 1. Hence not being well enough described that the POSITA could enact the invention without due experiment.
I believe they have described multiple embodiments of QD seeding using the method but only described one MCC. So it’s in the weeds a bit.
Docket 237 exhibit 1 for their argument. It has some significance.
Amerloque’s link. Wouldn’t want to steal his research.
Yes troublesome, and PTAB didn’t cover sufficiency
Agree Hawi.
Why I’m raising it
Because they are dealt with separately in Germany in case my earlier posts have been missed
Hi Feeks, no for the injunction i Germany I’m thinking a case needs to be won before injunction, and is that the infringement case or the validity case, both of which having different timescales. I’m no legal expert here, but I’d be concerned about a multi million euro injunction with a court case later finding our patents invalid and we would?? Be liable for the lost sales of Samsung. So my assumption currently is even though we’d live to get an injunction immediately it might only be available to us in 2 years
We’ll that’s the big problem intrusive. All of this is shrouded in redactions and sealed documents and motions not being publicly granted as far as we can see. It isn’t clear what the current state of the arguments regarding validity are. However, whether granted limine motions or not, the one with the jurors questions was proposed by Nano, so I’d say they are clear they are fighting validity.