Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
NW- tell me how you know none of us have knowledge of IP law or commercial litigation?
What warren said
“ I've always taken the view that advisors who admit what they don't know are the ones best listened too” so none of us should listen to you then?
And now I read Amerloque’s post that does seem to indicate that we were always likely to face a sufficiency argument at trial. We’ll found Amerloque.
I have to admit I’m struggling a bit with this assumption being made that the sufficiency, and hence validity, will be challenged during the proceedings. I see lots of limine motions that are redacted and corrected which are confusing to follow. I see responses to these limine requests which are also redacted and corrected.
I see the very large testimony given by (aarg I hate this editor- can’t refer back to find her name- ) Vicky someone was it?! In which she challenges the sufficiency of the description in Nanos patent. And this appears to be submitted in response to Nanos Limine motions?, which we can’t see.
But this testimony was in 2021 prior to IPR and prior to the agreement that validity can’t be opened up again during the court case. So seeing as I can’t see the limine motions, I can’t see the responses, and we don’t know whether any of these will be granted, I can’t really be sure what it is in this testimony that is being referred to in the response by Samsung.
Can anyone enlighten me more? Have I missed something?
I’d really like to understand what was said in the pre trial- will the record of this be made public does any one know? And how can we be sure that the sufficiency argument is being brought up (and permitted) in the upcoming trials based on the dockets we have access to?
All I am sure about is that the judge stipulated that the validity wasn’t to be challenged in court following IPR.
Thanks for any clarifications anyone can bring to this murky dataset we have to work off.
Hi Amerloque. Agree Sufficiency isn’t new, it’s one of the 4 pillars when contesting validity and always has been, and yes I agree it was a surprise it wasn’t contested during the IPReview. I’m not mentioning it in context of validity, I’m raising it as a defence for wilfulness. Validity as far as I’m concerned is dealt with.
Here is an interesting link for any who haven’t read it. Doesn’t deal specifically with this topic, but the other aspect I have mentioned before - the ‘I didn’t mean to do it’ defence.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrFDWMgcANjYfks0u50g81Q;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1661198497/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.law.com%2fthelegalintelligencer%2f2020%2f03%2f24%2fi-didnt-mean-to-do-it-a-post-halo-good-faith-defense-to-willful-infringement%2f/RK=2/RS=P4JMHnjyAkeggKkr6Ij.fR1ApcY-
Someone recently posted an excerpt about this new line of attack from S regarding sufficiency - could they please repost anything relating to this? Thanks in advance.
This is where the sufficiency argument comes in (IMO) that has just reared its head. In writing a patent you don’t describe every possible way to do something, you describe a sufficient number of embodiment such that a POSITA would be able to understand the process fully. The sufficiency argument will be used to try to expose cracks in the disclosure into which Samsung fell and therefore were not infringing, or at best not doing to wilfully. And my guess is it will be in the area of ‘mixtures of MCCs’ ie in the language S we’re trying to narrow the claims to exclude. The broader claim stands and therefore covers the ‘mixtures’ but it isn’t explicitly claimed / describedin the patent so it’s a sufficiency argument. Something like that. Feeks will understand the mixtures bit better than me probably, as I got lost a bit in the difference between clusters and mixtures of clusters in that docket 84 argument.
Just my opinion. Something worth throwing around a bit I think.
“ So we can’t assume a patent that held up in Europe infers that it’s sister patent will hold up in Germany”. Of course I meant “ So we can’t assume a patent that held up in the US infers that it’s sister patent will hold up in Germany”. Sorry
Gone broke- validity isn’t being contested in court, just infringement and damages
Thanks NGR. The point I’m making is that they are literally different patents in Europe, often with different wording and claims based on the grant and examination that they have been through, and how hard a time the European examiner gave them. Claim construction is different, and the process to obtain the examination to grant is completely independent to the US. So we can’t assume a patent that held up in Europe infers that it’s sister patent will hold up in Germany. Of course there is a good hope that it’s the case, just making people aware that the patents to be contested in Europe are different.
Exciting day today!
Lol. My only point of reference regarding how much this all costs was 40 years ago it cost circa 5m bucks, so 10m was probably a very low ball estimate!
“ If I'm not popular here it's because I choose to fracture the circular thinking that causes people to lose money sooner or later.”
Lmao .
Yeah right.
Spot on Screenlearner, and agreed HH, even a trader would see the value in holding a portion longer term because this thing will rise long after the case is forgotten- the pros here at Nano own this market (in the US) now they have had their extensive IP tested in the states. (But please all don’t forget the patents in Europe and Asia are yet to be tested - don’t expect just because a patent is upheld in The states it has any inference on other jurisdictions).
I return to a comment I made a few weeks back - we are right back to when the experts in this field at Nano concluded they had enough evidence to prove that Samsung had infringed (stolen) their work. They know how to prove infringement. They are the experts in the field. The only unknown back then ( and probably why they couldn’t go it alone on the funding side ) was whether S could prove invalidity and whether they could change the argument by effectively re-writing the meaning of the patents. They couldn’t. So we’re back where we were - the experts believe they can prove infringement. And they convinced others to spend the best pet of 10m$ on proving it. I seriously doubt S can come up with other more plausible experts that can somehow disprove the science.
I’ll be enjoying the ride over the coming weeks.
I can’t speak to value of award. You guys are experts in that. I do still believe S will fight Wilful by claiming they believe the patents weren’t valid, but that just me as an engineer speaking and it looks like a logical argument. How it stands up in court I’ll leave to the likes of Sammy and other lawyers who seem to know their stuff. Evening all.
Can Samsungs defence against the wilfulness charge be that they believed that the patents were not valid and so they were going ahead knowingly using an unpatented method? I know that would all be patently untrue, but perhaps their argument in court will be to dredge up all the invalidity arguments, not to argue invalidity which is not permissible, but to show how it was reasonable to assume that the patents were invalid and hence how they weren’t knowingly and will fully infringing this ‘unpatentable’ method.
Just a thought.
Thanks Nanonano- which is why I am saying I think an out of court settlement is not as likely as some may be hoping - due to the fact that Samsung still has options there that limit it’s damages. The (different) patents in Europe and other territories haven’t been tested yet so they have chances to achieve a better result in those territories. I haven’t read the European patents yet - I’ll have to find them and have a read to see if they are substantially different to the US ones. Has anyone else read them yet?
They can still claim they believe the European patent is invalid. But I get your point Eccles
Still got to win the validity case though, which from my experience is well over a year to get to court. With this ‘opportunity’ to over turn a patent in Europe, why would Samsung settle worldwide?
I’m not sure why people believe injunctions are likely in other territories. Nano will need to prove their patents are valid in Europe just like in the US. Different patent office, different patent law. Any worldwide settlement would also mean Samsung assuming there is no hope of winning an invalidity case against Nano in other territories. Not sure what they’ve got to lose trying this same tactic each time.
Now I’m all in.
Like Feeks, had 84 gone against us then I think the infringement case was weaker and I would have sold probably around a half of my holding. I have no specific facts on the the exact nature of the evidence Nano has proving infringement, but any narrowing of the definition of what an MCC was would surely would have weakened that position. The broader definition, which Nano went into this case with, surely covers what they believe to be infringement by Samsung and their willpower to go to court centres around this evidence.
I struggle to now see anything left in Samsungs defence. They claimed (as is usual in these cases) invalidity. All 5 patents were proved valid. They tried to narrow the scope of the patents with Markman and now 84. That has failed. So we are left where we were many years ago with Nano claiming infringement by Samsung and their evidence convinced their backers to go to court over it. We don’t know the evidence, but they convinced others to pay millions in costs to see this through. That’s good enough for me.
Regarding the future, and therefore ultimate share pricing. Nanos patents have been tested and found valid in the US. They own this market now. (At least in the US - remember these patents still need to be tested in the EU and Japan/China before we can just assume worldwide damages).
Regarding settlement I still come back to Nano holding all the cards now, and it’s for Nano to decide how much S have to pay to avoid a damming court decision. People talk about likelihood of out of court settlement going up or down, I see it as price going up or down, and now the price is very very high - set by Nano.
Well done all for holding your nerves (better than me!) and good luck all with the share price going forwards - surely now it’s set to start its meteoric rise.
As soon as the judge starts to rule on some of these motions that are stacking up we may get more insight into things.