The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
It defies logic, to my mind, that a company of Samsung's size and commercial dominance would allow the adverse publicity of a patent theft lawsuit to arise. They could stop this irritation with a stroke of a pen, for relative peanuts. I would be happy with a pound a share, ecstatic with two. Samsung wouldn't notice, even the 611 million pounds it would take to acquire this thorn in their side and the benefit of over 750 patents. Perhaps I don't understand the oriental thought processes.
I still think the biggest factor in Nanoco's lack of commercial progress is down to the ineptitude of the ROHS commission, in not implementing the cadmium ban back in October 2019. I believe the reason for allowing its continued use was that there was no viable alternative, which is patently false. The cost differential is the main stumbling block and if the ROHS had done what they said they would do, Nanoco would be flying high.
I agree that Samsung seem to have the arrogance of a huge company but I take a more optimistic view of the conflict. As Samsung must be perceived by their competitors as top of the tech tree, it is also true that if they are accused of using Nanoco's tech to be at the top, it follows that Nanoco's tech should be used to match or beat them. In other words, a good advertisement for CFQD's from Nanoco. I also take an optimistic view of their financial status and have very little concern for their continuation as a viable company.
I was disappointed to see in the interim report the statement that the lawsuit would be filed in early May and likely to come to trial in the fourth quarter of 2021 or first quarter of 2022. That's a lot different to what's been expected.
I heard this morning that a San Francisco based company, ID 2020, in a collaboration with the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation and MIT, have developed a range of biometric identification technologies which includes a subcutaneous invisible ink tattoo made up of quantum dots. This is to be implanted below the skin of the right hand and will identify the recipients vaccination status and their screenable qualification to participate in mass gatherings, such as schooling, work zones and protest demonstrations.
I know it sounds insidiously Orwellian but the technology is actively being produced. I would never condone its implementation but the element of quantum dot acceptance could have useful, more benign, applications I am sure.
If the patent infringement litigation is using the Table B fast track system in the East Texas Judiciary (EDTX) your timeline is correct amerloque. As I read it, after filing there is a 10 day period to hold an Initial case management conference, followed by a 35 day period for the defendant to present Invalidity contentions. So your 45 days from February 17th expands to April 2nd. Some crumb of information, which must, by now, have reached management ears would be invaluable to investors.
I agree with the previous posts. In US law, failure to reply is taken as acquiescence. Such an unprofessional action from a global manufacturer or its legal representatives would be highly unusual even in these troubled times. Whatever they have done behind the scenes, as investors perceive it, I am sure it would have a bearing on market performance and thus should be made known.
If I read the rules correctly, a request for an extension of time due to any circumstances would have to be made during the 45 day response period, otherwise they would be deemed to have ignored the allegation.