Posted On: 07/09/2016 2:06:27 PM
Post# of 22465
Round #2: Nanoco Vs NanoSys
PTAB Nixes Claims In MIT-Owned 'Quantum Dot' Patent
By Kelly Knaub
Law360, New York (July 6, 2016, 6:51 PM ET) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Tuesday found that Nanoco Technologies Ltd. had sufficiently shown that various claims in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology patent related to so-called quantum dot technology were invalid as anticipated by prior art.
In a final written decision, the board ruled that Nanoco had proved that most of the challenged claims in MIT’s patent, titled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective NanoCrystalline Materials,” are invalid as anticipated by prior art referred to as Peng.
http://www.law360.com/articles/814387/ptab-ni...dot-patent
......companies are scrapping for a bigger piece of Quantum Pie
I wonder what Round #3 will entail.
Rock On QMC!
QMC will shake things up, imo ; )
PTAB Nixes Claims In MIT-Owned 'Quantum Dot' Patent
By Kelly Knaub
Law360, New York (July 6, 2016, 6:51 PM ET) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Tuesday found that Nanoco Technologies Ltd. had sufficiently shown that various claims in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology patent related to so-called quantum dot technology were invalid as anticipated by prior art.
In a final written decision, the board ruled that Nanoco had proved that most of the challenged claims in MIT’s patent, titled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective NanoCrystalline Materials,” are invalid as anticipated by prior art referred to as Peng.
http://www.law360.com/articles/814387/ptab-ni...dot-patent
......companies are scrapping for a bigger piece of Quantum Pie
I wonder what Round #3 will entail.
Rock On QMC!
QMC will shake things up, imo ; )
(1)
(0)
