Nanoco is suing Samsung over IP theft. Nanoco will
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 360)
Posted On: 05/01/2020 7:38:18 AM
Nanoco is suing Samsung over IP theft. Nanoco will need to use a litigation funder and there is a question whether they will be around when the case ends. Evidently CEO Edelman spoke recently.
Here is one poster's opinion from the nanoco board across the waters-
nigwit: I’ll take just one point as an example. Edelman said that Samsung has soLd 14 million QLED TVs in the USA since 2015 with an average price of $1000 more than comparable sized LCD TVs. He said that the cost of the QDs was $100 per set. What he was intimating but couldn’t state explicitly is that Samsung’s extra profits on each sale were in the region of $900 and these extra profits were entirely derived from stealing the IP. That equates to a potential claim for damages of $12.6 billion. He explained that there are other valuation models but this, in my view, may well be why Mintz have taken the case and why Nanoco will be able to fund it using a litigation funder and have so many offers of funding. If they were not confident on this funding Mintz would not have filed court papers. It may also explain why they didn’t bring the case sooner. They wanted to warn Samsung and give them time to desist so that they could bring an action for ‘willful’; infringement and Samsung would not be able to successfully run a defence of ignorance. Later The Deutsche bank analyst asked if damages might be based on lost royalties of $10 or $20 per unit. That is no doubt an alternative way the quantum might be worked out but Edelman said this was at the low end of expectations. Nonetheless it would still lead to an award of £140m to £280m. If you read previous case law precedents concerning calculating damages for patent infringement in US courts you’ll find damages can be assessed either way and it depends on how important the patented components are within the ultimate products. Since the TVs are sold as ‘Quantum Dot’ TVs Nanoco’s IP is fundamental. I think it’s potentially very exciting.
Bit of a sticky wicket! I wonder if it might be better for Samsung to wait them out or to just buy them cheap?
Here is one poster's opinion from the nanoco board across the waters-
nigwit: I’ll take just one point as an example. Edelman said that Samsung has soLd 14 million QLED TVs in the USA since 2015 with an average price of $1000 more than comparable sized LCD TVs. He said that the cost of the QDs was $100 per set. What he was intimating but couldn’t state explicitly is that Samsung’s extra profits on each sale were in the region of $900 and these extra profits were entirely derived from stealing the IP. That equates to a potential claim for damages of $12.6 billion. He explained that there are other valuation models but this, in my view, may well be why Mintz have taken the case and why Nanoco will be able to fund it using a litigation funder and have so many offers of funding. If they were not confident on this funding Mintz would not have filed court papers. It may also explain why they didn’t bring the case sooner. They wanted to warn Samsung and give them time to desist so that they could bring an action for ‘willful’; infringement and Samsung would not be able to successfully run a defence of ignorance. Later The Deutsche bank analyst asked if damages might be based on lost royalties of $10 or $20 per unit. That is no doubt an alternative way the quantum might be worked out but Edelman said this was at the low end of expectations. Nonetheless it would still lead to an award of £140m to £280m. If you read previous case law precedents concerning calculating damages for patent infringement in US courts you’ll find damages can be assessed either way and it depends on how important the patented components are within the ultimate products. Since the TVs are sold as ‘Quantum Dot’ TVs Nanoco’s IP is fundamental. I think it’s potentially very exciting.
Bit of a sticky wicket! I wonder if it might be better for Samsung to wait them out or to just buy them cheap?
(0)
(0)