Nanoco back in the courts with patent infringement action against US companies
Runcorn tech firm, Nanoco, is back in the courts after launching legal action against US defendants LG Electronics Inc and LG Electronics USA Inc.
The Manchester University spin-out, which develops materials used in the manufacture of monitors and TV screens and technologies for medical imaging and the early diagnosis of cancer, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The lawsuit claims infringement of Nanoco’s US Patent No.’s: 7,588,828; 7,803,423; 7,867,557; 8,524,365. These patents relate to Nanoco’s innovative technology for the synthesis of quantum dots.
Both defendants are involved in the sale and distribution of components and fully assembled units for the display market, specifically televisions utilising quantum dots to significantly enhance the viewing experience of the user.
Nanoco has retained Caldwell, Cassady and Curry (CCC), an international IP law firm based in Dallas, Texas, USA, to represent it in patent enforcement and litigation. CCC was one of the legal firms who were involved in Nanoco’s successful litigation against South Korean electronics giant, Samsung, in 2023 over intellectual property breaches which resulted in a $150m payout by Samsung.
In the latest lawsuit, Nanoco alleges that the defendants have wilfully infringed the company’s patents and seeks a permanent injunction from further acts of infringement and monetary damages.
At this stage, the lawsuit does not specify the quantum of monetary damages sought by Nanoco and it may take some time before this is established, it said.
Shareholders are reminded that a lawsuit can take several years to progress to a trial and there is never any guarantee of success or as to the monetary damages that may be awarded if the jury and/or court finds in favour of Nanoco.
While conscious of the potential risks involved in litigation, the board said it is confident in the potential prospects for the company in doing so, and would not be undertaking this if it were not clearly in the best interests of Nanoco shareholders.
Nanoco’s chairman, Dr Jalal Bagherli, said: “Nanoco proved the value and validity of its IP as part of the Samsung litigation process.
“At that time, we re-iterated our intent to aggressively pursue other potential infringers of our IP to ensure a fair outcome for shareholders of Nanoco.
“While there is potential for damages, litigation itself carries considerable inherent risk and the board must weigh the opportunity versus the cost. In this instance, we believe the potential return to be worth the costs of commencing litigation.”
He added: “Nanoco continues to remain open to finding a mutually acceptable commercial solution, but the action is appropriate to take at this time in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, to defend one of our core assets.”
