A Manchester company will this week begin a David and Goliath court battle against South Korea’s Samsung over alleged use of its technology without licensing it.
Nanoco, which is listed on London’s AIM junior market, claims Samsung used its “quantum dot” technology in its range of QLED, or “quantum LED”, TVs without permission.
The value of the claim could reportedly be as high as $500m (£415m). The case is due to begin a court in Texas on Friday.
Nanoco, which spun out of Manchester University, develops “quantum dots”, tiny particles that make television screens appear brighter.
Its technology is less environmentally hazardous than alternatives, since it is free of the polluting element cadmium.
New legal filings, seen by The Telegraph, reveal that Samsung came close to acquiring Nanoco in December 2019 for around £60m, but the deal fell apart. Other interested parties included private equity firm Fortress and venture investor Seven Hills.
Nanoco has accused Samsung of copying its technology after working with the company for years. In 2010, it began talks with Samsung and provided samples with a view to licensing the technology.
But in 2015, Samsung launched a range of televisions allegedly utilizing its inventions without paying for the rights.
The case will be tried in Texas, which is known for its speedy patent court process, where a jury will decide whether the patents have been infringed and award damages. Whoever loses can apply to appeal the ultimate judgment and penalty.
Nanoco is also suing Samsung in Germany, where it is seeking a sales injunction on the company’s TVs, as well as in China.
Brian Tenner, Nanoco’s chief executive, said: “We worked with Samsung and shared a lot of data with them, all under NDA. Then in 2015, Samsung launched a QLED without taking out any license.”
He added: “We then talked to them for a couple of years saying, ‘Look, this doesn’t quite smell right, we’d like to get a commercial solution’.
“Eventually, we put them on notice that we thought they were infringing our IP, that didn’t produce an agreement. So in the end, we were forced to sue them.”
The jury will decide how much restitution a claimant receives if they are successful. Mr Tenner declined to comment on the ultimate value of the claim, but has previously said he believes the rewards could be worth “multiple times the value” of Nanoco.
In a separate process earlier this year, the US Patent Board ruled in favor of Nanoco’s patents after their validity was challenged by Samsung.
In court filings, Samsung has denied “committing any acts of infringement at any time”. Samsung did not respond to a request for comment.
.