SI
SI
discoversearch

   Technology StocksOLED Universal Display Corp


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: handyman who wrote (12606)10/5/2017 12:28:08 AM
From: occams_phasor
   of 13796
 
I am not sure this is understanding the games that could be played.

If Samsung says we want to sign a short term deal, they cause fear in the market and blood on the street. UDC needs a longer deal lest people start talking about patent cliffs, and that's a big hammer that Samsung holds.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: IceHawk10/5/2017 12:33:25 AM
4 Recommendations   of 13796
 
Connecting the dots...

  • University of Michigan collaborates with UDC on many fronts. SR Forrest is a member/owner of both
  • In June 2016 UDC announced that it is going to acquire Adesis, Inc - a privately held contract research organization with 43 employees specializing in organic and organometallic synthetic R&D and commercialization to help advance and accelerate a number of UDC's product offerings
  • OVJP is a "mask-less deposition technology". UDC hopes that OVJP will enable a low cost, high performance, large area patterned manufacturing process platform. OVJP stands for Organic Vapor Jet Printing, and the basic idea is to use a gas-stream based process that resembles ink-jet printing but one that uses evaporation OLED materials which outperform soluble ones. In an OVJP process, the OLED materials are evaporated into a carrier gas that delivers them to a jet engine for direct printing of patterned OLED layers. OVJP is intended for large-area OLED displays and can be scaled up to 10-Gen substrates according to UDC
  • Printed medicines. WOW. Read below.
Printed medicines - using organic vapour-jet printing - could reinvent pharmacies and drug research A technology that can print pure, ultra-precise doses of drugs onto a wide variety of surfaces could one day enable on-site printing of custom-dosed medications at pharmacies, hospitals and other locations


29 Sep 2017 | Editor


A new research study led by Max Shtein, professor of materials science and engineering, and Olga Shalev, a recent graduate who worked on the project while a doctoral student in the same department, showed that the pure printed medication can destroy cultured cancer cells in the lab as effectively as medication delivered by traditional means, which rely on chemical solvents to enable the cells to absorb the medication. Their study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

The technique was developed through a collaboration between the Michigan Engineering departments of chemical engineering and biomedical engineering, as well as the College of Pharmacy and the Department of Physics in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

The researchers adapted a technology from electronics manufacturing called organic vapour-jet printing.

One key advantage of the technique is that it can print a very fine crystalline structure over a large surface area. This helps printed medications dissolve more easily, opening the door to a variety of potential new drugs that today are shelved because they don't dissolve well when administered with conventional approaches, including pills and capsules.

The process begins by heating the active pharmaceutical ingredient—usually a powder—and evaporating it to combine it with a stream of heated, inert gas like nitrogen. The evaporated medication travels, along with the gas, through a nozzle pointed at a cooled surface. The medication then condenses, sticking to the cooled surface in a thin crystalline film. The formation of the film can be tightly controlled by fine-tuning the printing process. The process requires no solvents, no additives and no post-processing.


University of Michigan - Printed medicine shows promise





Figure: University of Michigan - Crystal structure of ibuprofen, printed onto a silicon film using organic vapour jet printing


The tight control over solubility may also be useful later in the drug testing process, when potential new drugs are applied to cultured cells in a lab. According to the researchers most compounds must be dissolved in a chemical solvent before they're applied to cells. The new technique could enable printed medications to dissolve easily in the water-based medium used to culture cells, without the need for a solvent.

While printing mass-market drugs is likely years away, the researchers believe that the drug characterisation and testing applications may come to fruition more quickly—internally in pharmaceutical companies.

The team is exploring additional applications for the technology and plans to collaborate with experts in pharmaceutical compound design and manufacturing, as well as those working on treatments. Eventually, they envision vapour jet printing being scaled to mass production, including roll-to-roll continuous manufacturing.

The research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility.

"A doctor or pharmacist can choose any number of medications, which the machine would combine into a single dose."


"The machine could be sitting in the back of the pharmacy or even in a clinic."


"Pharma companies have libraries of millions of compounds to evaluate, and one of the first tests is solubility"


"About half of new compounds fail this test and are ruled out. Organic vapor jet printing could make some of them more soluble, putting them back into the pipeline."


Max Shtein, Professor of materials science and engineering

"Organic vapor jet printing may be useful for a variety of drug delivery applications for the safe and effective delivery of therapeutic agents to target tissues and organs."


Geeta Mehta, The Dow Corning Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and Biomedical Engineering and a co-author on the paper

"When researchers use solvents to dissolve drugs during the testing process, they're applying those drugs in a way that's different from how they would be used in people, and that makes the results less useful."


"Organic vapor jet printing could make those tests much more predictive, not to mention simpler."


Anna Schwendeman, Assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at U-M and an author on the paper

"One of the major challenges facing pharmaceutical companies is speed to clinical testing in humans."


"This technology offers up a new approach to accelerate the evaluation of new medicines."


Gregory Amidon, Research professor in the U-M College of Pharmacy and an author on the paper


Printing of small molecular medicines from the vapor phase

Olga Shalev | Shreya Raghavan | J. Maxwell Mazzara | Nancy Senabulya | Patrick D. Sinko | Elyse Fleck | Christopher Rockwell | Nicholas Simopoulos | Christina M. Jones | Anna Schwendeman | Geeta Mehta | Roy Clarke | Gregory E. Amidon | Max Shtein

Nature Communications 8 | Article number: 711 (2017) | doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00763-6

Received: 28 October 2016 | Accepted: 22 July 2017 | Published online: 27 September 2017

Abstract
There is growing need to develop efficient methods for early-stage drug discovery, continuous manufacturing of drug delivery vehicles, and ultra-precise dosing of high potency drugs. Here we demonstrate the use of solvent-free organic vapor jet printing to deposit nanostructured films of small molecular pharmaceutical ingredients, including caffeine, paracetamol, ibuprofen, tamoxifen, BAY 11-7082 and fluorescein, with accuracy on the scale of micrograms per square centimeter, onto glass, Tegaderm, Listerine tabs, and stainless steel microneedles. The printed films exhibit similar crystallographic order and chemistry as the original powders; controlled, order-of-magnitude enhancements of dissolution rate are observed relative to powder-form particles. In vitro treatment of breast and ovarian cancer cell cultures in aqueous media by tamoxifen and BAY 11-7082 films shows similar behavior to drugs pre-dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide. The demonstrated precise printing of medicines as films, without the use of solvents, can accelerate drug screening and enable continuous manufacturing, while enhancing dosage accuracy.

www.umich.edu

copyright cintelliq ltd 2003 - 2017

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: occams_phasor who wrote (12615)10/5/2017 12:51:25 AM
From: Mekopelet
6 Recommendations   of 13796
 

It is not customary for companies to hold public negotiations or threaten other companies of leaking information about IP negotiations with the purpose of hurting stockholders. If Samsung does come out with such a statement I can see the UDC management walking off the negotiations and demanding that Samsung stop the OLED production when the current contract ends. Samsung, which, makes billions from OLED will have to risk (1) being sued by Apple for billions of dollars in losses. (2) sued by UDC the day after the contract ends, and having ALL its phones removed from Japan, US and the European markets. In fact, UDC might make more money in the lawsuits then from Samsung's royalties and material purchase.

Meanwhile, I recommend reading the WSJ today's article on washing machines. It turns out that LG and Samsung have been dumping washing machines in the US market. Each time they are found liable they move the manufacturing to another country so as to avoid the US courts' decisions. Trump, with all his craziness has created a mood in the US that will no longer tolerates the Koreans or Chinese shenanigans. If Samsung chooses to conduct a trade war against the US (and Apple) the US courts and the juries will slap them li never before. The Apple Samsung saga will look like child play. Namely, this would not be about a 5 or 6 design patents. The lawsuit(s) would be about manufacturing, design, chemical compounds across three continents.... in fact, the lawsuits might continue well beyond 5 to 10 years with Samsung being barred from the US markets while the Chinese, Japanese and LG play catch up. For Samsung, not signing a long rm contract will be going nuclear, and for what, a few hundred million dollars?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: handyman who wrote (12606)10/5/2017 8:44:26 AM
From: slacker711
4 Recommendations   of 13796
 
Like I said before I'll be disappointed if they don't get a big bump in money and a nice 5 year term.


While I would definitely take a five year contract, I would trade a little lower royalty rate for six years. That would take us until the end of 2023 so UDC wouldnt have both LGD and Samsung expiring at the exact same time. It would also help prove out their claims that their royalty stream will not expire with their core iridium and ligand patents.


UDC has signed Samsung to two contracts during their history. The first, signed in 2006, was characterized as a "sweetheart" deal. The second was called a "no downside" deal. I am hoping that UDC's negotiators do better this time around.


Slacker

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: occams_phasor who wrote (12615)10/5/2017 9:36:58 AM
From: RitzHuskie
3 Recommendations   of 13796
 
Last I checked Samsung has a major deal with Apple right now on IPhone X. If no deal is signed UDC is certainly in a position to withhold orders, thus hurting 2 major companies and a new launch. Who exactly has the leverage?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: I'manoledguy10/5/2017 10:03:14 AM
8 Recommendations   of 13796
 
It is certainly worth speculating about the upcoming Samsung contract and exploring possible scenarios.

That said, I am of the opinion that a contract is all but signed. Samsung would never have committed so much capital into current manufacturing capacity with more coming online shortly thinking they might discard it all in a few years after the end of the this 5 year contract.

Apple would have never decided to go OLED without assurance, probably extremely costly to Samsung if not supplied, that a supply of Oled screens would be available to them which means UDC was certainly considered.

Sid has stated many times and as a lawyer he knows that litigation is expensive and time consuming. UDC has never been sued nor have they sued another company. From the beginning, UDC has negotiated with customers with the healthy attitude of a Win-Win for both parties.

I have stated that my guess is that Samsung and UDC have in place what could be considered a 5 year "extension" of the current contract. Sure, a few caveats, incentives will be considered but both companies are doing very well with OLED and neither party needs to rock the boat at this time.

Relax

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: ggamer10/5/2017 10:47:07 AM
   of 13796
 
Today's Apple new billboard ad in the heart of Silicon Valley shows an iPhine X with the colorful screen. They know what people are waiting for.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: I'manoledguy who wrote (12620)10/5/2017 10:57:09 AM
From: handyman
   of 13796
 
I agree with all of what you said except the part about lawsuits. UDC as you have stated has never been on either side of a suit but they are now entering a whole new world where they will negotiating and renegotiating
a boatload of new contracts. They also will no longer be under the radar as the industry explodes and the big boys see an opportunity to make money in their space. UDC alluded to this in their filings and stated they want to have a stash of cash in the event of future suits. I hope they don’t need it but, like them, I wouldn’t count on it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: handyman who wrote (12622)10/5/2017 11:21:12 AM
From: I'manoledguy
   of 13796
 
handyman, anybody and everybody in the display screen business has been aware of UDC for a long time and therefore not under the radar.

In case you are unaware, Samsung has been the 900lb gorilla in displays for years.

Yes, UDC has stated they want an ample cash stash to use should it be needed. Cash available for litigation discourages lawsuits. If you were to study UDC history you might discover that many years ago UDC did a secondary offering with this in mind.

You see, when you are an Intellectual Property company Mgmt knows that being able to defend it's patents is critical the reason they hired Mario.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: I'manoledguy who wrote (12620)10/5/2017 12:33:02 PM
From: slacker711
4 Recommendations   of 13796
 
Samsung would never have committed so much capital into current manufacturing capacity with more coming online shortly thinking they might discard it all in a few years after the end of the this 5 year contract.



Litigation, and the threat of litigation, is about leverage in negotiations. It is very very rarely ever as black and white as sign the contract or we are going to have to close the fab.

UDC's greatest strength versus other patent holders is the quality of their emitter materials.

If I was Samsung's management, I would need the answers to a series of questions before I signed a contract that was going to cost me billions.

First and foremost, are there commercially viable substitutes to UDC's emitter materials that dont use the identical molecule? If yes, then how many of the layers of UDC's patent pyramid do they violate? Is it only the ligands patent which begins to expire in sometime early in 2020?

If I have a commercially viable substitute, what is the probability that I would be able to win a court case in the US. What is the downside to litigation? How long would litigation take and would we be close to the expiration of the patents that we would be violating? Would the ITC actually ban all smartphones using OLED's. Would the President sign off an such an injunction?

If we go to litigation, will I be able to sign a better contract just prior to a judgement? How much money would Samsung save over the life of the contract by going this route? Would TADF materials be commercially viable before the end of the litigation?

UDC has to answer many similar questions before they decide on the lowest rate that they are willing to accept. If it really was a case of sign this contract or you are going to have to shut down your fabs, then UDC's royalty rate should be at least an order of magnitude higher. I would start negotiations at something like 15%.


Slacker

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.