The whole LED industry is already littered with cross patent licensing deals on MOCVD. The Lumileds patent is the first of many that those in the industry will lodge at the application level to include RPCVD. Remember, RPCVD is a platform technology that is used in various applications; some which don't even exist yet because MOCVD can't do it.
Lumileds will want to use RPCVD. The question is, how much should they pay. They don't want to pay more than they have to, so they will play appropriately hard in the negotiations. With BLG taking a portfolio approach and also developing their own platform/application level patents, they will ensure they have a strong negotiating position too. I would assume that is why they have a good cash runway so that anyone trying to hammer the SP, to weaken the perceived strength of the company would have to do it for a long time.
If Lumileds were to use their patent to block development, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Would it make sense for BLG to reward Lumileds with such behaviour when they have many other opportunities to develop the use of RPCVD by the industry. It makes no sense for Lumileds to have a patent which they can't use - we know using MOCVD on tunnel junctions doesn't work commercially at this point in time.
Good to see the short termers cash in and move on. It will take some time for the dust to settle post flash crash.
I look forward to announcements around the development of the portfolio of opportunities (inc Lumileds). I am also interested in how the BLG-300ii goes. I would imagine they won't just use the exact same chamber design as last time. In theory, this would be optimised based on real life experience and should be a good step towards the next chamber upgrade later this year.
