We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
As I have been very positive recently regarding Nanoco, it would have been hypocritical were I not to double down. I assure you that I am not a hypocrite.
If I were Nanoco, I would delay further Stmicro announcements (if legally possible) until after the East Texas Courts make a decision on staying the trial.
If the decision favors Nanoco (likely outcome), good Stmicro news would then boost Nanoco shares substantially while assuaging any favorable Samsung court news.
I haven't sold a single share.
My intention was to see the litigation to a resolution and that is exactly what I will do.
As we approach 'endgame' nervousness and doubt will enter the mind and I think we are seeing that reflected in the SP over the last couple of weeks. Let's hope Gilstrap throws out Samsungs' stay and then October will be on us before you can say molecular cluster compound.
NigeW got me in here(RIP) and I ain't bottling it now.
I am reminded that Samsungs defence is weak and the evidence is robust. There are material implications for both companies in relation to the tech. One has profited handsomely from it and maintained a price differential against the competition as a result of their exclusivities which are from the company that invented the technology yet whom has not so far benefited. I doubt very much the court will see it any other way. All that is in question is to what extent and to what value? I also remain convinced that should the judgments go our way it will be in tandem with a license agreement and the value of the company will be at least $1bn. That's aside from any ST Micro revenue. In time this share could be multiples there of.
I’m with you nano. The SP is being bled down on tiny volumes so it’s a bit of a false flag. Only 90k shares changed hands Friday! Nobody is selling. Think most are waiting for judgement day and won’t part with them beforehand.
Yes nano, I don’t know if I come under the foolish category, but I can remember when I was trading their share at £1.20
I refuse to let somebody else take the benefit after 12 years investing in this company.
Hoping for the best.
I do quite the contrary. I top up as funds permit. When I first invested in this company mid-twenties would have been seen as an absolute steal. However i appreciate that many will have bought in when the share price was down in the single digits and have taken the opportunity to realise a handsome profit, even at present levels.
Only time will tell if they've been wise or foolish.
I agree nano. I reduced my holding down so that what I have left in is a free ride, So that when the final decision is made good or bad I am then not risking anything as these shares were technically free. That in turn means I am not selling a single share more until the decision
Small volume being traded though.
Most are sitting tight waiting to see what pans out, I think.
Unfortunately, we seem to be sliding a little ahead of the Motion to Stay decision but that is only to be expected.
Fingers crossed for a decision in our favour. Proceedings have been subject to enough delay already and it is time this matter received the airing it deserves in Court.
Nanostructures tend to be that size, or smaller.
…… one thousandth the width of a human hair. (For tissue them away)
The nanostructures are not referring to Quantum dots. A read of the Metalenz technology is well worthwhile, this is significant technology and will transform machine vision. I think it's very likely that QD's will be used with the sensors, but cannot find any reference to them on the Metalenz site. Everything is pointing towards this and Nanoco's tech being use in Apple's forthcoming AR spec's.
The lenses will feature nanostructures one-thousandth th.....PIRATEPETE PLEASE CONTINUE
Yes Lobo, I suspect a decision on the motion to Stay has potential to take the SP either way in the near term, but potentially more downside than up in event of the ‘wrong’ decision.
I am certainly hoping no one is listening too attentively to views presented by the alleged Samsung rogues.
The sur-reply is under seal, so unfortunately we can't learn anything from it. I think we will have a ruling on the motion to stay next week.
Here’s hoping these contain NANO CFQD PiratePete. The ST partner and timing certainly fits the theory, and flat lens technology could be a game changer for the likes of Apple to use to the detriment of Samsung in mobile phones etc. There would be some justice in that.
It’s not helping the share price today though! All eyes on the Courts next statement.
STMicroelectronics and Metalenz Inc. have announced a co-development and license agreement that will see ST develop manufacturing processes for Metalenz’s meta-optics technology. Metalenz is a spin-out of the group of Federico Capasso at Harvard University, where the technology was invented. This breakthrough technology is expected to be ready for mass production by the end of this year.
Metalenz’s multifunctional meta-surface optics enable new forms of sensing for the next generation of smartphones and other consumer devices, as well as healthcare and automotive applications. For example, a camera built around this new flat-lens technology can collect more light for brighter images and produce images of the same or better quality than traditional refractive lenses while consuming less power and taking up less space.
ST will integrate Metalenz’s meta-surface optics technology into its existing diffractive optics manufacturing process at its 300mm wafer fab in Crolles, France, leveraging ST’s position at the forefront of the fast-growing Near-Infrared (NIR) optical sensing market. Today, ST leads the market for time-of-flight (ToF) proximity and distance sensors with over 1 billion devices shipped to customers.
[Webinar] Using Automation to Optimize Your Test Pattern
“With its advantages in power, efficiency, and performance, multifunctional optics technology can be a game changer for the next generation of optical sensors used in smartphones and other consumer devices, as well as healthcare and automotive applications,” said Eric Aussedat, Executive Vice President & General Manager of ST’s Imaging Division. “In combining Metalenz’s advances with our proprietary technology, manufactured in our state-of-the-art 300mm production facility in Crolles, this partnership will support ST’s continued offering of the most innovative and advanced optical-sensing solutions to its customers.”
“We are thrilled to be working with an industry leader like ST. The technology developed by Metalenz is a perfect complement to ST’s advanced capabilities and market position,” said Dr. Rob Devlin, CEO and co-founder of Metalenz. “We adopted a fabless business model so that we can focus on the innovation and design of revolutionary optics to transform sensing from smartphones to automobiles. Working with ST enables us to expand our product offering while leveraging ST’s high-volume fabrication capability and enables ST’s already differentiated product lines to reach new heights with Metalenz inside.”
The technology developed by Metalenz is a perfect complement to ST’s advanced capabilities. Combining semiconductor manufacturing and optics, ST will use advanced lithographic masks to build tunable diffractive-wavefront layers on a meta-surface in a semiconductor wafer fab. Like silicon ICs, the flat meta-surface lenses are processed in a semiconductor clean room using the same manufacturing technology. The lenses will feature nanostructures one-thousandth th
Sur reply from Nanoco shown as filed yesterday on docketbird.
Indeed, very helpful to have someone on here that can digest the legal jargon and present the essential points in normal English.
No exciting update from me, only a big thank you to lobo87 for keeping us informed of his interpretation of the supplied information.
I believe that Nanoco's sur-reply is due to be filed today and I would think that a ruling could come as early as the back end of next week although it may drag in to the following week.
I believe we should expect a decision next week at some point. Next Monday, 14th June was the deadline wasn't it?
Hi everyone,
I read Samsung's reply - there are no new arguments and it is a regurgitation of the original motion.
The motion to compel Nanoco to produce document is under seal, so we don't know what information they are requesting and for what reasons it is being denied. Perhaps this is privileged information (Nanoco emails to counsel or IP advisors etc) or perhaps it is information that doesn't actually exist. I also have a sneaking suspicion that it could be a delay tactic from Samsung to slow down the discovery process as a way to artificially increase the chances for a stay to be granted. It is impossible to say.
I am out of pocket for the next few days but am monitoring the filings and if something relevant pops up will let you know.
All the best,
Lobo
Yesterday Samsung has filed a Motion to stay requested subject to patent review.
Are the latest updates of any importance? I think Samsung are still trying to obtain a withheld document.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038