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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Considering Nanoco is operating in a sector where IP is key, they will surely have litigation/legal expenses insurance. They also wouldn’t take on Samsung without it.
Chrissio..absolutely not litigation insurance is no doubt in place this is very common practice and besides Nanoco approached Samsung in March last year so Samsung has simply been dragging its heels before the court case was launched a year later. Nanoco even prior to March would have no doubt been weighing up what to do while watching Samsung sales of QLED TVs ramping up. It looks very bad on Samsung who appear to be deliberately and wilfully infringing Nanoco's patents for sometime..So as Nanosys Inc scandal key supplier to Samsung claiming they have a cadmium free QD solution just wonder now when they will get dragged into the mix and how independant is their IP to Nanoco's..or are they also in infringement!
Yes Chrissio, a cash raise is a high possibility at this point! Expect it, but be ready to average down
These things take a long time and cost a lot of money, something which Nanoco hasn't got too much of at the moment. Could Samsung not just stringit out and wait for Nanoco to completely run out of cash and go bust?
There we have it, official confirmation in the RNS.
Lets hope some cash is flipped our way too and soon.
I am glad to see that Nanoco has been defending its IP. Failure to do so can lead to loss of patent. I am pretty sure that Samsung does not want it to go to trial. It occurs to me that Samsung might have made an offer, and Nanoco might then have solicited bids in order to set a starting value for Nanoco's IP.
Thanks, BBD. Hansol is the company. Hansol used to be a part of Samsung Group and is still owned by a relative of the family in control of Samsung Group and Shinsegae. Hansol's senior advisor is the sister of Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee.
My assessment for what it's worth is this, they all want us for different reasons , I wouldn't bet a penny on one individual company, only guess obviously guess like everyone else, what makes sense to me is this, all the other TV manufacturers who don't have any real foothold in the quantum Dot market , making a combined proposal for nanoco and using our IP to take on Samsung at its own game, in other words China creating a buyout vehicle to use our IP to create a Chinese vehicle to make there own quantum dot TV,s after handing out all our technology to all there TV manufacturers. If they don't they will have to licence it from someone else, and they like to lead not follow industry trends.
It's not a great assumption by me, it's just what China have done all around the world, if we were in the USA, trump would stop them with a national security risk badge.
So I'm only guessing that Samsung will know this, and if they can't protect themselves by buying us , then they will be darn sure the Chinese will pay dearly for us. And in saying that , all these big massive companies are all capable of making substantial offers for nanoco,
I just think when you have huge companies involved , and a rapidly changing technology towards quantum dots, then the stakes are very high here, as I've said before, just a few good orders and our nanoco's valuation could instantly soar, throw in a good quantum dot infringement case and we could be sitting on a real big earner here.
This is all coming together. I agree with others that there will litigation or a bidding war.
My prediction is a Samsung offer very soon. Given the revelation that this infringement was highlighted prior to the bidding process, Samsung are still very likely to be involved and now more likely to acquire Nanoco given the stakes. This might be about to go nuts. I'm upping my prediction/guestimate to $250m from $100m.
One might wonder why an extremely successful company such as Samsung would stiff Nanoco just to save a few dollars. The answer might be person greed--Samsung gave initial contracts to an independent Korean company owned by a relative of Samsung executives. I don't remember the name of the company, but I questioned at the time how this company could suddenly compete with Nanoco's cadmium free quantum dots. Today, I can see internet references in 2015 to Samsung using an independent Korean company to produce quantum dots, but no mention of the name. Does anyone remember this company's name?
So it’s being suggested that “ Samsung “ might have broken or infringed on nanoco’s patent/ patents and allowed many other companies to manufacture certain aspects of quantum dots which in totality could be a really massive infringement of our patents , and costing nanoco countless millions in lost licensing and royalties. That does make sense, but then I would say that, We will have to wait a little while until we get a handle on the whole patent infringement case. On the face of it, I simply can’t see nanoco taking on Goliath or a potential future customer as in Samsung if we were in the wrong.
It’s most likely we’re right, but these types of patent infringements cases can be tricky when technologies and patents overlap. a well informed jury and judge will have to decide on our case.
Though with some digging we might get a understanding on our potential claim.
Any solution must consider more than past lost revenue and future revenue.
Damages to Nanoco are incalculable. Besides losing revenue, Nanoco have lost huge market share and have consequently been unable to fund breakthrough development in many areas. It is likely that Nanoco would dominate the quantum dot world today had Samsung acted properly and not infringed.
Nanoco announced the Dow Chemical agreement and the plant to be built next to Samsung in Jan 2013. I bought my first Nanoco shares in December, 2012. Shares tripled in value immediately and looked to go much higher.
Well I’m extremely confident that there will be no financial risk to nanoco over our patent infringement lawsuit. There is specialists patent infringement lawyers who wouldn’t touch us if we didn’t have a strong case to hit Samsung with, sometimes it’s just cheaper to stretch these cases out for Samsung, and to block a very strong case as long as they can. They have there own internal lawyers, and also lawyers who get paid a set fee every year to represent them , even if it’s on and off basis. It will be a interesting lawsuit to follow up on, as it really could benefit all of nanoco’s shareholders.
It’s really looking exciting now . Two really good opportunities to make some serious money.
Litigation war .
Lots of interesting speculation but I always thought someone (S.Korean) or otherwise was innocent till proved guilty.
First TVs 2016 yes but the shenanigans between Nanosys, Dow, Samsung and Nanoco started a good year or two before that.
I thought Samsung only started using quantum dot technology in there TV,s from 2016 / launch year, just for the sake of argument, strip out the past iP losses, and the future is quantum dot TV,s that in itself may or not constitute a huge revenue stream .
Also who’s to say Samsung may have known about the patent infringement , and maybe it was Because of that , and after taking expert advice over the matter, they then approached nanoco about a proposal??? Which would kick off the formal sales process. These Patent infringement matters normally take months to even understand there long term potential cost to Samsung.
All I would say is it’s just great to be on our side of the fence of patent infringement litigation matters,
I also appreciate everyone who’s doing there patent infringement sums on here, though PPE must be singled out for special thanks, great posting guys, very much appreciated.
I just can’t wait to get some write up around this in say the Financial Times, I don’t get it anymore, though maybe if anyone here’s anything, then I will rush out and but it. Investors chronicle might be a decent source for more information on this, I normally get that.
This patent infringement might just light a rocket under our shares in the coming weeks. It all depends on the journalistic write ups around everything.
ITS ALL FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Apologies Hawi. I was responding to Morbox's comment to effect that infringement was identified in RD process. Thanks for those links too.
If, and this is still very much in the wild speculation category, this results in a deal with Samsung where Nanoco gets $1 to $2 per screen $370M would be a very low valuation for the company. I think we'd see a lot higher. So, if someone does pick Nanoco up for less than that now it may prove to be a good deal.
So $12m cashflow a year from potential Samsung derived licence/royalty fees, less tax 20%, $/£ at 1.30 to £, cost of equity high teens 18%, no debt, massive growth rate 27.9%, so basically cost of capital really low maybe even 2 to 3%..This equates to a discounted valuation of £300m to £370m based on free cash flows generated from any future deal with Samsung using Nanoco IP or 105p to 130p per Nanoco share minimum. That's just for cashflows derived from Samsung on tv related QD IP ignoring all other licence fee income that Nanoco receives or any other products (other than Samsung QD tv's) where Nanoco QD tech maybe used including Samsung who may use it in laptops, smartphones at some stage in the near future.
They lowered the price. Very few customers want to pay over a £/$1000 for a set, and most pay half that. The very expensive sets crate a lot of profit for the companies making them, except OLED which is just expensive to make, hence why LG display are doing poorly.
I'm discounting before 2019 because I recall hearing during the years prior that QLED TVs were failing to take off and sales were disappointing. 2019 was the take off year. They weren't zero though so would add something to the total.
Has Nanoco found an indirect route to monetise its IP and commercialise its products via an IP infringement law suit against Samsung, it seems so. Does this also mean that Nanosys Inc's market domination of the QD industry is under the spot light because they don't possess a Cadmium free solution and 'may' have infringed Nanoco's global IP with Samsung where Nanoco clearly does have the technology and intellectual property rights. Even if no sale is concluded Nanoco may start taking off and may need to consider getting that factory of theirs up and running.