Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video 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.
If the patents are judged to be valid and Samsung made the items detailed within them without a prior agreement then said patents were infringed. Samsung have made no argument that I can find which states the contrary,and if there was even a sliver of a chance that said argument could be used in court then I think Samsung would have trotted it out by now.
That’s right BtB, although the burden of proof is ultimately on Samsung to demonstrate how they have made cluster nucleus CFQD without infringing NANO’s patents. My money says they don’t have an answer to that. NANO says Samsung’s Patent Board application includes a number of implausible ways to create them, so it is entirely possible that likely it could be decided by a trial and Samsung will drag it out as far as it is able. After all, it is very big money even for them.
A positive Markman outcome would be a very significant benefit to NANO though and limit Samsung’s options. There is an increased chance of settlement, if they get ‘Slam Dunked’ at Markman hearing.
Possibly too many "is's" in one sentence, depending on the meaning of 'is'. I need to confer with Bill.
Perhaps, I am missing something, BTB. Why is the Markman Hearing, in which the judge upholds the patent validity or not, is not tangible?
No news might be good news. Scale up was anticipated at the end of Financial Q2 2021, at the earliest. Q2 ends on 31, January, 2021. Thus, we could legitimately expect an update. Like it or not, it would be smarter for STMicro to await the Markman results before scaling up. STMicro is already sitting in the catbird seat for delivery of Nanoco dots because it was willing to make an inexpensive bet. Why should STMicro assume further risk until after Markman unless Nanoco were to offer extremely low pricing? Conversely, why would Nanoco offer such low pricing if it felt itself in a strong position vis-a-vis Samsung?
It's all a big 'IF'.
The present share value can be looked upon as a problem or an opportunity. For many holders the present situation means they're well underwater, whilst for many others they've made a decent profit. historically the share price is very low, so if you're bullish about the prospects of the company, then perhaps it's a good time to hoover up whatever you can afford.
The more bearish may think the share price will revisit the single figure levels once again, which isn't out of the question if the case against Samsung drags on and there is a paucity of news from the company regarding other dealings, and thus the present price looks expensive.
Could be Nanonano. We are always the last to hear but if we can become a dominant player in IR sensors and also secure that very large pay cheque from Samsung, I can’t imagine anyone here is going to be disappointed.
There should be more long term value outside of the Samsung case than in it but there is no doubt that winning the legal case has potential to add capital more quickly, even if it does take several more years to obtain it.
Perhaps they're having an extended negotiation.
Yes you are correct the $1m STM contract was for 2021, but in December we heard 'We continue to deliver R&D services under a number of development programmes with different customers in the sensing and display markets, the most significant of which is the work with ST Microelectronics N.V. ('ST Micro'). Good progress has been made on this project during the Period and we are now negotiating its potential next phase.'
What I had in mind was maybe an update on this potential new phase, as that sort of suggested a deviation or change which intimated we might hear some results of the negotiation or maybe a new partner.
Scale up was anticipated Q2 2021 at the earliest, with hoped for revenue in 2022. It's somewhat vague though, as it's subject to earlier stages going to plan.
Perhaps there will be some update in the interim report, but I think it unlikely there'll be much detail, sadly.
The agreement is certainly a five year one Hawi, although the first phase of development was due to complete in December 2020, so what I and I am sure others would like to hear is something or anything, for example the next Phase is underway and has not expired in the same way the expectations ME set for Merck nearly a couple of years ago, as indeed have several other promising announcements. Sometimes I have questioned my judgement but I am still long though and have not sold any in 10 years. Not too much longer to wait.
I was certainly expecting something before now Ecclescake but if the customer is Apple and assuming all is well, we shall be beholden you their timetable and so may not hear for some time yet.
Interesting article and those Apple glasses sound like they might be something very special. I see they ...might be able to notify the wearer of sounds beyond their own field of hearing. My wife shares a similar specification, although I doubt that I would be ready to displace her for an Apple version just yet.
We must be a update on ST Micro by now, they must have other stuff going on, been too quiet for too long.
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/apple-glass-ar-specs-may-be-self-cleaning-and-feature-3d-audio