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.
Looking to the future,how does everyone see the future for nanoco? Assuming a win in court/settlement and subsequent licensing agreement with Samsung is there a possibility of action against Dow/LG? Will Samsung's current market share become our own and if so where would that lead financially?
I know we are all aware of the dire implications of losing proceedings as these have been discussed in previous posts over the last year or so but one avenue I think may be worth considering is what may lie after the court case. The current global market was worth about £5bn last year. It looks like this figure is only going to grow and cadmium's days seem to be numbered.
Samsung's share was about £3bn of the global market last year. Would it be reasonable to assume that would become nano's? I'm not going to lie,given a decent settlement/award I would be tempted to cut and run but the more I think about it the more I think we may be missing the woods for the trees. Given a successful outcome,the next five years may be even more profitable than a best case court award.
On what ground would they be In dispute with Dow/DuPont or LG. AFAIK neither have infringed Nanoco IP. If it’s in relation to some kind of alleged collusion to frustrate the market for Nanoco’s dots, I’d say that would be a pretty bold claim and very difficult to prove even if it were true.
It would be interesting to know what kind of QD’s will be going in LG’s new QNED sets. From what Brian Tenner said at the last update about any cad free QD’s at scale it looks likely that Nanosys and possibly UbiQD could possibly be borrowing some of Nanoco’s techniques, but with insufficient sales to date to make it worthwhile pursuing them in court at this time.
My mistake,Dow provided dot's under a license agreement.
It is a very positive trait to acknowledge mistake in my book Frostbar, and who amongst us has not erred?
If Dow is guilty of passing NANO ‘know how’ to Samsung, the proof threshold would be exceptionally onerous, unless NANO had obtained truly incriminating evidence. Perhaps Samsung got all it needed from the collaboration with NANO?
However, Dow was ‘buttered up’ with other contracts and has done nothing publicly to support NANO, so who knows? It has not always covered itself in glory either, e.g release of carcinogenic pollutants from Teflon production in the USA.
Where is a good whistle blower when we need one?
We don't need one.
We just need our patents declared valid by the PTAB and the judge to side with Nanoco/Mintz side of the case. then it's just a matter of time, IMO.
I agree whole heartedly, Frostbar. Lack of funds to benefit from patents have constrained Nanoco from the start. A win would give them tremendous leverage and ample funds to issue a dividend, buy back shares, and expand rapidly into many markets. Companies infringing on their IP will either license the technology or face lawsuits.
With the caveat that technology could always turn the world upside down, Nanoco profits could soar to 100% or more per year for multiple years, causing the share price to exponentiate. Their biggest problem will be managing growth. They need to profit as much as possible from expiring patents, while building a solid foundation for the future. Much as Bezos has done at Amazon, they need to balance a profitability focus with establishing a world class foundation.
Given good management, Nanoco's share price could reach into the high double digits in coming years.
Fingers crossed Brian Tenner is our man then! A court win will give him plenty of resources to hopefully push the company and the need for manufacturers to license from us will give us a revenue stream moving forward to help keep the momentum going. I'm going to have to rethink my post settlement strategy now amerloque
"high double digits". 99p?
If we lose and no orders maybe 0.25p by the end of year. But if we win and get orders for sensors, is 25 pounds sterling within 5 years too high?
I just wanted to check. At the moment the MC is c.£80m. In my opinion it's at least a 10 bagger from here so £2.70 minimum. Is it possible to hit £25?......let us hope so. I'm not saying no. The tech sector is fickle but once you are in peoples sights it can go quite crazy. 50 x EV is not unheard of. Check Snowflake.
Important to keep feet firmly on the ground I think and to take our signals from Nano’s moves rather than target prices. Upsides could be massive, but current risks are significant too. For us that have been brave enough to back nano at their lowest ebb will stand to gain the most from a post litigation Nano.
There could well be a few who sell if there’s positive news on the legal front. Don’t forget there are a significant number of PIs who have been underwater for a long time and will jump at the chance to get out of a share that has caused such angst. Nonetheless, I expect a big rise and a retrace after the euphoria wears off and some selling kicks in. However, I think selling straight off the back of the legal case would be like cashing out a bet on Usain Bolt before he’s even set in the starting blocks.
It’s certainly worth sticking around to see what a rejuvenated Nano do with their IP and, as others have alluded to, the potentially massive market cap that could follow as a result.
All IMHO of course
by high double digits, I mean "50+ £'s"
There is risk, but how often do we get an opportunity to bet roulette black or white with a long term 5,000% potential return?
that's retirement in 5 years and in Monaco! Not that I would.
More funding will need to be raised well within 12 months, unless there is either a successful outcome to the litigation or new cash flow from sensors, display CFQD or something else. LOAM’s increased share supports the view that either a further cash raise is unnecessary, or that if needed, it will cough up again for a larger share of the equity. So there is still considerable uncertainty but I believe, we shall secure income though the STMicro partnership in the next few months and secure our status as a going concern. If we can do that, an SP measured in £ and not p is not unrealistic.
If we ever get to £25 Botbot will be able to finance a modest space exploration programme.
I agree Mr Bond
I think we'll need to get into the £'s for BotBot to recover his losses from Hurricane Energy
Yes down 75% on the week. Rumour alleges the BoD has been talking it down for months to hand the firm over to Bondholders or sell on the cheap to CONOCO. Who knows but a very poor showing on HUR.
Still, on the positive side Bot still has a good few left in NANO.
Okay I know there are substantial risks here, but the rewards are potential high too. However I think even if things go well for us, investors will have to wait several years to get top dollar for the shares . The appeals will no doubt take years and Nanoco needs time to "develop" the organic business as well- hence my question about 5 years hence. That said if I have understood correctly for every £ 1Billion Nanoco gets in a settlement (we need to remember Nanoco won't get all of any award as we have to compensate our case funder, lawyers etc) the share price value "should" increase by £3. Thus to get lets say a share prcice of £24 we would "only" need a sum of £8 billion from Samsung to actually go to Nanoco. Is that really feasible? I think MC with his talk of 14 million TV's sold would have said yes, but BT seems to have his feet more on the ground. We can only dream. The other possibility of course is that the shares become virtually worthless if the trial goes against us and no new business opportunities ride to our rescue. Has there every been a share with such a large range of outcomes? 8th May today so if BT was accurate we should hear something in the next 23 days aslthough the trial is still months away.!
Rather CNOC that is
If Nanoco wins, it is very probable that the will see a sustained yearly profit growth of more than 100%. Such and occurrence would result in a PE ratio of high double digits. Imagine further that annual profitability exceeds 1 BP per share. A high double digit share price is not out of range.
Some big figures being bandied about here, which I think belong in the realms of fantasy.
I would say a settlement of north of $1bn would be very decent , based on loss of earnings times three, plus a bit more for costs incurred, damage to reputation, harm to company prospects etc. Any kind of license would have to be negotiated separately from the legal proceedings, and with Samsung would probably require some further legal action to get Samsung to comply , reference to KAIST who had to go back to court for similar shenanigans.
Sensors could be much more significant for anyone that has kept a close eye on how things are moving exponentially with IoT, AR and machine learning (incorporating automated cars).
My own thoughts are that if Nanoco win this action, it will become a much more attractive prospect for a buyout by a larger corporation. Nanoco have never really been keen on becoming a manufacturing company, they'd rather leave that to someone else, and have only dipped their toe in the water as a consequence of losing sales to the Korean OEM's.
I should add that I'm aware that the $1bn figure would only cover lost sales in North America, and that worldwide sales are three times that figure, but the legal action is against North American sales. Any further damages would be negotiated elsewhere.
It would be nice if Samsung offered a worldwide deal, but I wouldn't count on it.
Edison estimates a settlement in the region of $£250m mark. They will have been guided on that figure, although hopefully at the lower end of the spectrum of damages. Forward licensing is critical and I would expect one to have a global requirement.