Member Info for amerloque

The PTAB did review all 47 claims. As correctly pointed out by another poster, your comment was wrong, Nigwit.

The PTAB confirmed that all 5 patents are valid. Confirmation of all 47 claims means that the patents were very solid and well written. Approval of all claims is apparently unusual. Nanoco management had every right to claim a 47-0 victory. Losing even one claim would have shown weakness.

Nigwitty: (1) Please tell me that you were not formerly ByTheBanker.
(2) Many contrarian investors have been enormously successful. Warren Buffet is famous for this. In many ways, Nanoco investors are contrarian investors. "Contrarian investing means holding a viewpoint on the market that is out of favor, and then doing the necessary research to determine if there's an investment opportunity. Successful contrarian investors must be willing to spend a lot of time evaluating market conditions to build their case." Many of the posts here are efforts to research the investment opportunity and should not be disparaged. Since you have obviously communicated with experts, please pass their expertise on to us instead of pontificating. Your opinion expressed here ignores the fact that knowledgeable and professional investors make most of their money by manipulating small investors. They certainly would not get rich honestly advising other investors.

Sammy/Ecclescake: 25% of the TV sales value seems unreasonable. Perhaps we need to identify the value added by Nanoco quantum dots and apply 25% to the resultant value.

Thanks, Nigwitty. We both want the same thing--Nanoco success and the consequent resulting profits. I will not raise these issues again. Welcome back.

Nigwit: I would not have raised the past if you had not recently boasted of careful scrutiny prior to investing. It was inexcusable to suggest on this board that QMC might be a good investment. You had obviously never glanced at their Balance Sheets and P&Ls (many of which were even unaudited for years). Though I immediately advised posters not to buy QMC, even mention of a vaporware company on this board might have led novices to invest.

Recently, you boasted a legal background but failed to acknowledge at the time that you are not a lawyer. I find this unacceptable.

Feeks: I also appreciate Sammy's contributions to this board, which has been so thoughtful, encouraging and polite. Most posters here are intelligent and mature. Despite past accusations of ramping, Nanoco has recently proven to be one of the safest investments possible in a very down market. Share price has increased more than 150% in the past 3 months and it promises to go much higher in the future. Perhaps, profits won't be as high as projected by some. Few can deny Nanoco's future promise. We expect near term commercial sales. There is little chance of losing the Samsung lawsuit. Strong prospects for future lawsuit wins.

Prospects of severe inflation probably make disruptive technologies like quantum dots a better alternative that sitting on cash. Is there a better quantum dot investment than Nanoco? I welcome suggestions, since we are still in the early stages of a likely boom.

Are you the same Nigwit who once suggested that Quantum Materials Corp, a recently delisted company with financial statements from hell, might be a good investment? Are you the same Nigwit who was banned from this board?

I appreciate you view point. I believed strongly in Nanoco's future, but we will never know what could have been achieved. I hate to see opportunity and talent wasted, especially due to someone else's greed.

I first purchased Nanoco shares at 60 pence ten years ago. Shortly thereafter, Nanoco announced the DOW deal causing the share price to rise to 2 pounds. Analysts then predicted a 4 to 10 bagger share price and success in display, lighting, medical, agriculture, solar and many TBD industries. Dow Chemical built the factory but received almost no orders and no Samsung contracts. Lack of funds eventually forced Nanoco to lay off many employees and forego multiple industry opportunities. Nanoco had to drastically limit research.

The Nanoco loss was almost unfathonable. If possible, we should subpoena and review Samsung's current quantum-dot related business plans as well as Nanoco's early business plans and then perform a best guess assessment of where Nanoco would be today if it had received the Samsung contract. Then multiply that by 3 for willful infringement. Billions of dollars!

Brilliant analysis, Ecclescake!! Samsung wanted the CFQD market to themselves but could only do so by eliminating Nanoco as a competitor. This is why all of the reward models have been so wrong. If Samsung had contracted with Nanoco, many other TV manufacturers would also have done so, enabling Nanoco to dominate the market. Furthermore, Nanoco would have had sufficient research capabilities to expand into and dominate other markets. Do not believe that Samsung has not spread this technology across its cartel. Samsung knew full well that Nanoco CFQD was a platform technology

A more accurate model would be to assess

There must be multiple smoking gun, but the biggest one is probably the fact that SAMSUNG NEVER APPLIED FOR A PATENT. Why would any company invent valuable platform technology and not patent it?

Sammy: Glad to see somewhat legitimate legal opinions on this forum. I am not a lawyer but have run companies. I would certainly require that agreements demand complete disclosure of all Samsung IP transfers and licenses, subject to severe penalties and reappearance in court. Smart lawyers would do the same. For this reason, I don't believe that an out of court settlement is possible, since it would require complete disclosure by Samsung. I doubt that Samsung's culture allows such honesty. Samsung leadership is just too arrogant.

Personally, I agree with the person who admitted to looking forward to a dramatic trial. I would hate to see a settlement.

Good find, Nanonano!
In 2020, CSOT, a TCL Technology company, invested US$281 million and took a 10.76 percent stake in JOLED which in turn licenses its technology for TCL's development of OLED televisions, which might be incorporating quantum dots. The story here is more Joled than TCL.
JOLED Inc. is a Japanese display technology company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, incorporated in 2015 as the result of a consolidation of the OLED business units of Panasonic and Sony. Sumitomo Chemical invested almost $500M in 2017. Notable for pioneering an inkjet printing process for coating emissive materials, the company is specializing in development and production of OLED displays and of cost-effective manufacturing systems for them. The OLED materials developed by Sumitomo Chemical allow displays to be produced by the printing method. Distinct from the currently prevailing vacuum deposition method, the printing method is much simpler in a manufacturing process and is also capable of achieving significant reduction in both equipment cost and materials loss because the method simply involves printing OLED materials onto a substrate to form pixels of display just in a manner similar to an inkjet printer. Accordingly, the printing method produces mid-to-large size OLED displays at lower cost with higher productivity, hence holding every promise of becoming a mainstream manufacturing method for OLED displays in the years to come. Sumitomo is also working with quantum dots.

It is not difficult to imagine that Sumitomo Chemical (the "Asian Chemical Company??) and Joled could eventually be a Nanoco customers one day.

MIntz and Nanoco will certainly drop more shoes. Who's your daddy, Samsung?

Great news! It seems that the trial will start and end in the 3rd quarter.

...past Samsung conduct vis-a-vis other companies....

We seem to assume that Samsung only infringed 5 patents. Nanoco implied in the beginning that Samsung had infringed other patents, but that it would be unwise to include more than five patents in the lawsuit. Any settlement would need to include the infringement entirety--some number between 5 and 500 in many countries.

Thank you, BC. I agree completely with you. Note that I have never stated that the court would consider past Samsung conduct. I referenced past infringements to demonstrate that Samsung is sleazy and that no one should claim that their business model is proper.

Barbon: I never invest money I am not willing to lose. You are right in saying I am emotional. I grew up believing in free markets, something that Samsung and other cartels are destroying with their greed. I want to see Samsung punished severely.

Nigwitty: When deciding awards, Samsung/Nanoco history is very relevant. You have given us your opinion while claiming to have 20 cases of litigation experience, yet you are not a lawyer. Posters to this site are more intelligent than you seem to think. I am curious. Please explain how Mintz lawyers can prove willful infringement without addressing this past history. If you cannot, let's just agree that Samsung are dirt bags and need to be severely punished with maximum penalties. Ultimate success for Nanoco and its employees is as important to me as a huge settlement or award. These people have suffered more than we shareholders sand deserve to be rewarded. Their success will enrich all of us monetarily. I see the eventual share price going much, much higher.