Member Info for amerloque

https://content.st.com/gesture-recognition-feature-for-vl53l5cx-time-of-flight-sensor.html
This fits perfectly with the Nanoco time frame and launch of Nanoco Heatwave in the second half of this year. ST's TOF sensors promise to be disruptive. I suspect that no other company could contemplate similar gesture systems at this time.

"ST's new Gesture Recognition feature for ST Time-of-Flight (ToF) sensors opens new possibilities for enhanced user interactions. ...turnkey solution ... intuitive GUI and ready-to-use example code. Customed-made for ...multi-zone VL53L5CX sensor, it enables hand tracking, swipe, tap, push/pull and many more.

Built upon ... success of Flight-Sense™ sensors, this new software will ... unleash the full capability of theseAt tiny depth sensors. Ease of integration, low power consumption, and non-intrusive technology ... for low-cost, simple and robust Gesture Recognition applications.

ST ... creates a positive impact on people’s life. Gesture Recognition ...[enables] touchless, user-friendly applications for a safe, germ-free experience in laptops, home appliances industrial robots, to name only a few.
Webinar
Discover the new Gesture Recognition feature for VL53L5CX Time-of-Flight sensor opening new interaction possibilities
Tuesday, April 26th 2022
? 03:00 pm CEST | EMEA session
? 02:00 pm EDT | Americas session

This is exciting, Intrusive, as it possibly enforces Nanoco's future nano material strength. You continue to make great contributions to this site.

The following URL documents one of the relevant Nanoco patents. Surprisingly, this patent includes hybrid organic and inorganic materials thus mitigating my concern over news reports stating that projected STMicro infrared sensors were OLED based.
patents.google.com/patent/US20170373263A1/en

Thanks, Morbox. I was not sure that PTAB had seen it. Still, I do not understand why they did not reference it at the hearing.

This article discovered by Intrusive scares me because it led me to understand Samsung's strategy during the trial. It boils down to the fact that PTAB does not base its decisions on same court standard of “clear and convincing evidence”. Instead the status quo is to base decisions on the “preponderance of evidence,” when invalidating patents."

Samsung need only present a preponderance of possibilities to allow judges to justify invalidating the patents. Based on this, it might have been a huge mistake not to point out that Samsung's lead scientist requested Nanoco's help and admitted failure after having struggled for five years.

It's more likely that Nanoco's recognition of Fintiv's failure guided their decision to join Samsung in requesting the IPR institution. Note that earlier Mintz documents strongly recommended avoiding IPR institution.

It is evident that Fintiv was not going to play a part in this lawsuit. "In particular, the Fintiv precedent effectively clarifies that PTAB doesn’t need to hear a challenge if the patent in question is already part of a parallel court proceeding that is well underway."

As the Samsung-Nanoco proceeding was already well underway, the PTAB review should have been quickly dismissed under Fintiv rules.

Again, I remind posters that Feeks was once the most negative person on this board. Rightfully so and hated for it. I am above water at present after continuing to buy down, but I wish I had listened to him at the time. Though presently extremely positive, he is not your typical ramper.

While there is danger of losing money, the multi-bagger potential far outweighs the risk. Still, you should never risk money that you will need in the short to medium term.

Very timely article, Intrusive! I previously expressed similar concern on this board. Perhaps this Federal Judge's article, which implies wrong doing, will pressure the PTAB to reject Samsung's claims, but Samsung's huge pockets combine with untraceable bitcoin technology to create great danger even with such a ridiculous challenge.

As the article points out:
"The board has invalidated as many as 84% of the patents, partially or entirely, that it has fully adjudicated. That figure suggests that either the USPTO is really bad at its job of deciding whether to issue a patent in the first place—spoiler alert: it isn’t—or there’s a thumb on the scale."
"Congress should also require the PTAB meet the same court standard of “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than the status quo “preponderance of evidence,” when invalidating patents."

Dr Nigel Pickett, CTO and co-founder of Nanoco Group Plc, said: “By combining Nanoco’s expertise with the knowledge base from Professor Novoselov’s lab we have been able to push the boundaries of material science to come up with a new generation of versatile 2D nano-particles and are now utilising Nanoco’s 15 years of scale-up expertise on methods to produce them at commercial scale. Potential commercial applications for these materials span across a wide range of sectors including novel catalysts, photo-detectors, photovoltaics, inverters and light emitting devices.”
Professor Novoselov added: “It is exciting to see how quickly 2D materials, beyond graphene, has accelerated from the early research stage to the technology we now have. Working with a very knowledgeable and dedicated Nanoco team continues to be a very refreshing experience. The ability of our combined teams to focus on particular technological and performance parameters is allowing the rapid development of these 2D Materials.”

Nanoco did create a wholly owned 2D (graphene?) subsidiary a few years ago.
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2020578-university-manchester-nanoco-group-launch-new-business

He must have read BTB's post.

Americans are not allowed to trade with foreign brokers.

After seeing no bid/ask prices on the USA OTC market for quite a few days, I attempted to buy some shares, only to discover that Etrade no longer allows Nanoco share purchases. They seem to find Nanoco shares too risky for individual investors. I have contacted Nanoco headquarters, but don't expect to know more until tomorrow or later. I am told that I am allowed to sell shares, which I believe would be foolish at this time. This could have something to do with Nanoco possibly becoming too volatile for market makers to deal in these shares. So, it may prove to be a positive indicator. They possibly fear that Americans will learn the IPR final decision before Europeans do.

If anyone knows of an American broker who accepts trades, please let me know. I will post a message after hearing from Nanoco HQ.

Great work, Morbox.

Thank you, Morbox. Based on your research, I stand corrected. It seems that an IPR appeal could delay the Texas trial:

"The parties recognize that one or more parties may appeal the PTAB's resolution of one or more of the IPRs. Within thirty days after the PTAB's resolution of the last of the IPRs, the parties will meet and confer regarding whether any party will seek to lift the stay agreed upon in this motion. "

An IPR appeal would delay the trial only if Nanoco and Texas courts agreed to do so. Judge Gilstrap will not likely postpone the trial to await the results of such a ridiculous appeal. If Nanoco wins the initial PTAB case, count on the trial to take place this year unless other extenuating circumstances occur.

As Samsung has been selling QDs to other companies, such restitution should include all Samsung revenue received from OEM QD sales--past and future.

As the FT article states, "contingent on the successful completion of all three phases of the Project and would arise after FY22."
As I have no intention of buying or selling until after the earnings release, I stopped my research there. We should know much more in two days.

Fiscal year 22 ends on July 31, 2022, at which time all three phases were scheduled to be complete (as I understand it). Still, I think that STM has some exclusivity. STM certainly plans to use Heatwave in multiple markets. Hopefully, Nanoco will clarify some of this.

I, also, would like an update. According to:
markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-15045301-2NB8J95DE9GT9KTM3UIOJ7495L
"Subsequent scale up or commercial production is contingent on the successful completion of all three phases of the Project and would arise after FY22."
It is surprising that we have not received updates. If all three stages completed on schedule, commercialization could begin any time after August 1, 2022. Edison continues to imply that this prospect is still alive. I had understood that STMicro would initially have exclusive access for some applications, thus limiting competitive access to Heatwave. This makes sense given that STMicro provided some initial funding.

Right on, Hawi! Why would Nanoco management relocate production and hire production employees without already being assured of a significant contract?