Member Info for amerloque

Very promising, Nanonano! Thank you for your efforts. Exciting to think that both STM and Apple would become Nanoco allies. Hopefully, long time struggling employees and shareholders will soon be rewarded. I am crossing my fingers for huge gains on both financial and legal fronts.

(1) This lawsuit could impact Samsung far beyond the final settlement.
(2) A decision in Samsung's favor could impact the credibility of the USPTO. Why bother to apply for patent if the PTAB allows history to be rewritten?

Let's not underestimate the importance of QDs to Samsung. NANOCO IS NOT A GNAT. Nanoco has always correctly maintained that their QD technology is a disruptive platform with an enormous number of applications. Samsung agrees and has certainly dispersed Nanoco technology to many of its companies. One of Samsung Venture group's stated missions is to spread technology among its Chabol companies and startups. In so doing, it is highly probable that Samsung violated Nanoco nondisclosure agreements. Any ultimate Nanoco-Samsung agreement needs to cover all violations. If not, Nanoco needs to pursue these violations separately.

BC and Bass: Thanks for your understanding. I don't mean to anger others on this site but want us all to be alert to potential malfeasance. I understand that each of us has their own point of view and greatly appreciate that no one went off the rails over my comment. I look forward to finally being rewarded and will remain to the end.

I hope I am wrong. Biden's corruption in UKraine is undeniable. Samsung corruption is undeniable. I have held Nanoco stock since 2012 and have continued to build my Nanoco portfolio, all the while watching promising opportunities repeatedly end in failure. I only own 182,000 shares at this time and will stay until the end. This investment is well worth the risk, but I am not so naive as to believe that Samsung will not continue to take every opportunity to block Nanoco. At this point, we see only the tip of the iceberg.

Biden's behavior vis-a-vis Ukrainie causes me concern for Nanoco--mixed up in Ukraine corruption, compromising himself and his family for personal gain, leaving himself open to Russian, Chinese and any party (such as Samsung, with $100B+ current assets) willing and able to offer huge amounts of money to bias trial results. Remember, also, that the head of the USPTO PTAB is appointed by the President. Unquestionably, Biden invited Putin to invade Ukraine by announcing to the world that he would only defend NATO countries. Putin knows that Ukraine does not belong to NATO.

Bring us luck, Crispy.

I stand corrected, Nano. Yet, I do find the article very promising, as STM and Nanoco find could both find themselves in very strong positions.

Thanks Nano! This is promising for both STM and Nanoco as it tends to support rumors that a large Asian company (Sony?) are exploring adoption of Nanoco infrared technology. According to the article, STM and Sony are expected to capture 95% of this market. Short sellers may find buying back Nanoco stock somewhat costly.

Ecclescake: Samsung admits to using Nanoco IP, but now seem to have found a CF alternative. If so, their production process probably closely resembles Nanoco's, with the exception of requiring molecular clusters. It seems that they may be able to produce quantum dots using a cluster alternative. This would account for their inexplicable emphasis on molecular cluster definition. Follow the money. The money is in owning a production patent. By trapping Mintz and Nanoco into a very limited molecular cluster definition, they may be building a case for a unique Samsung patent that would owe no allegiance to Nanoco. If Mintz lawyers can avoid falling into this trap, the potential Samsung patent might still be viewed as an extension to the Nanoco patent and thus require payments to Nanoco. I am not a lawyer, but this might explain Samsung's strange legal maneuverings.

Thanks for posting this. The article's David vs Goliath comparison is a massive understatement.
"Samsung is the biggest conglomerate in South Korea, operating 59 subsidiaries with no less than $208.8 billion in revenue and $31.74 billion in operating profits in 2020. Samsung currently accounts for 20% of the Korean stock exchange and 15% of the country's economy." ( iestork.org › samsung-too-big-to-fail )

"How much of South Korea's GDP is from Samsung?" "Samsung represented 37 percent with a net income of 20.7 trillion won. SK ranked second by raising 9.8 trillion won in net income and accounting for 17.7 percent."
( pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2021&no=532180 )

STM Presentation in December 2021:
https://www.imveurope.com/news/sts-quantum-dot-sensor-set-volume-swir-imaging
"ST’s quantum dot SWIR image sensor is not a huge leap in performance compared to CQD sensors from other suppliers, but that ST is going to make it available at a significant scale and with the reliability that consumer electronic customers demand.... STMicroelectronics showed that its device met the current consumer electronics industry standard for reliability, although Steckel added that ST is working on higher temperature stability so that it can address more demanding applications."

"The firm will be providing evaluation kits to customers next year." (We can reasonably conclude that he meant 2022.)

The US (NNOCF) share price is at a ridiculously low value because someone sold shares at MARKET PRICE. Because individual investors in the US are not allowed to trade foreign shares, they can only trade such shares on the OTC exchanges. US and European exchanges protect traders from unreasonable Market Maker profiteering, whereas the OTC exchanges do not. In this instance, some unsuspecting trader sold ~750 shares at MARKET and was penalized with the worst price possible, $0.11. On a regulated exchange, they could expect to receive at halfway between bid and offer.

I have repeatedly advised OTC traders to always specify LIMIT prices when buying or selling. When specifying MARKET, you never know what you are going to get. I can promise you that it won't be a box of chocolates.

While I enjoy seeing the Nanoco US price higher, it does not bother me to see it so low, since the London Stock Exchange determines the real price. I know that Market Makers will usually accept a large trade at any price that guarantees them a profit.

https://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/ces-2022.html
STMicro will have a huge presence at CES. Some of these products could benefit from Nanoco CFQDs in the future and possibly even now.

Thanks. Nano/Bass.

In view of the exclusive Nanoco license agreement, Dow built a CFQD factory next to the Samsung plant in South Korea. Later, when it became apparent that Dow would fail to secure a major contract from either Samsung or LG, Nanoco and Dow agreed to make the agreement to non-exclusive. Nanoco then reached non-exclusive license agreements with Wah Hong and Merck. Dow/Dupont still retains a non-exclusive license, which has resulted in very little revenue. I have often wondered what happened to Dow's factory, which took a couple of years and millions of dollars to implement. Does anyone on this board know its current status?

I stand corrected. It now appears that Newman might be related to the Seinfeld character.

My research states: "Prior art is any invention that has been patented in the U.S or abroad, publicly disclosed in print or online, or was known to the public prior to an applicant filing a patent application in the U.S."

"Said differently, prior art is any type of evidence that can show that your invention was publicly known prior to an applicant filing a patent application with the USPTO."

"Made available to the journal" seems irrelevant unless Nanoco's inventors had access to the article prior to its publication, which is unlikely. If the relevant information was included only in the revision, then Samsung has no case whatsoever.

Looks like Samsung is grasping at straws while gasping for air. Why is this so important to Samsung? I suspect that Samsung use Nanoco's process to produce lead-sulfide quantum dots recently discussed in this blog.

Those who have not followed closely in the past might not understand the relationships. If I understand correctly, Green is Samsung's expert; Cossairt is Nanoco's expert; Newman (no relation to the Seinfeld character) is the Mintz lawyer; Mizzo is a Samsung lawyer. Correct me if I am wrong.

Great reporting, Mattyboy! It seems that the context of the revision is critical to Nanoco's case. Does anyone on this board have access to the revision details?