Member Info for amerloque

What is the schedule for the Nanoco-Samsung Markman Hearing?

I also apologize, SL. You posts have always been helpful and insightful. As the term "people" clearly referred to my post, I reacted poorly. I make mistakes (e.g., holding on to Nanoco after it went up to nearly 190 pence--my break even is now 28 pence), but my comments are typically factually based. Having been invested for nine years, I had never seen a 'final' result this early, leading me to question the RNS. As it turns out, I was right to question it, since Nanoco had mistakenly referred to them as final.

Nanoco's staff deserves huge respect for their allegiance to Nanoco during hard times. I am glad to see Tenner replace Edelman and expect he will be more transparent. Little things like specify month and year for cash runway is important. "First or last half" of a year was never clear, since we never knew if it was calendar of financial year. I hope that the departed staff will be rewarded once the Samsung suit is settled. The preliminary results are what I expected and even fairly positive.

Note that Samsung's alleged willful infringement continues to impact Nanoco's ability to grown and needs to be factored into a final settlement.

BBD: Why would anyone ask such a question, which was certainly critical? I have been a Nanoco shareholder as long as most people on this board. As 'preliminary' Nanoco results are typically reported in October, a final result this early seemed quite a departure. It is this departure that we should pay attention to. I confess that I did not take the time to read the RSN. It surprised me that anyone would be critical of my comment (and it was certainly critical). If this bothers people, I will refrain from all comment in the future. Although I have quite a few shares, Nanoco tanking completely would represent a relatively small loss. I do have a life.

Sure. Whatever, SL.

I stand corrected, SL, but your tone (though probably not intended, 'you people' sounds a little arrogant and harkens back to LSE posts of years past) hurts. I will quietly go stand in a corner and pray for atonement.

rrFYI, past annual results delivered in October have always been 'preliminary' as Final Results have typically been delivered in November or December.
For example:

"Nanoco Preliminary Results, 10/16/2019 | 02:14am EDT 16 October 2019
NANOCO GROUP PLC

('Nanoco' or the 'Company')

Preliminary Results for the year ended 31 July 2019

Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other specific nanomaterials emanating from its technology platform, is pleased to announce its Preliminary Results for the year ended 31 July 2019."

I have never understood the reason for this practice, but have suspected that this was done in order to delay bad news and in the hope that Nanoco would have a better story to tell in the future. Something is different this time. This leads me to conclude (1) that the final results are better than we might expect, (2) that we might expect good news on the Samsung front, (3) that the announcement is mistaken, or (4) that management hopes to drive the expectations down so that they can buy at a lower price. I lean toward 1, 2 or 3. Based on past history, all are very possible. Certainly, the potential change in handling of final results is interesting. It could simply be that Tenner's has influenced more open communications.

SL: I thought that the results released on Oct 13 were going to be preliminary results.

Thanks, SL. In addition to being a Mintz lawyer, Joseph D Rutkowski has been granted many patents related to Envelope Tracking and the associated generation of dynamic voltage. Most of these patents have been assigned to Qualcomm. Samsung phones used Qualcomm chips before converting to their in-house Exynos chips. Thus, these Qualcomm-based Samsung chips would certainly have used technology invented by Rutkowski. These Exynos chips would almost certainly have to use Rutkowski technology expropriated from Qualcomm. Could his appearance in this court relate to his personal experience with Samsung?

The April 2015 article referenced by idontmessabout stated that Dow's attempted sale of its chemical division in Korea to Hanwha Chemical failed. Dow reportedly needed the money to expand its electro material business. The deal seems to have been blocked by Samsung as Hanwha Group instead acquired a 32.4% stake in Samsung Techwin, and a 57.6% stake in Samsung General Chemicals and gained joint managerial control over Samsung Thales and Samsung Total Petrochemicals. It is confusing, but I believe that this company is now Hanwha Techwin and also makes nanoparticles. It seems that Samsung apparently still owns a substantial part of Hanwha Techwin.

Thanks, Idontmessabout. I had never seen this. Why did Dow not complain more loudly? Why did Edelman not reveal that Dow was dead instead of continuing to declare Dow to be a partner? Nanoco worked closely with Dow to build the factory and deserved to have its confidentiality protected. Could Nanoco management have failed to place restrictions on what Dow could do with the factory in case of failure? Why are we left conjecturing? Nanoco needs to release the facts. I cannot imagine that selling the factory to Samsung would not have violated Nanoco non-disclosures. Nor should Dow employees have been allowed to work for Samsung, since they would have been subject to confidential disclosures. Nanoco, please help us understand!

While IP theft and fraud is not relevant to patent infringement, I don't see how Samsung can hide this behavior from a Texas jury if the case does go to trial, in which instance Samsung would do well to settle early and generously.

Regardless of the patent suit outcome, it is a certainty that Samsung misled Nanoco for many years in order to acquire and benefit from critical Intellectual Property knowledge. Nanoco would only have delivered such IP under nondisclosure. Moreover, this knowledge was likely transferred to various Samsung companies. At the least, this constitutes fraud and IP theft and should become public knowledge as lawsuit progresses. Nanoco and its lawyers need to make the US public fully aware of the potential dangers faced by customers of Verizon, which has just entered into a $6B+ deals with Samsung. My advice to Americans is to avoid Verizon.

"Although the lack of sales to Samsung have now been explained, it doesn't answer why others have failed to take up the tech in display, and why they've favoured Nanosys."

Note that Samsung had a ready market for its [stolen?] cadmium free QDs. Yet, they invested in and promoted Nanosys cadmium QDs while avoiding cadmium in their own products. Moreover, Samsung never seriously advocated for the RoHS cadmium ban, probably because doing so would have helped Nanoco without benefitting themselves. Samsung's pattern of behavior indicates that they might well have used their influence to sway prospective Nanoco customers and partners away from Nanoco.

Thank you for your outstanding research, Screenlearner.

While I always felt that a new Merck deal would await greater certainty of the Nanoco-Samsung outcome, I suspect that STMicro could roll out quickly. After all, the STMicro product has been under development for quite some time and does not appear to depend on the patents in question. Any delay
in Merck, STMicro or other agreements would need to be factored into any Samsung settlement (additional cost to Samsung), since they impact Nanoco success. Samsung's behavior has already impacted Nanoco severely and needs to be punished. Keep running up the bill, Samsung.

Mintz has probably advised Nanoco to limit public announcements until the court determines whether the case should go to court. For once, I do not mind the paucity of announcements.

SL: Probably not meaningful, but rather indicative of investors waking up to quantum dots. As I said, " Loss would be small, but the potential gain enormous". Would be meaningful if shares were purchased by Gilstrap or Samsung lawyers.

Increase in share price with unusually high volume in the USA OTC today (118K). A few large trades. Is something going on? Loss would be small, but the potential gain enormous!

Great work, Enteleon, Hawi, Morbox and so many others. I am really please with the depth of research and cooperation on this board, which I once hated to read because of the constant bickering. Hopefully, this site can lend increase understanding to Nanoco's lawyers. I look forward to seeing Nanoco slay Samsung and all of us making money. I should also mention nanonano. I had failed to recognize the similarity of the Kaist case to that of Nanoco's. Samsung's arrogance in openly stealing Kaist IP was shocking. The Nanoco case is similar but even more egregious. It did not stop at theft, but seemingly incorporated a plan to destroy Nanoco by promoting competition and blocking key partnerships and sales. One even has to wonder if they sought to delay the European ban on cadmium.

Before allowing the dismissal, I would have asked him whether Samsung Display has plans to import future products incorporating quantum dots to the US. This is a potential loophole that would enable SDC to import future QD products.

Great info, ScreenLearner. Like Enteleon, I find Mintz' focus very encouraging.