The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Thanks for the link, JBongo. I have posed the following multipart uestion:
(a) If Nanoco wins its lawsuit against Samsung, do Nanoco expect Samsung and its current display customers to then source from Nanoco? (b) What consequent sales volume is anticipated? (c) What leverage will Nanoco have to force current customers of this stolen IP to make future purchases from Nanoco? (d) What options are available for accommodating the increased production?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06294-y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brEm4mEizns
Plasma Kinetics (google it) could be the first company to economically convert hydrogen into energy for use in cars. It appears that they do so using cadmium (?) quantum dot lasers to convert solid state hydrogen on film into electricity. Could Nanoco QD's or HeatWave play a role in this potentially gigantic market?
I am not a scientist, but Quantum Science's lead reference may have to do with the fact that Nanoco's Infra-red QDs may contain tin, while their products do not.
Per Nanoco Patent description,
"Indium tin oxide thin films with both near-infrared transparency and excellent resistivity
Patent number: 10167545
Abstract: An indium tin oxide film containing by weight about 90% In2O3 and about 10% SnO2 is prepared using a low-energy deposition sputter process on a substrate. The indium tin oxide film thus obtained has a carrier concentration on the order of 1020/cm3 and a carrier mobility greater than 30 cm2/Vs. The low carrier concentration results in an increased transmission in the near infra-red region, while the high carrier mobility results in good conductive properties.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 20, 2017 "
"Does tin have lead?
Tin is the 49th most abundant element in Earth's crust, representing 2 ppm compared with 75 ppm for zinc, 50 ppm for copper, and 14 ppm for lead."
I welcome clarification.
Financial reporters would not have lived with Nanoco long enough to recognize that that Samsung is the corporate reincarnation of David and Goliath minus the slingshot. Samsung is a Chaebol consisting of more than 100 companies, many of which are enormously powerful in their own right. No competitor or potential partner can afford to offend Samsung. Financial reporters don't tend to be mental giants. They tend to be lazy, only capable of performing basic analyses, and unable to recognize that Nanoco prospects cannot afford to offend Samsung. The truth lies in circumstantial evidence that would require in-depth investigation to recognize that Nanoco has been extremely successful in producing commercial products of immense value. However, Samsung has managed to steal their technology while blocking their path to success at every fork in the road. This "Fool" report is simply another instance of ignorant reporting. It is positive in that it has enabled us to buy valuable shares at a low price.
Thanks, Hawi. Brilliant research! I suspect that Samsung lawyers might have made a mistake in blocking mention of total Samsung sales of $7B+ but allowing mention of unit sales of $2,000. The court decision regarding convoy sales is huge. Given the enhancements afforded by Nanoco QD's coupled with Samsung's heavy emphasis on QD's in their advertising, the jury could award Nanoco a significant portion of the unit sale price. Knowledge of total unit sales, which will not now be available, might have served to temper the unit award.
I respect your point of view, RJT. It boils down to one question--"Does Samsung have an alternate source?". If so, they don't need Nanoco. If not, Samsung has no choice but to agree to Nanoco's terms that would allow them to produce quantum dots until Nanoco and partners (Runcorn, Manchester, STMicro, Apple, Dow/Dupont, Merck and others) can fill the gap. I am not sure we can trust Dow, but it might not take long to put the plant back into operation. If this lawsuit goes to trial and Nanoco wins, Gilstrap might be justified in awarding the Samsung plant to Nanoco or giving them an additional award to fund expansion of the Runcorn plant. Samsung must make Nanoco whole. Apropos, I believe that STMicro will quickly consume all production from the Runcorn plant.
You might be right, Barbon. With key patents running out, it is perhaps too late to justify building plants. Partnerships still work, but not with Samsung. Samsung has stolen a huge part of Nanoco's future and needs to experience pain. Nanoco has the legal right to block Samsung from making QDs (because they were competing in QD production). They need to do so. 'Business as usual' won't work for me.
Barbon, I have place my comments below in brackets.
Amerloque, thanks for an interesting post but I'm not sure what you base 3. upon. Whatever the result Samsung will continue to use QDs, they have too much invested not to. Whatever the result they will continue to produce QDs in house (I count Hansol as in house to Samsung).
[ As I implied, Nanoco can not cut Samsung QD production immediately, but they can block Samsung manufacturing once Nanoco worldwide production is in place (via STM, Nanoco, and other?). ].
They're not going to be buying material from Nanoco. They will either be producing them licence free if they win or as we hope and expect under licence from Nanoco, the fee paid either as a global figure now on estimated future sales/production or annually upon an agreed figure for sales/production from an agreed independent outside source. Either way it should not affect Nanoco's own production facility.
[Since Samsung has been competing with Nanoco in QD production, Nanoco can block Samsung, and I believe they will eventually. Samsung cannot be trusted. Yet, Nanoco cannot possibly produce enough dots at Runcorn to meet demand non-Samsung customers. They will need to expand. Why not with STMicro's help? Moreover, IRQDs could be successful enough to quickly exceed Runcorn capacity. ]
It follows 5. is also not entirely correct imo, though that nobody will trust Samsung is undoubtedly correct.
I do agree completely that STM will produce their own QDs, or have them produced to order, hopefully under licence using Nanoco's IP. Nanoco may well have a consultancy role during the set up of production
If N were to lose against S, STM might examine whether they actually needed to licence the IP, but I cannot see STM or Samsung, or most other significant future customers actually buying much material from the Runcorn plant. Most CFQDs will be made under licence, if not straight away certainly after the use of the material has become established.
[ A victory over Samsung would premise everything I said. If Nanoco wins, they will have plenty of money to expand current plants and add more plants. If Samsung goes for a settlement instead of a trial, Nanoco may let them continue to produce QDs. I would expect that Nanoco is advising them that they would be blocked if they lose in a trial. This adds quite a bit of leverage. ]
I may be wrong about where IR CFQDs would be produced, I hope so, I'd very much like to see large scale production for major world players happening in Runcorn, but I suspect it won't.
Nanonano: Nano has already produced multiple RSNs regarding STM contracts. As with other contracts, we never see the details. Could STMicro have included a future option allowing them to produce IRQDs or CFQDs in the future? I have no way of knowing. I do believe that Nanoco would have agreed to such a clause if STMicro demanded it. They were not in a position to refuse. Hopefully, Nanoco would have left the price somewhat open.
No, Troublesome. In recent years, STMicro has been a very successful, forward thinking company. Every product line is characterized by disruptive technology in every product line--micro engines, automotive, Internet of things, communications, optical inventions, home robotics, robotic manufacturing, agriculture, space, robotic quality control, advanced supply chain solutions, and more. A company this forward thinking is not going to be driven by currents in a river. They know where they are going and will likely get there.
I don't intend to ramp, but instead paint a realistic scenario in which STMicro contracts with Nanoco for infrared quantum dots. Suppose you were STM's CEO:
1. You foresee the Nanoco-Samsung trial impacting STMicro and other potential Nanoco customers.
2. You closely monitor the trial status, have spoken directly with Nanoco lawyers and funders, and are almost certain that Nanoco will settle or win.
3. You know that a Nanoco settlement or win would overwhelm Nanoco's production capabilities. Moreover, STMicro needs a second source.
4 As Tenner has stated, an initial contract with STMicro will lead to much higher demand from STMicro and from other potential Nanoco customers.
5. Neither Nanoco nor STMicro can trust Samsung; Nanoco may allow Samsung to produce QD's for a year or so in order to meet current worldwide demand.
6. If STMicro is finally going to commit to Nanoco technology (seems likely), they would need to insure that production can meet rapid growth.
7. STMicro could reduce costs and guarantee supply by licensing Nanoco processes and producing their own quantum dots.
8. STMicro's initial QD engineers would locate near Apple, their most important near term customer.
9. As STMicro CEO, you were already smart enough to arrange much of the licensing agreements well ahead of time