Member Info for amerloque

I could not agree more, Troublesome. Cartels and integrity don't mix. Samsung does not and never will understand the concept of integrity.

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

Valid point, Sammy. I am curious; how can you be agnostic about both settlement and trial?

Post was still a nonsensical stretch.

BBD: Respectfully, your Trump analogy made no sense except to swipe at someone you dislike. I doubt that posters on this site want to see us involved in political discussions.

@BBD: Please leave Trump out of these discussions.

Westhamtin:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16849072/nanoco-technologies-ltd-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/
Nanoco filed a request for a jury trial on Feb14, 2020.

Right, Sammy. That's why blocked him as well as Nigwit.

Sammy's link to Burford is significant to the German lawsuit. Burford is clearly careful in its lawsuits. This tends to reinforce Nanoco's likelihood of winning in the US.

I seem to remember that STM's contracts with Nanoco specified a period exclusivity. If so, STM would not want to ring the bell until they are ready to leave the gate at full gallop.

https://www.imveurope.com/news/sts-quantum-dot-sensor-set-volume-swir-imaging

"He said there’s a lot of effort going into improving the quantum efficiency of CQDs [colloidal quantum dots]. In academia, Professor Edward Sargent at the University of Toronto has reported 80 per cent quantum efficiency of a CQD photodetector at 1,550nm.

‘In industry, in the next couple of years, we’ll probably also be able to develop our technology to hit higher quantum efficiencies, upwards of 70-80 per cent,’ Steckel said. ‘Then it would create more of a value-add, and more of a gap between what silicon can do versus what CQD can do in the NIR, and also close the gap between what InGaAs can do versus CQD technology in the SWIR.’

As part of its IEDM paper, 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."

Because "Driver Monitoring Systems will be mandatory in many countries", I have to believe that growth rate of these cameras will be greater than the suggested 10%. STM and Nanoco have spent years developing SWIR technology to create safer automated cars. We see competition, but Nanoco may have a head start.

Should see visibility soon if STM is incorporating Nanoco technology. Many 2024 cars will be released in 2023.
www.motorbiscuit.com/when-expect-2024-cars-go-sale/
"Keep in mind that the official release dates for certain makes and models will vary. We can likely expect to see some 2024 models roll out as early as Spring of next year, while other models, like the 2024 Honda CR-V, will probably show up closer to August of next year. "

The new sensor, the VD/VB1940, delivers a cost-effective solution that combines the sensitivity and high resolution of infrared sensing with high dynamic range (HDR) color imaging in a single component. It can capture frames alternatively in rolling-shutter and global-shutter modes. With 5.1-megapixels, it captures the high-dynamic-range (HDR) color images needed for an occupant monitoring system (OMS) in addition to the high-quality near-infrared (NIR) images typically captured by standard DMS sensors. DMS uses NIR imaging to analyze driver head and eye movements in all lighting conditions.

Possibly important for Nanoco:
finance.yahoo.com/news/stmicroelectronics-sets-scene-advanced-car-130000099.html

Geneva, September 8, 2022 – As leading automotive markets start to mandate driver-monitoring systems (DMS), STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM), a global semiconductor leader serving customers across the spectrum of electronics applications, is already equipping carmakers with the required technologies. While DMS promises greater road safety by assessing driver alertness, the next-generation dual image sensor ST announced today monitors the full vehicle interior covering both the driver and all passengers. New applications enabled by ST’s new image sensor include passenger safety-belt checks, vital-sign monitoring, child-left detection, gesture recognition, and high-quality video/picture recording.