Member Info for Basscadet

It was super pedantic :-)

Just to +1 ddubya.

There's no suggestion that Samsung can't make cad free dots. They and many other institutions have been able to for years. The question is over the mass production process. Samsung couldn't mass produce at all until Hansol, Nanoco, Nanosys and QD Vision were put in a bag, shaken up and a new process mysteriously pulled out that they have never revealed any information on publicly. However, they don't need IP covering that process. They could have chosen not to protect it. Would be a strange move but they just need to be not using anyone else's.

Just to be super pedantic. I think Nanoco can indeed protect CFQD. Not because it's patented but didn't they trademark "CFQD" as a brand name? No one can patent cadmium free quantum dots. Just how they make thm.

Sorry Eskers. No chance I'm afraid. I'm the kind of person who loses his keys once a week.

Eskers. You always had the best links :)

The Huawei thing is a politically motivated rehash of previously investigated incidents.

Thanks for clearing some of the smoke IP_man.

This board's more fun than it's been in ages! My opinion on a few of the topics for what it's worth (not very much I'm sure)...

I don't follow the US vs. Asia IP infringement bias on behalf of the jury argument. I'm sure the advocates will stick to the facts and that the whole thing will be very academic. Besides, Nanosys is likely to be involved. Will be very surpsied if they aren't mentioned during the case. They're a US company. I'm more worried that sort of thing could work in Samsung's favour.

This case is existential for Nanoco. As such I'm sure it's absolutely rock solid. It's so high risk. I guess the SP isn't shooting up because large investors are weighing the risk as best they can before jumping in. A win for Nanoco would see the SP in the multiple £s. God knows how long it will take though and the fact that Nanoco's case will be solid means it's much more likely Samsung will settle or buy the company instead.

Samsung aren't concerned with any reputational damage. These things happen all the time and always get settled with no wrong doing admitted, etc.

The QD Vision purchase was nothing to do with mass production of CFQDs. If I remember rightly Hansol could make but not mass produce cad free dots, Nanosys could mass produce cad dots but not cad free dots using injection, Samsung licensed Nanosys IP and through some magic science could then mass produce cad free dots with Hansol. It would seem evidence of seeding is a smoking gun but we'll have to leave that part to the courtroom for a decision. The QD Vision purchase was incidental.

I see the value of the case as binary for Nanoco. A few tens of millions would be transformative so it's win or settle and the SP goes up multiples or lose and probably hand the company over to Samsung to pay costs.

I'll second that. ME gets a lot of criticism from shareholders for all sorts of reasons as all public company CEOs do but one thing the company has never been is wide boy chancers. I'm sure the nature of the claim is very serious and proper even if all the details in the patents once picked apart in court don't go our way.

It's got OLED beat hands down IMO. Mainly due to the brightness requirements of HDR and 8K. Also, I've had an OLED for a few years now. The screen burn is a very real.

It's a global suit really. The US is the gold standard in patent litigation along with the UK. It could be that the US is the biggest market for QLED TVs. They also have punitive damages so it could be a way of applying further pressure on Samsung? I wouldn't read too much into it though.

Just one more point. This firmly bring private equity firms onto the list of suitors. Distressed company with potentially highly lucrative litigation in progress is right up their alley.

I think Ddubya makes a good point. However, Nanoco have the ongoing infringement argument on their side to focus minds at Samsung and it works both ways. If Samsung try to string it out to put financial pressure on Nanoco they run the risk of someone else buying the company and following through with the litigation.

That would be sad in a way. I'd much rather agree a license fee that secured Nanoco's future and then go along for ride with the other product lines.

Correct BtB. The moment NANO doesn't defend it's patents it's portfolio becomes worthless.

Why now is easy to guess I think. QLED sales in 2018 wouldn't have made it worth it ($1M - $2M damages max). Sales increased massively in 2019 ($10M+ damages). They are set to continue rising exponentially in coming years ($40M+ damages 2020).

Agree Troublesome. They have always sailed very close to the wind.

Samsung forced them to issue a clarification. It's a long time ago but I think I remember an apology. Stock market rules or something.

That's right Talisker3. If you remember that headline proved to be false. Nanosys had to apologise. The damage to Nanoco's sp was done. Dow then quoted Samsung too high a price and Samsung found a way with Nanosys that involved licensing Nanosys IP to Hansol. Nanoco broke exclusivity with Dow and have been trying to find a contract that brings real cash in since.

Nanosys, Nanoco and Samsung have freely been attending industry events and sharing research for years so who knows what's what with the patents. At least it's boosted the old excitement level.

I'd be happy with 50p Nige_W speaking as one of those long termers who has managed to average down. For now I'm just happy to see it's poked it's head up above 20p and finished Friday strongly :-)

I'm not sure it's really good news. The bid is obviously serious but no hint as to what the price is.

I am encouraged by the statement on long term funding though. Will be extension of debt facility for now. No placement. If we can monetise one of the assets in the pipeline and avoid a placing completely in order to develop the rest the share price will fly.