focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Turcan’s departure is bullish in my view. As a LOAM man, he may well have been installed to ensure their interests are being well managed at board level. With what seems to be an ever improving fiscal outlook, maybe that active management is no longer deemed necessary by LOAM.
Another way of looking at it is that he wants to trade but his insider status is currently stopping that. Doing it now is simply lining up ducks before the fireworks (or fire depending on which way it goes haha).
Pretty exciting to think that if there is going to be a settlement, it’s likely going to be this week. I don’t see this going to the 11th hour on the revised date but as others have mentioned, an attempt to get things done based on what would have been trial week.
Hold tight folks, could be a transformational week!
Cheap date!
If intrusive has called it right I’m buying him whatever he wants
I for one am very very grateful to our funders. Who knows, they may have been the only ones willing to back us. A high chance we would be toast by now if we attempted to go it alone, that or an IP shell. To be honest, the alternatives don’t bear thinking about.
They have given us carte Blanche to pursue the best legal representation possible and hopefully, it is about to pay off big time for all concerned.
I think the entire financial arrangement means that both parties are naturally aligned with little need for interference. The higher % of a lower damages figure will naturally lead plaintiffs to push for the maximum they can reasonably hope for. So I do think that cases of inherent differences of opinion would be very rare EVEN IF funders were directly involved.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that once the case is underway, I believe what Sammy is saying and funders are perfectly passive. That doesn’t mean to say, though, that funders make their feelings known about possible amounts etc at the point at which the case is being stress tested, just prior to a deal being signed.
So I’m with Feeks there are elements of both in play, but funders are by and large totally passive.
Come on guys, cool heads! Sitting on a nice ride today and if intrusive is on the money an early Christmas present for all!
This is probably going down as the stupidest top up given my reason is simply a cryptic comment from Intrusive but I’ve sling a few hundred extra on this as intrusive called the Germany litigation RNS so praying for a settlement!
Intrusive, is this hot air or have you been a naughty boy again?
I think there is some credit to Hawi’s point. It’s one thing understanding how patents work but another entirely looking at the legal outcomes of various forms of challenges and arguments. For all we know, sufficiency arguments may be a highly successful or completely dud trial ploy.
Ok we may not have answers but it’s the right question to ask. We may be getting our knickers in a twist over nowt.
To satisfy myself a little more I have read the expert report of Vicki Colvin (exhibit 1 of docket 237). A few of my thoughts:
Literally the first 40 pages is a re-do of the PTAB arguments.
From page 40 onwards we start to get to the nub of the sufficiency grounds. It gets incredibly confusing and has ominous echoes of the ‘game of semantics’ that we saw in the PTAB. I just cannot see any of that testimony being enough. Again and again she comes back to the patents requiring ‘undue experimentation’. What on earth does that mean? How do you quantify ‘undue experimentation’? That to me does not seem sufficient to warrant ‘clear and convincing’ evidence.
And something else I’m wondering. If Nanoco can prove that wilful infringement likely took place, surely all this goes out the window because they can prove that despite ‘undue experimentation’ being needed Samsung somehow managed to miraculously create MCCs!
I’ve really tried to take ‘the other side’ at this but the more I think about it, the more I’m having a hard time separating sufficiency from the other aspects of patentability. Surely you cannot say that something is novel and original without clearly defining how that originality is characterised (ie the sufficiency element). It’s also worth repeating that Samsung had issues with how specific our patent was in relation to the formation of an MCC. They came unstuck on novelty because they failed to prove that some guy in a 30 year old text book, and some other guy in a 20 year old text book had already got it all figured out between them. If our patent lacked sufficiency then surely there would have been wiggle room to say that cad free MCCs can be produced in a whole host of different ways. But they can’t, and Nano’s patents stood up to that test.
Sufficiency and novelty must surely go hand in hand in my opinion because you can’t prove you have something original without clearly defining how that originality was arrived at.
*large court award
Thanks NGR lots of good points made there and I agree with you by and large.
Major hazard will be the fact that this is just a US dispute. The saga will continue in many other countries if Samsung don’t settle. So whilst I accept that even a large settlement will be small beer to Samsung, it doesn’t make this go away.
I know it’s tempting to view the trial in isolation, but the macro picture leans heavily towards settlement. Nano have shown clear intent to pursue settlement, where through Samsung making a reasonable offer or through being dragged through each court individually.
I won’t keep banging the settlement drum because I’ve said my piece enough on that. But to say there’s little forcing Samsung to settle disregards the wider picture, which points towards further hassle, cost and damage if Samsung opt for court.
Baznick, I agree Lobo is missed, he gave a lot of great insight in the early days, when the position was much more risky than it is now. He was always so bullish on our chances but equally had a way of explaining things in a way we could all understand, hope they’re still invested.
If I remember right, he had no issue with the way the case was funded, it was the non dilutive loan we received at some point last year that got his back up.
‘gla... and hope we get one more rns positively affecting the sp before the weekend’
A settlement should do the trick ;)
For all we know this is a rise that has been wanting to happen since the 47-0. Bear in mind any rise has been carefully sold into so if LOAM are done this could keep going, there again they could resume selling tomorrow for all we know.
Not long now.
This is now 70% of my ISA starting as a very humble holding and kept building and building. I believe the term is ‘all in’.
Hello, agreed, but what I’m getting at is the asymmetry of it all. Lose and it’s a dud I don’t think anyone disagrees there. But win, with all the factors driving the SP north thst I’ve mentioned, and this could realistically 10 bag from here and more. That sounds like shameless ramping I’m aware of that, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility.
Great analysis Lord, thank you.
Just a few points from my own research on why we aren’t currently at a much higher SP pre trial:
- Major shareholder rebalancing through selling into any strength
- poor performance in the past leading to a lingering bearishness around Nano, perhaps also some selling from LTHs finally back on an even keel after years of being underwater too.
- general risk aversion of the UK investor
- risk profile of the company pre trial is not going to attract major funds, even though the odds of success at trial are great
- market is pricing in a modest award, and attaching a 0 value to the prospect of an ongoing licence agreement
Value drivers the market has not priced in:
An award in excess of 400million
An ongoing licence agreement
Further news on sensing production
Introduction of a new breed of investor (funds and IIs in particular) with the advent of ongoing commercial contracts and earnings
Further forward momentum with the concept of QDs becoming more mainstream and their commercial applications better understood
Further interest from potential new clients if: nano can defend its patents and/or nano proves itself competent at producing QDs for its European customer.