Member Info for BeContrarian

Definitely progress. It’s a shame they couldn’t shift the needle a bit more on EPS. That would’ve raised the roof.

Looking on Google it appears the facility is on The Heath Business & Technical Park Runcorn Cheshire WA7 4QX. Where specifically I don’t know

Agreed. Investors can stomach a fundraise if it’s for a reason and not just going into a black hole. This is a bridging raise to the next exciting chapter. I think it’s fine and a small enough raise to achieve full subscription.

Kind- something I’ve struggled to find to be honest. Will be difficult getting a definitive figure because plenty don’t even get to court settlement as it’s sorted before then out of court. Fingers crossed!

I think the tune would be quite different from BT if he didn’t think a commercial deal was practically nailed on. His focus is clearly on that aspect and so should ours be too. The legal matters are clearly in safe hands. A clean sweep at the PTAB is exceptionally rare. Want to hazard a guess at the percentage where all are upheld?

4%. No wonder BT is so relaxed on that front. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/14/90-percent-patents-challenged-ptab-defective/id=84343/

Exciting few months ahead!

Nigwit and Amer, you may be talking at cross purposes here.

Mintz will absolutely bring up details about the working relationship between Nano and Samsung as it helps to contextualise the wilful aspect. It also lays bare the fact that Samsung simply could not make CFDQDs before Nano got involved. The email is the smoking gun and it will definitely find its way into evidence I’d wager. It proves infringement that is wilful and so of course such details will emerge at trial.

I agree with nigwit though that Samsung’s ‘previous’ in terms of patent infringement has and will have no bearing upon this case. Mintz won’t mention it, nor do they need to.

The QD technology is the literal USP of the product and so I don’t think the concept of a nominal licensing fee apply here RJT. I think our BOD will be eyeing up a bigger figure than you’ve quoted. Even so, doesn’t hurt to be conservative.

Frost, my take on that will be if we are commercially viable sooner rather than later. If the contract BT has guided on comes to fruition, Lombard will be tempted to wait I reckon. If not, time will be ticking and it may force nano’s hand.

Another handy article here on top awards for patent infringement. This puts the ceiling around 2bn if we are going off precedent (which I think is wise to do).

https://www.greyb.com/largest-patent-infringement-awards/

The article deep dives on each case and is a fascinating read that I would recommend taking the time to look into.

Hello chaps been doing a bit of research on Samsung’s ‘previous’ and found this gem of an article. Samsung seem to have a nice ‘market share’ of patent infringement cases in the US and I’m sure they collected their frequent flier stamps after submitting their appeal.

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=78970

Hmm…not sure I agree. Important to remember this guy is a VC and their mindset is totally different to your average PI. Venture capitalism is all about endgame thinking. You don’t build up a stake of millions in a company to trade it like that. There is a lot of risk trying to exit such a large position when there’s still so many unknowns (no profits offering a backbone to the SP etc) so my guess is the sell is forced by other factors. Sure he’s made a bit, but I would be amazed if the selling is a purely strategic decision based on the pros and cons of Nano alone. It hardly seems a good trade off for all the risk he’s shouldered.

My guess is the money is needed elsewhere. I don’t think he’s done selling either.

As ‘expected’ as expected gets, and fair play to Samsung for at least not waiting until the very last day to appeal it and drag things out even more. Looking at it from their angle the show really is over if they don’t appeal, but 47-0 is a forlorn hope, I just can’t see them overturning much, if any.

Could this provide a little pull back? The price action from PTAB was so muted I really doubt it, but if it does I’ll be adding again.

Interesting assessment Feeks, thanks.

Only thing I wonder is that surely a delay is baked in at these prices? That’s the only reason I can see for being where we are now, that and being a relatively obscure small cap in the eyes of the critical mass.

We are currently at around a 5p premium vs the pre PTAB high of 32p…and to my mind either that was overvalued or current price is undervalued…it can’t be both.

I think I had in the back of my mind that the third party funders would want to be a part of pursuit in different jurisdictions, but I may be getting carried away there haha.

You guys are right let’s get some organic cash flowing in, that would be fantastic news.

I would be happy really happy to see and RNS updating us on a commercial contract. I think that will happen in time. But I’d be even happier If we had an RNS announcing a litigation update informing shareholders of their intent to pursue Samsung in Europe and other territories.

We’ve smashed them 47-0. Let’s go for the jugular here and force Samsung to the table. Let’s not give them the dither and delay option in the US by putting the heat on them everywhere else!

Sully dumping POLB at 5p is a lesson in being governed by emotions. OO and POLB are of course very different businesses but both are doing good things! Patience needed, sentiment will turn.

It could be the most watertight NDA you’ve ever seen, it won’t take a genius to figure out the settlement amount based on cash balance once settled within the next set of results. Or am I missing something?

Either way I agree with Amer, there is no need and nothing compelling Nano to agree to an NDA. I can’t see Nano screwing over shareholders like that, after they’ve suffered for so long. The only way I could see an NDA flying is if it were coupled with a massive special dividend but even then, I’d rather see that money invested in scale up and RandD.

Strong words there wicky. Don’t think anyone can be accused of trolling the guy. This is a respectful board and his observations were always responded to on their merits. His points often came in for some (justified) criticism, it was so obvious that his investing was being driven by pure emotion and that needed to be challenged. But, for all that, he was hardly hounded for it and right until he left to other members of the board continued to productively engage with his points…

Ever since he was rumbled as RG haha

Think it’s fairly obvious that Griffiths selling is keeping us in a range. And will do until he has done. The market has absorbed his selling very well. This TR1 coming quicker than the last so clearly ramping up the sells.

Don’t think we will know true value til he’s done.