"ANGLE anticipates that the Parsortix system will be adopted worldwide. "
Breast cancer killed Paul McCartneys mum and his wife Linda, and so many others. Parsortix will help save a lot of lives, and probably should have gained approval a long time ago. Hopefully the research and development get a massive boost now and everything speeds up - many more diseases can be fought with this fantastic tech
New CEO and changes at the top, and Nic Nicandrou exits. Quite a reset, good luck to the new team.
It was just a stupid joke, FDA, but thanks anyway! Big tick!
pass, or ticks
Are you suggesting this board has some purpose other than allowing people to monitor the status of moany's POLB shares Andinio? Have some respect for this important topic. When is CF going to make some promise about when moany's shares will finally be freed?
Hi Grippa, no, not yet paid in all probability. The latest news I'm aware of is that XPP are considering their next move. The amount of damages awarded was $40m, ongoing legal costs are £10.1m.
Extract from Sharecast news (24 March):
"Numis, which rates the stock at 'buy', said: "We believe that XP Power has the option to appeal the jury's verdict, so this case may not have reached a conclusion at this point. This morning the board of XP Power has confirmed that it will now consider its next steps, opening up the prospects that this case may carry on for sometime.
"To quantify the impact of the ruling, during FY21 XP Power incurred legal costs of £10.1m in relation to the case, and no provision in relation to the dispute had been made, reflecting management's view that their was no merit to the lawsuit. The cash outflow of the amount awarded in the ruling would take current year ND/EBITDA up to a manageable 1.5x level, so can be absorbed by the group though the reputational impact is harder to quantify at this point, though we believe this ruling does not impact the current product portfolio or orders already secured."
Not clear what you mean by "acquisition based turnover" Redduke. Last year most of the revenue was attributed to major purchase Albyn, but they were acquired nearly two years ago now, and there have been other acquisitions. Difficult to strip out every acquisition and account separately, since most of them will be rapidly integrated. Anyway, it all counts, and if an acquisition is earnings enhancing, that's sound business. The revenue "surge" is promising, and plenty of good looking growth numbers, but the loss continues to increase, so once again, it's jam tomorrow folks. Market seems to like it though, probably impressed by the robots.
Significant in that they have started the service, but it's not unexpected littlegrandma, there have been several RNSs about obtaining licenses over the last few months. To some extent the banking operation is probably already priced in, but I'm not sure the market is prepared for the full impact: the growth is likely to be rapid and longlasting, imo, in a young and increasing population.
Blimey, a whole year just to confirm that patents granted long ago are, in fact, valid, and now another 60 days (maybe) delay allowed just to DECIDE whether an appeal will be launched, then more time for the actual appeal. Then we have to return to the courts years-long grind. And this is the fast-track process? The case is crystal clear compared to most, and many participants will have passed away before this circus folds up the tent. Dickens wrote about this sort of legal procrastination 170 years ago in Bleak House, and it was old then, yet little has changed.
The burden is on Nanoco to prove wilfulness, but the dodgy way Samsung approached their PTAB presentation probably provides even more ammunition? Samsung will presumably aim to persuade the court that they sincerely believed the patents were invalid BEFORE they infringed them, i.e. their ****amamie challenge was not just concocted with hindsight. However, their "reasoning" seemed to rely on a deliberate misunderstanding of aspects of Nanoco's process, and a disingenuous level of confusion about the science. This is surely at odds with being able to use the process to commercial standards? Therefore, it must have been KNOWINGLY false, because they would have had to have ironed out every one of those details, just as Nanoco had to, in order to refine the process sufficiently for industrial production. The nature of those hurdles, and the methods used to overcome them, would make it clear that the complex invention was not in the public domain. They didn't engage with Nanoco, for years, in bad faith, just because they were fascinated by the glamour of Runcorn.
"To help speed up renewable energy, the EU wants to make it easier for companies to build wind and solar farms. Officials said it could take up to nine years to get a permit for a windfarm and four for solar."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/18/eu-plans-massive-increase-in-green-energy-to-rid-itself-of-reliance-on-russia
Thanks, Vlad
He sold 1.65m in December, so buying 50k is a small bet. Still might be a good indicator though: he sold high, bought low?
Thanks BeContrarian. While I'm hard headed about the limitations of the win, it's worth saying that this little company has been through hell and survived. It took on a vicious gangster in Samsung, and is beating them soundly. It would be a fool who underestimates them, they just need to catch a break and get that first big licensing deal the technology deserves.
Thanks NGR1616. Settlement makes absolute sense for both sides now, but I have zero faith in Samsung's good sense, they are simple minded criminals, imo.
The robust, good humoured defense of the patents was a joy to behold, regardless of financial considerations - this is brilliant science. Nigel Pickett's reputation goes up another notch, and let's hope his inventions finally bridge the narrow gap to commercial success.
The PTAB win is of significant, but limited financial value. We haven't won any new business. Financially it means a chance (not a guarantee) of obtaining a large, unspecified one-off payment. It also raises the possibility (not a guarantee) that Samsung may be forced to reluctantly buy a license (if it makes financial sense for them to continue using the technology). It is perhaps understandable that the SP "only" moved up 30% at this stage - a healthy business needs to generate recurring revenue, and that's where the focus should be.
Tenner's messaging has been a big improvement on the previous guy, good guidance during the PTAB process, so his cautious optimism over non-display business is encouraging, it will be interesting to watch out for anything he has to say about the display business.
Success in court relieves an existential threat, but it doesn't necessarily fix the revenue problem. Nanoco need to sell stuff on it's merits, rather than just recovering stolen property. We've been hoping for high volume licenses in display for years. Despite the likelihood of a handy lump sum, patent validity alone really only restores us back to where we were in terms of recurring revenue, i.e. very little. However, the SP may well drift up from here, not down, as we countdown to a sparklingly positive court case offering a mystery prize, likely bigger than anything the company has ever seen before. Alternatively, an out of court deal with Samsung, the sort of deal Nanoco proposed in the first place, could be the kickstart to a thriving business. The perfect scenario, though, would be doing a deal with one of Samsung's rivals, signed on the day they are hit with maximum damages in court
Assuming success in the trial is now just a matter of time, what are the ongoing prospects for licensing? Was cost the main reason Samsung decided to "appropriate" the technology? No one else has yet been willing to pay for it either, and when Nanoco was up for sale no-one bought them, suggesting the technology is not regarded as irresistibly valuable. Confirmation of patent validity certainly increases value, but probably not from a screen makers perspective. Should we expect more pragmatic pricing from Nanoco, or perhaps a withdrawal from the market by Samsung?
Thanks for gracious apology Nanogeddon, last night's excitement was understandable after months of anticipation. Looks like we're up 40% on day 1 anyway, not too shabby for the Runcorn dotcrankers
"BlahBlahDoh ******! We have slated BTB on this board, but I have never heard such utter cararp!"
Really Nanogeddon? Just for making a guess when asked? I like to think I'm a little more "mainstream" than BTB, but anyone slating him should appreciate his "avant garde" opinions, because they provoke thoughtful responses.
Well, my guess at around 40p is a lot less "cararp" than your various numbers from 80p upwards, isn't it?
Even if my guess had been wrong, the reason given (remaining uncertainties) was a perfectly valid one, and didn't deserve a pointless insult. When Nanoco overcomes another hurdle (the appeal, the trial, the trial appeal) or reaches a settlement, the price will undoubtedly go up some more, but we're not quite there yet (stop asking).
After today, I can see the SP drifting higher. Samsung's challenge now looks like we all thought it was from the beginning: an excuse for timewasting, and the appeal even more so - utterly frivolous. When it comes to the trial, it's probably now just a case of deciding how much, then batting away another flimsy appeal. Then we need to work out whether a licensing agreement can be made with the people who thieved from us, or maybe someone else, or both! Plenty of opportunities for the SP to keep rising over the next year or two, or ten
When the Apple contracts were in play the SP only rose to around 50p. While we now have a massively increased prospect of substantial income and profitability, there are still a lot of things which need to happen before it is realised. The market should price in remaining uncertainties, so I'd guess the price MIGHT settle somewhere near 40p for now? Market isn't rational of course, anything is possible, hold on to your hat.