AIM IP specialist Tekcapital to sell or float all four portfolio companies 'within 2 years'. Watch the full video here.
I have doubts Samsung is buying NANO. Firstly, would it stop the legal action? I would guess not, otherwise any big company could buy a tiddler as a way round flagrant IP infringement and that wouldn't be justice (or am I being naive?). Secondly, they would have to pay a huge price to entice shareholders into voting in favour of a takeover, when those who have invested believing we will win the legal case are expecting a large increase and possibly multiples of the current SP, especially considering the separate recent Intel award, plus Samsung's recent court failure.
Although I'm already heavily overweight in this share, I made a tiny top-up of 20,0000 shares at 3.55p. Bearing in mind sulphides in the drilling being another positive sign (though to be confirmed), even if the initial results are disappointing, I can't help but think at least one of our prospects will turn up decent, extractable quantities to mine profitably...and that must mean the SP will be up significantly by the end of the drilling phase. The best miners are able to extract at $600-$700/oz, so even if the gold price settles about the current level of $1700-$1800, I'd imagine many miners would be queueing to buy up our rights.
Yes, using US ticker GLD, the MACD has crossed over (though still in negative territory), as has a short term SMA crossover I use. Still just below the 50 day SMA but these are positive short-term signs.
I think PiratePete mentioned the result of the Markman Hearing will only be out about a month after the hearing itself. Makes sense that the judge needs enough time to consider and write up the likely outcome. Also, Mintz must be advising the Nano BOD about what/when things can be said, if known. At the same time, the BOD will have to consider whatever the RNS rules are about material information. My guess is we won't know anything material about the case by 30/03, so the RNS may just say something bland along the lines of "our court case against Samsung is continuing". It would be great to have something more concrete and a big jump on the SP, but somehow I think not.
In any case, I am still optimistic and am not selling any of my holding (which is hardly life-changing unless we win and are awarded $10bn)! Dream on...
Unless I've misunderstood, Samsung has the parallel action to try to begin the IPR, which is their other route to try and disprove NANO patents and these were the document links provided in earlier posts? If an IPR was granted, the Board tends to lean towards the petitioner and there is a greater likelihood of the patents being made invalid.
It's for this reason that we do not want an IPR and our strength is going down the Markman/trial route. Mintz are all over this and I assume it's a standard approach taken by larger or well financed defendants.
Pirate says we have to wait a month after the Markman for the judge's indication, which I hadn't thought about, so we are looking at the end of April for any concrete news. I can't see the the announced RNS showing anything useful about the court case, as I'm sure Samsung will string this out for as long as they possibly can. If the parallel case doesn't go anywhere, I sense they will go to trial and then appeal, even at the risk to them of a bigger fine. Having read all the excellent posts here, I feel confident of a win as their defence seems pretty weak, but am resigning myself to a longer timeframe for settlement.
I agree with munpip that this company does not have a history of success. If I was a better investor, I should have sold out many years ago and probably not long after I started investing in Tanzanite One in 2009. Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Having said that, it does seem that we are in a much better position now for a number of reasons:
1. Major private investors who did not sell out prior to the RTO and have, on the contrary, increased their holdings since relisting as LEX. The instils some confidence.
2. We are prospecting for gold, no longer mining for sapphires etc. I had the impression that the marketing and pricing of stones would have been much more difficult than gold, for which there is a stable demand. The Capricorn mine seems little short of a disaster but we are now a slightly different beast, with enough cash for now and what seems a more cogent plan for making LEX profitable.
3. The macro background. I know I've mentioned this before but massive fiat printing since the financial crash was only partially clawed back by governments/central banks. This has now become far worse by having to prop up economies during the corona epidemic and is continuing. Although the GLD fund has now passed a technical 'death cross' of the 50/200 day SMA, I feel this background is likely to support the gold demand and price in the medium to long term.
4. We are working in the USA. A developed country with a stable democracy (yes, I think the Trump wobble was grossly exaggerated, though substantial divisions do exist) and an established and respected state and federal law system. There is no illegal mining or a likelihood of one industry being picked on for 'special' tax treatment. I know we could say that about Australia, too.
5. We have 4 prospects in an area with successful historic mining, plus the current example of the Haile mine. With modern technology, it seems if we manage to find suitable deposits, they are likely to be extractable at a level of profit that means we can sell them that brings a large increase to the SP.
Perhaps I'm being too optimistic. I reckon that this time we will achieve a big SP increase over the next 2-3 years. I'm waiting with bated breath to see what the initial drilling results bring and how the SP reacts. (Though it may never reach the effective highest price I paid, of a mere £1.79.)
An interesting new headline, where Intel has been told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial :
Intel Corp. was told to pay $2.18 billion by a federal jury in Texas after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making, one of the largest patent-damages award in U.S. history. Intel pledged to appeal.Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI Technology LLC, the jury in Waco, Texas, said Tuesday. The jury found $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.The patents had been owned by Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors Inc., which would get a cut of any damage award, Intel lawyer William Lee of WilmerHale told jurors in closing arguments Monday. VLSI, founded four years ago, has no products and its only potential revenue is this lawsuit, he said.VLSI “took two patents off the shelf that hadn’t been used for 10 years and said, ‘We’d like $2 billion,”’ Lee told the jury. The “outrageous” demand by VLSI “would tax the true innovators.”
Federal law doesn’t require someone to know of a patent to be found to have infringed it, and Intel purposely didn’t look to see if it was using someone else’s inventions, he said. He accused the Santa Clara, California-based company of “willful blindness.”
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, to up to three times the amount set by the jury.
On this board we've speculated at length what Nanoco's award could be if they won. Perhaps this could give us an inkling, as it's another Texas case?
If the Markman goes in NANOs favour, is there then any incentive for Samsung to settle without a trial? EG would they avoid the possibility of being guilty of wilful infringement in a trial, which can result in 3x damages if they lost? In that case, with reduced legal fees and and an agreed settlement with NANO, they could pay much less, albeit earlier.
On the other hand, if it went to trial and they appealed after losing, they would gain time but the cost could still be greater.
More good news with the start of drilling. Had we still been in Africa, I expect there would have been numerous delays.
On the close, the spread is now 1p - let me type that again , I can't quite believe it - 1p: bid 3.3, ask: 4.3. I don't think I've seen anything so wide since HMS Queen Elizabeth left harbour. Probably puts off potential new small PIs but if another big PI or II comes on board, won't the MMs have to start closing their shorts and that would help push up the price faster? I'm not really au fait with shorting and its ramifications.
With my paltry 51k shares, I'm feeling like the down-at-heel neighbour who drives a 20 year old Skoda! Still, the continuing II buys are making me feel more comfortable. Let's not forget this is still high risk, though. The SOA has to be approved - it seems madness to me if it were to be voted down but it's not impossible.
My belief is that it will be approved, AMGO 2.0 will be realised and this will multi-bag over the next 2-3 years. That's why I am sitting tight and not selling any of my holding.
To any prospective investors reading this, please DYOR and never risk investing more than you can afford to lose - money management is key to investing success as well as assessing risk.
GLA investors, big and small!!!
Have tried reading this but as I'm neither a scientist nor a lawyer, it's heavy going. What does seem apparent is that Samsung has stitched together a set of scientific background to disprove our patent. This document tears this 'logic' to bits. This paragraph summarises it nicely, though:
"Because Petitioner’s (ie Samsung) grounds fail to disclose critical claim elements, and there
is no reason to combine Banin with Herron or Treadway, Zaban with Farneth/Yu or
Lucey with Ahrenkiel/Treadway other than Petitioner’s improper hindsight effort to
assemble portions of divergent references to create something that might
approximate the invention of the ’365 patent, there is no reasonable likelihood of
success that Petitioner will prove any of the challenged claims are unpatentable, and
the Board should thus deny institution. "
Sock it to 'em!!!
It seems yet more evidence of a likely outcome in our favour. It's more a question of when Samsung will settle and for how much. I have no idea to what extent the judge/court can take previous misbehaviour into consideration but if it does, an injunction seems less unlikely.
I'm not far off from moving out of loss now and am certainly not selling any of my holding.
Nebnalon, mmm, not sure. Non Standard Finance (NSF), in the same sector, is also up about 20% and they made a broadly positive trading update yesterday, though no TR1 type updates to indicate IIs are buying. NSF has also had to put aside 16m for guarantor loans. Maybe the whole sector is getting a more positive outlook now that some normality should be returning to life, plus investors here hoping the forthcoming SOA will be approved by customers and then the court. I can't imagine it being voted down, as then borrowers will get nothing and AMGO presumably goes bust.
Hi Batey, though the last 2 days have been kind, look at the intraday deals and the short term and you'll realise this is medium to high volatility. I hold c51K shares with an average of 8.3p and have moved from 20% loss to 15% profit in about a week!! By most standards I'm a very small investor but hold above my average in this share. Why? I think that the new BOD is well qualified to sail AMGO through these stormy waters. I also believe the SOA will be approved - I can't believe borrowers/CMCs will vote it down as the result is likely to be the end of Amigo. Once approved , they will be able to launch Amigo 2.0 with new products into a market that desperately needs the liquidity. For this reason, I am not selling any shares as my expectation is a large increase in SP over the next few months. However, please understand that whatever people say, this is currently a high risk share so please don't invest any more that you can afford to lose. Best of luck.
I didn't know what an uncrossing trade was but saw this on chat for another share on lse. Hope it helps.. the "numbers are the outcome of the closing SETS auction and it happens every day with the trade published usually at 16:35. It's a UT trade described as "At the closing of the auction the bids/offers are frozen and an attempt is made to match as many shares to be sold against shares to be bought - the result of this is what is known as the 'Uncrossing Trade' (UT)" It's not manipulation, nor is it a sell as such." So, just a book-matching exercise, that could be for a tiny or massive number of shares.
I am trying to ignore day-to-day SP movements as there doesn't seem any rhyme or reason to most of them but am looking for a top-up should there be a biggish retracement. I find myself thinking of NANO as a one-card trick; if Samsung lose we should see a multi-bag from present levels; otherwise, it seems commercial wins are elusive and the future SP is unlikely to do much interesting. That way I can keep my emotional reaction from being rash!!
Hopefully, potential investors are doing their homework and reading excellent BBs like this one - if they're betting on the court case, surely they need to get in before the Markman hearing?
Can't help feeling Tesla was and is too much smoke and mirrors. Batteries and selling carbon credits is where they seem to make money, though the cars are obviously front and centre. Still, I wish I'd joined that bandwagon for the 16X plus rise in less than 2 years - oh well. Would be nice if NANO could do that with the potential from Samsung losing the case!
More reassuring news. Ongoing air geo-survey and environmental approval granted for the drilling. Also, the broader diameter of the drills should ensure more accurate results and estimates. It was a nice, factual RNS with no frills. Not sure the SP will do much until drilling results come in along with the geo-survey mapping etc. but this is progress and positive.
Looking forward to more of this in a few weeks' time.