Member Info for botbot1202

Sammy.
Thank is not how courts and legal proceeding work with regards to settlements.
30 days is 30 days.
If it's not agreed, then Nano will re-request a new court case date and the trial will commence.
The onus is now on Samsung, not Nano, however the Brief paper is already written, so the actual "settlement" is done, it just takes a while for Lawyers to actually write Legal wording and then sit there and argue over comma's, full stops and semi-colons.

OMG I really need to find a hobby...... LOL

Peter10 - 2,000,000 + @ 35p
Troublesome - 2,000,000 @ 10p avg
Intrusive - 1,200,000 shares
Mattyboy - 817,807 avg 16p
NGR - 400,000 (or just 400)
Al_Truist - 360,000 @ 35p avg
Bagpuss - 285,000 @ 9p
Botbot1202 - 217,000 @ 12p avg.
SVTCOBRA - 200,000 @ 20p avg
Peregrinetrouser - 186,000 @ 37p avg
HenryHistorian - 140,000
Xbb2008 - 122,000 @ 37p avg
NIDGM - 120,000 @ 60p avg
Peexb - 80,000 @ 23p avg
Everbroke - 68,000 @ 28p avg
Morbox - 60,000 @ 18p avg
buzzfledderjohn - 60,000 @ 25p avg
BC - 50,000 @ 35p avg
Crisplex - 50,000
JBongo - 36,500 @ 23p avg
Rob_125 - 21,000
Rr101 - 1,115 @ 55p avg

I obviously don't have anything better to do on a Sunday :-)

Peter10 - 2,000,000 + @ 35p
Intrusive - 1,200,000 shares
Mattyboy - 817,807 avg 16p
NGR - 400,000 (or just 400)
Bagpuss - 285,000 @ 9p
Botbot1202 - 217,000 @ 12p avg.
BC - 50,000 @ 35p avg
Crisplex - 50,000
Rob_125 - 21,000

Intrusive - 1,200,000 shares
Mattyboy - 817,807 avg 16p
NGR - 400,000 (or just 400)
Bagpuss - 285,000
Botbot1202 - 217,000 @ 12p avg.
BC - 50,000 @ 35p avg
Crisplex - 50,000
Rob_125 - 21,000

So we have Intrusive that has 1.2m shares
BC that has the house/wife/kitchen sink invested.
I've got 217,000 @ 12p avg.
Rob_125 - 21,000
Crisplex - 50,000
Bagpuss - 285,000
NGR - 400,000 (or just 400)

So we have Intrusive that has 1.2m shares
BC that has the house/wife/kitchen sink invested.
I've got 217,000 @ 12p avg.
Any more big takers.???????

Yep.
$190bn slightly outweighs our numbers.
A settlement was always the number 1 choice, it was just "playing politics" to get us to this point.

The Page 17 of the docket only relates to the US, and only relates to 2021, so we have to increase by 3 to get to the Global Number, plus add on the 2021 to 2022 volumes, plus then add on the future.
But who cares, it's £20 in 5 years.

Intrusive.
I like that one.
We've been here way too long to worry whether this is £1, £2, £3 in 30 days.
It's going to be £20 in 5 years.

For those that do not know the Edison comments back in 2020........
>>>>>>
Patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung
In February Nanoco announced that it had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung. The lawsuit alleges that Samsung has wilfully infringed the patents relating to Nanoco’s unique synthesis and resin capabilities for QDs. Nanoco is seeking a permanent injunction from further acts of infringement and unspecified but significant monetary damages. Nanoco and Samsung initially worked together to develop cadmium-free QDs based on Nanoco’s IP. However, Samsung ended the collaboration and launched its QD-based televisions without entering into a supply or licensing agreement with Nanoco.

Nanoco has engaged US-based international IP law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo to represent it in patent enforcement and litigation. The company has also signed a litigation funding agreement with a very large, undisclosed US litigation finance specialist with extensive experience in financing technology-based IP patent litigation matters. The finance specialist will fund the costs of the litigation against Samsung, which is likely to cost many millions of dollars to prosecute. The finance specialist undertook extensive due diligence, including the use of independent experts, before signing the agreement, giving management greater confidence in the likelihood of winning the case. The agreement means that Nanoco will be able to actively progress the lawsuit without adversely affecting its cash consumption. Management estimates that the lawsuit could proceed to trial in calendar H122.

Nanoco has not revealed its estimates of the potential payout if the litigation is successful, but has stated that since April 2015 Samsung had sold 14 million TVs deploying QDs based on Nanoco IP in the US. These TVs had an average sales price of US$2,200–2,500 compared with the average price of a top of the range TV without QDs of c US$1,000. The value of the lost revenue to Nanoco this represents has not been disclosed. Had the alleged patent infringement not taken place, we believe Nanoco would have collected royalties from its partners, primarily Dow Chemical, which would potentially be supplying QDs to Samsung in volumes higher than Nanoco could produce itself in Runcorn. If we assume that the cost of the QDs in each TV is equivalent to 10% of the uplift in price between QD and non-QD TV displays, and that Nanoco would have received a 12% royalty (as per our May 2017 initiation note) on these QDs, this represents US$14.4–18.0 in lost revenue per TV display or US$200–250m between April 2015 and the present This value excludes QDs in any future TV displays Samsung makes or TVs sold in other territories. We note that around one-third of Samsung’s TV sales are attributable to the US market.

To everyone that listened.............
Well Done.........

Rr101.
I hope you didn't sell Nano.......!!!!!!!
Congratulation, assuming you didn't, on getting in.

@ troublesome
Maybe you haven't read all the 381 wonderful posts on here today.
There are quite a few.....
There are even more questioning why it hasn't gone to £1x already (or whatever value people think it should be)

The value of the company today, is the same value as yesterday, until the actual agreement is released, there is no value, only speculation.
This is no different in simple terms to any other company. Company X looks like it's going to have a really really good year, the day before the account it's worth £1, but AFTER the announcement, that's when it's worth £3.
Everyone needs to wait.

Don't people understand.
Nano and Samsung have an agreement.
The Lawyers would have talked, and they would have written the generic high level amounts on a page.
Settlement is for x amount clearing everything old, license fee for is x per dot/tv/whatever, per month/year.
Agreement is global, estimated volumes currently per year are x amount.
The RNS says exactly that, the news says exactly that.
When Lawyers agree, it's agreed........the "wording" is for the actual Legal aspects for completeness.
The judge would not be happy if either side couldn't translate a "Term Sheet" into an agreement.

Metom.
Hopefully you have made a bit of profit here though....
I would hold until the settlement is announced to see what's what.
60p SP is ridiculous even if the settlement is only for the US bit, with a future license agreement, this is worth 60p, just for the US, just for the forward licensing, let alone the past, the other deals, and the ROW case against Samsung.
Hold for Glory.!
We'll make more money here than we will on RR at the moment.! :-)

It doesn't matter about the settlement, it matters about the forward license fee's.
I've said this many times....
But if we say that the settlement is only £322m, so £1 a share, then everyone moans....
but if the ongoing license fee's are £161m a year, with a P/E of 12, that will make the overall Share Price £1 for the settlement + £6 for the licensing = £7 a share....
PLUS, then you will have the fact that everyone else in the world will then formally need to come to Nano for the CD's, and then we go even higher.
Realistically, we could be anywhere from £2 to £10 depending on the settlement, the license fee's, and the ongoing sign-ups.

Ginodog.
Hold off...
We might need 31 days, and then please make sure that you have ordered plenty of extra champagne.