Member Info for ddubya

Thanks Bonzoful - was completely unaware

Use of “This additional delivery supports the Board's revenue expectations for FY22” suggests NANO has banked expectation of these revenues but it does represent progress in development in IR sensors for which I must be grateful. I wonder if this is what caused delay in the audit - needed to be sure this revenue stream was not going to dry up?

You tickled me with your year end double entendre Seaman.

Whilst Bell has been successful in launching a market leading product we probably need to remember the others have yet to get to the same point. Still, I have confidence that some and perhaps all will succeed over time. Also, pleased that capital raises have been less dilutive than other firms I could mention.

Very little to dislike here and great potential to be realised over time. If I could buy SaltMe in the UK (can I?) I would be a buyer of our product too.

Great seeing the FDA starting to take action as regulator. This is what we need as without intervention to reduce sodium intake, industry is likely to keep on the same old track, adding many £bn’s of unnecessary costs to healthcare worldwide.

If the PTAB decision falls to NANO’s favour then, as we know there is less to discuss at trial and the choice of judge would be less critical (keen to have Gilstrap on board though).

Many conflicts of interest can be managed anyway, and solicitors as an example do it day and daily. If family or relatives have shares in companies that Judge Gilstrap presides over in litigation I am not sure why it would necessarily be in public interest to prevent him from taking the case, unless of course the holdings were significant. I would imagine that if it was as simple as Gilstrap deliberately concealing substantial interests, from which he and others had made financial gain, he would have been dealt with some time ago. I have no idea what shares my brothers hold, although admittedly I am no Court Judge either.

Certainly believe it will turn out to be a storm in a tea cup but in my personal opinion I would not put it past Samsung to be orchestrating some dung flinging.

PS May 22 is getting closer.

Not seen any reason as yet Vulcan and no commensurate rise in its parent TEK. Could be news of orders and or distribution? Let’s hope so.

As far as I know Rayban’s solution does not offer the prescription lenses that Lucy’s does. Am I missing the point or is Rayban not addressing only part of the market, whereas Lucy’s addresses a larger portion with a more competitively priced product.

And I agree with Adamsky on the camera. Do the majority of us want to be filmed as we go about our day and daily? A camera might be a useful addition but I would think the answer to the question is No.

I feel for you Mattyboy - would have made quite a difference. Hopefully, NANO will come good in a similar or bigger way. Given positive PTAB and trial outcomes - no reason why it should not in my view.

Thanks for this Intrusive. I see that Nanosys and Samsung are singing off the same hymn sheet in terms of tactics. Hopefully, it will be the same outcome for Samsung.

I wonder if one of the parties Nanosys was allegedly encouraging to use patented processes might possibly have been Samsung? Either Samsung seems to be running low on QD options.

Whether it be the NHS or a Healthcare firm picking up the cost of a generator, the upgradable cartridge is a significant cost advantage that makes BELL a top choice.

And for portable oxygen generators generally, where the patient’s need is for oxygen alone, so much cheaper to free up a hospital bed and send them home with a portable generator.

Everything points to an expanding market and BELL can either collect its share or perhaps be bought out at a significant premium. We shall know not long after the product sales materialise in earnest.

Agree Gtx1. Do you think you will be persuaded to take a punt on NANO at some point before PTAB reports (latest May 2022).

We all hope to wake to news of a favourable judgement Nanonano (or a settlement). It would realise the dreams of quite a few posters too, so fingers crossed.

The graphene parallel reminds me of CFQD Nanonano, where retooling costs, inertia and hopeless dithering (EU and other regulators) has held up implementation of product that can both improve the environment and enhance performance.

Samsung on the other hand has been quite brilliant in embracing and implementing our technology. If only the management, some of whom have been imprisoned charged with corruption, could see their way to pay for what they use, rather than (allegedly) shoplifting goods.

An honest Samsung would do much better positioned on the right side of NANO, for example, when the time comes to include QQ sensors, Lidar or next generation CFQD in its Galaxy phones, tablets and TV.

Bonzoful. You might want to take a look at TEK and a part owned subsidiary BELL, which was recently subject to an IPO. The latter makes FDA approved portable oxygen generators and TEK has a portfolio of firms it has spawned from University IP. I think both will continue to do well but I have been very wrong before (just look at NANO to date) so please DYOR!

Hi Intrusive. If NANO is not the target of a takeover first, a US listing, for example on NASDAQ, might well help to make us less affordable and a less easy takeover target. I would be surprised if BT had not considered how NANO can work toward meeting the US listing qualification criteria.

The persistent inability of the UK markets to place any value on potential whatsoever is one reason why start up firms in the UK struggle to raise funds, promoting massive dilution of the very shareholders that risked their shirts to get the business of the ground and to the sole benefit of the late investing II. In my opinion it is also a factor in the sale of many promising firms to offshore competition.

As you say though, a few ducks need to line up in our favour first.

Being unable to purchase additional shares as ‘insiders’ it seems to me like LOAM structured the recent fund raise to provide the extra potential profit it wanted in another way. Irksome as that arrangement appears to be with a ‘success bonus’ paid by reference to winning the litigation (which the loan does not help with). The benefit is that it could fund R&D for customers earlier than would have been the case and so to benefit of all shareholders. Viewed in that context it is easier to swallow.

I suspect LOAM is there primarily to protect its own interests though rather than those of shareholders generally. However, a good NED with Henry’s experience could provide invaluable guidance to NANO in a number of ways in addition to his capital raising specialism, e.g. structure of customer payment terms and possibly even providing advice on the structure of any offer to purchase NANO.

Brian is likely to be stretched at the moment too, keeping a close eye on Finance, litigation and also dealing with new customers/products.

Samsung will play the game to the bitter end because the stakes are enormous but I am feeling confident of a significant win both in PTAB and at trial, if indeed it is not settled on the morning of trial commencement.

A very good question JBongo.

In the absence of an unredacted version of Bawendi’s deposition, I do wonder what evidence Samsung could offer the Board to assert its invalidity claim?

If their case were shown to be completely hollow, is it even possible there could be a ruling earlier than the current May 2022 timetable?

A takeover is possible of course (an outside one at the moment I suspect) but I can’t see it being possible to gain control without an offer that provides a significant uplift on the current SP. Something North of £1.75 might be acceptable to major shareholders in my view but if Samsung’s PTAB request falls flat, as I suspect it may, Samsung could find itself in a bidding war with the likes of ST Micro and Apple for control.

I can’t tell you how good it is having someone on the Board who has trained in the Legal arts and has experience of litigation Lobo. Thank you for trawling through the papers too. Even if I had the time to do so, I know I would not glean a fraction of the information you have.

Hoping for thoroughly deserved Samsung PTAB loss, clearing the way to a large settlement in our favour. Meantime, please keep doing your thing!

It must certainly be an important element of NANO’s case Morbox. NANO’s process was clearly so ‘Obvious’ that for years, Samsung was unable to work out how to do it without NANO’s knowledge and skill sets.

What wrankles about Samsung for me is that it expects its own patents to be both respected and protected and takes legal action to do uphold them, yet where it thinks the patent owner is unable to afford protect itself, patents, it helps itself.

My opinion is that Samsung has been sending up smokescreens, fabrications and lies ever since, such as CFQD were developed by Hansol not Samsung and the ‘obviousness’ claim of course. I would like to see Samsung demonstrate Hansol’s CFQD credentials to satisfaction of the Court. Meantime, they are least able to offer us comedy value.

I was in the market for a new TV recently and would have bought QLED had Samsung licenced NANO’s tech. I ended up buying a SONY OLED instead. Very happy with so far but hopefully my next one will have NANO tech inside it.

The BBC is reporting that Samsung heir Lee Jae-yong has been released from from prison on parole. Rather worryingly, it also suggests America (or interested parties therein) have been lobbying on the basis he alone can help to fix the world shortage of semi-conductors - perhaps he is going to work on a production line?

I am more concerned he might be more likely to ‘help’ himself to more free IP.