Member Info for ddubya

The PTAB outcome is many months off yet and there is no expectation of any other ‘News’ meantime. The market typically drags the share price lower in these circumstances, so having a reminder of the many advances CFQD and QDIR sensors can deliver, including for medicine does no harm.

Of course, the real McCoy would be to have confirmed purchase orders for part of Runcorn’s £100m per annum capacity.

Said this before but just another year and a bit to go.

I hold TEK but did not buy BELL until last week, when it clicked (belatedly) that whilst TEK has huge potential, BELL is already a going concern. It is producing units which have been approved for use by the FDA, and has expectations of sales. Should have invested there earlier but there could be news on Lucy’s, Salarius or Guident at any point.

I often wonder why Salarius is not already flying but I suppose the manufacturers need to be certain they will not be putting consumers off their products by including micro salt? Just being meticulous with their market research I hope.

Unfortunately, the reality is that none of NANO’s IR products will produce serious income in the next 18 months. Unless some other income streams arrives from left field, the Samsung case is both the largest and most immediate income opportunity. I agree, not the ingredients ignite short term shareholder value.

London. I understand future royalties (due to expiry of patents) are typically set by the court following the verdict and form a component of the damages awarded. So may not be paid separately but should be a sizeable sum you would think.

I believe the EU needs to bear much responsibility for the lack of take up of CFQD through its dithering over RoHS. Samsung has shown that CFQD can make a better TV and others could too. However, why incur the significant costs of re tooling when those responsible for oversight are not promoting the environmental benefits, or incur licensing costs that your competitor Samsung is not paying and hence place your product at a cost disadvantage?

Even if the PTAB decision goes entirely in NANO’s favour, Samsung’s form suggests a settlement will not be agreed until late in the day and possibly even immediately before trial. However, brinksmanship could also occur because any settlement value needs to equal or exceed the likely court award and Mintz could also introduce delay in their attempts to negotiate a good outcome.

Lots (everything) hanging on the PTAB decision of course. Only a max of 10 months to reach that key milestone.

Yes lots of good commercial indicators Tissue, so the only rational thing for the market to do is focus on the court case delay and mark the SP down - lol.

The 12 month delay in the trial should effectively delay the full process (inc PTAB decision) by around 6 months in total and increase chance of a bigger payout but the market does love the opportunity to make money to the downside when transformative news is not expected shortly. I noticed we were up over 9% at one point today so likely some money being made by an intra day algorythm.

I think the most recent funding round and statement that production (with ST ) is not now expected until 2023 suggests we have missed this years iPhone update in September though?

It could just be me but it seems to there is a recurring pattern in NANO trading. Opens steady then (without any news or unusual trading volume) there is a drop of several % points and shortly before or at the close, a narrowing of losses on the day - but still down.

Am I wrong, or does anyone have any possible explanation(s)?

Interesting discussion and greater detail of the Loan Note arrangement is needed to know what this means for shareholders.

Certainly, my initial take on the bonus was that of a 5% uplift but I now require enlightenment.

Why would it be legitimate for LOAM (as funder) to claim a success bonus for activity that has been separately and fully funded, effectively taking it off balance sheet? Why also does it qualify for a success bonus in event of takeover, and why is it considered relevant to bring this term to our attention whilst others are more opaque?

If you are looking in BT we are not comfortable this arrangement has been clearly articulated and would appreciate further detail please.

If the worst were confirmed, I would much prefer a rights issue, which entitles all shareholders to participate in a way that is also non dilutive.

It certainly smacks of confidence in NANO from LOAM, both in the outcome of the Samsung case and the general commercial prospects. Feels like it is intended as a signal to the market of confidence, as much as a means of securing the additional funds. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts today and in the next few months too.

Today’s RNS states 4.5m loan notes at £1 each over three years in return for a 10% premium. These appear to be very attractive terms from LO and suggestive of an expectation NANO will have substantial income streams at that point from some or all of the five customers and eight different materials identified.

Always good to have new customers, and if this new product can be successfully developed, it appears that there will be new uses, products and markets, as well as new patents too.

Is Monday the new Friday for NANO RNS?

The trial, or threat of it, still has relevance of course. Samsung could cave in and settle post the PTAB review just ahead of trial. Otherwise, a trial will be needed to rule on the question of patent infringement (which PTAB will in effect do) and whether it is wilful and deserving of up to 3x damages, or not.

Potentially, as NANO has mentioned on a couple of occasions, we need both PTAB and trial to decide in our favour, or at very least for Samsung’s case to be so weak that it settles and trial is not required.

I am no lawyer Nanonano but my understanding is the Discovery process involves only the exchange of evidence between plaintiff and defendant pre trial, so theoretically each party will have had the same access to all relevant facts (even if they are provided within reams of other documentation) and bar exceptional items to which the law states there is no entitlement to see. With Discovery complete, that part of the process should now be over.

However, each party presents its own interpretation of the evidence in Court to Judge and Jury to decide who is correct.

So plenty of scope for Samsung ‘fables’ or other forms of ‘storytelling’.

Maybe Lobo or any other lawyers out there can add to the above?

Samsung will certainly have more time to develop a few stories to tell at the delayed trial BeC. For example, why the five year collaboration agreement it requested with NANO was not needed at all, why it was comfortable encouraging Dow to fund and build a CFQD production facility on its doorstep, and why none of its actions has amounted to wilful infringement. It is probably hiring the Jackanory production team as we speak.

In the meantime, it will be busy focusing on pulling its scientific arguments together for PTAB to justify why NANO’s patents are entirely invalid and the Board had no grounds to issue them in the first place.

I think it notable the judge does not criticise NANO for agreeing to the Stay, and reserves thinly veiled criticism for Samsung’s actions alone.

It looks to me like Judge Gilstrap has seen through their cynical delays and time wasting and is frustrated it has succeeded in obtaining further delay.

I suppose there could be settlement discussions in the offing but I am not yet convinced the circumstances point to this. Agreement to Stay could simply reflect the reasons given in the RNS, and the view of Mintz that this is the correct strategy. It must feel the chances of success are significantly strengthened if patents are first reviewed by PTAB and the outcome is in our favour. I expect they believe it will be, and I also have a feeling that NANO and Mintz has a surprise or two for Samsung, perhaps the matter that is under seal or something else?

I can’t believe the funders would agree to the Stay approach, unless they thought it would maximise their chance of a return either, so all sits well with me bar the SP and the unfortunate delay in sensor commercialisation until at least 2023, which seem to be linked.

Hi Morbox. I bought ITM a little later than you and was out earlier at a much lower gain too. It just kept going up and up after I sold - lol.

Bot - I took an interest in HUR only recently when it looked like a value play (but was not). I took a chance to average down a week back and thankfully regained my shirt and a little more besides.

Being comfortable with the decisions you take, however they turn out, is real attribute BtB.

I kick myself regularly when I make the wrong choices, like bailing out of ITM before it went multi-bag, or selling HUR yesterday only to find it has gone up a further 25% today following ousting of the BoD :)

Thanks for the Edison Link Hawi. More time at trial to argue the case for ‘wilful’ infringement surely increases the likelihood of a larger payout.

Mintz are just about the best legal team we could have on our side, so in my book it is time to top up.

Unfortunately, I suspect many (including myself) were fully expectant of a trial in October and a decision shortly thereafter, so viewed in that light some are understandably deflated by continued delay. However, in the positive sense, a successful outcome in the Patent Board limits the likelihood that Samsung will have grounds for appeal following trial and the complete journey to secure damages could be shorter and more fruitful.

Finance structured in such a way would be sensible NGR, provided there is not a disproportionate bonus. Had it been a straightforward loan arrangement BT would probably have announced the terms with yesterday’s RNS.

I see SP volatility has returned. The RNS has provided opportunity for doubters and anyone that is not long. Down around another 7% as I speak. Thankfully my limit order to buy yesterday was not filled:)

Hi Screenlearner. I share your disappointment we have more of the same (again). The RNS does attempt to conceal further delay with confidence in the strengths of NANO’s arguments. However, the positives are also building, so I hope you go gently on your haircut, especially at today’s discount. Personally, I believe it likely these levels may be relatively short lived. Having come this far, I do not intend to reduce or exit.

Could well be so Basscadet !

Assuming our end user is Apple (entirely possible) we may have missed the boat for the 2022 iPhone update and be included in the 2023 offering.