Member Info for ddubya

Hi Hawi, and I hope that is the explanation. Perhaps the £3m is needed for product development of a different type and not simply to extend the cash runway.

COVID will with us forever, so a successful product in that space would be a truly awesome bonus.

The RNS points to indicating potential “commercial production in 2023” which is further out than we expected and probably accounts for a continuation of the decline in SP today.

Promise of a “…move to break even and organic cash generation in the short to medium term.” feels like a contradiction to the comment on 2023 commercialisation, I am unclear whether the short to medium term clock starts now, or more likely is intended to relate to the position post 2023. Otherwise, what need of further funding?

I still think our case is strengthening and trust BT and NANO to deliver in a substantial way, so I am considering averaging up a little despite the continued delays.

Lobo. Do you consider the fact that NANO has not not modified any claims might flow from the ‘pressure testing’ Mike Edelman identified was undertaken, prior to the Third Party funder’s decision to take this case? If so, the absence of change might simply reflect meticulous planning and continued faith in both NANO’s claims and the nature of Samsung’s infringements?

There is likely more to this change of direction than meets the eye, as you suggest. However, if the IPR does not go Samsung’s way (as we hope), what substantive points would remain to be determined by jury trial, other than For example ‘wilful’ infringement? In event of a favourable Patent Board decision, are you aware of any circumstances that might allow Judge Gilstrap to rule on the balance of points without need for a full jury trial, hence shortening the determination process?

If Samsung is in discussion regarding a settlement that would of course be good news, but is it not more likely they would avoid engaging until the point their case has (hopefully) unraveled in the Patent Board review?

Thanks again for sharing your views on the Board - it is clear others appreciate your input as much as I do.

What a revelation Senseman, and well done. It will be interesting to learn how this information is viewed by Lordship.
This practice of transferring assets to Bondholders has become rife in recent years. I have no doubt that where such moves occur they are in some cases pre-meditated but proving it is a very different matter. Hopefully, this HUR Board is about to receive what it deserves.

I wonder if this development is also intended to send a message to Samsung that NANO's circumstances have changed and it is not afraid of the 'long' it at least longer game, and hinting it may have other at least one income stream to see it through the balance of litigation and appeals?

Thanks for the insight Lobo.

No doubt Mintz considers a joint motion to Stay is of benefit to NANO’s case and represents the best available course of action. Perhaps Mintz feel that Samsung will receive short thrift in the IPR review, which will demonstrate to jurors that Samsung has been playing foul all along?

I can’t see it will help the near term SP at all, which is a little disappointing, but then we could receive ST Micro news to provide cheer between now and the court case?

In Mintz we trust.

Unfortunately, we seem to be sliding a little ahead of the Motion to Stay decision but that is only to be expected.

Fingers crossed for a decision in our favour. Proceedings have been subject to enough delay already and it is time this matter received the airing it deserves in Court.

Would we not all be very happy if we secure fair value damages, hopefully with an uplift for wilful infringement, which seems difficult to contest?

Yes Lobo, I suspect a decision on the motion to Stay has potential to take the SP either way in the near term, but potentially more downside than up in event of the ‘wrong’ decision.

I am certainly hoping no one is listening too attentively to views presented by the alleged Samsung rogues.

Here’s hoping these contain NANO CFQD PiratePete. The ST partner and timing certainly fits the theory, and flat lens technology could be a game changer for the likes of Apple to use to the detriment of Samsung in mobile phones etc. There would be some justice in that.

It’s not helping the share price today though! All eyes on the Courts next statement.

NANO may not describe itself as a manufacturer of semiconductors but Quantum Dots are themselves semiconducting particles.

Could be Basscadet but the Metalenz offering is in the right ‘space’ and there is another firm involved too. These are positives but we need to wait (some more) I guess for confirmation, or otherwise.

Thanks Curious, and I expect confirmation of ST’s involvement means there is a very good chance these are the applications we have been holding out for.

If confirmed, 2022 should be a rather better year than any of the past 10, and for many good reasons.

I would love to believe that NANO and ST Micro are the two "semi conductor leaders" referred to in this article. Who knows but as Nanonano says, the timing fits, and the artic!e does indicate use of NANO sized particles. It is applications such as this which will line NANO coffers in future and leave Samsung in need of a justifiably expensive licence - assuming successful defence of patents.

Samsung’s case looks weaker as each day goes by but it remains the master of delay.

When their day of reckoning comes, as I feel certain it will, I shall have my name down for the champagne reception. Perhaps BT would facilitate one either in NANOs Grafton Street or Runcorn premises?

Meantime, please keep the analysis coming Lobo. Having a legal perspective on the dockets provides an exceptionally useful insight.

12p is a great average raz0r, one I would have been very pleased with.

It has to be a personal choice but I am hanging around in expectation of prices that recover to something like ‘historical’ levels.

My belief is that good times will return but I have no idea when, and cannot be certain if, so have planned for the long haul.

Good luck with your choice.

No problem NIDGM :)

RG must likewise be convinced NANO is worth the risk, and his research will be considerably more reliable than mine and some others.

Quite so Hawi. The case has been “pressure tested” according to ME, and whilst there can never be any guarantee of a win, those on our side very much rate their/our chances.

Samsung stands to lose many $bn’s if the case goes against them, so we should not be surprised they are using every possible avenue to lengthen proceedings and introduce delay. The timing of their actions makes it clear this is their preferred course.

We would have much preferred the patent board to deny a review but it will not alter the eventual outcome.

PS lobo - thank you for your views - good to have someone well versed in the process.

Hi Be Contrarian. The TP funding arrangement is probably the main reason NANO has survived and been allowed to continue its transformation in the IR sensor market. Instrumental in getting acceptance of our case over the line is Mike Edelman, who despite shortcomings did a great job there. COVID and furlough has also helped.

I am also with your ‘boiling blood’ comment as many will be. Justice needs to be served up to Samsung and with compensation at a level that acts as a deterrent.

I don’t think we shall ever be fully compensated but a $billion or two in our coffers would help ease the pain.