Member Info for ddubya

It does make sense that it should form part of the litigation casts Feeks but even if it did not, it would be a few $m which could be covered off at the next fundraiser.

Delay is the Samsung way, but if it loses the meter is still running on those QLED and QNED sales.

It seems we shall need to wait longer for an SP recovery but the main event should be making NANO a going concern, through work with ST Micro and others.

Thanks for posting the RNS Feeks.

It is disappointing but as has been said, the thresholds remain the same. I note BT hopes for a parallel process (as far as possible) yet acknowledges the possibility of delay.

Any additional litigation costs appear to be “…underpinned by our third party litigation funding.” as we would expect but there will be costs associated with the ISP process, which the RNS does not seem to address. I don’t know how much a any potential extension to the litigation timeframe underpinned by our third party litigation funding defence will cost but I imagine it will be led by Mintz and we may be on our own for those costs? Is that how others read it too? Perhaps the cash runway includes a provision for this?

Not looking forward to opening!

Certainly, if funding is required BBD, it will be very positive where needed solely to fulfil orders.

We have learned to take what Edison says with a pinch of salt over the years. However, this time it confirmed both that the RNS does not signify further orders, as could be inferred, or at least not yet, and the existing cash runway assumed extension of the current ST Micro contract. I have the feeling weasel words have been used to obscure and Edison’s note is needed to make sense of it, hence some disappointment.

I won’t be selling on Monday though, and I am still very upbeat on NANO’s medium/long term prospects :)

Thanks Bassacdet. That's an interesting take on things but feels like it is going after the wrong party. I have put those thoughts to bed for now, as I would much prefer NANO be able to demonstrate Samsung's wilful theft of patents, disregard for the collaboration agreement and actual need to buy a license.

BT will need to raise capital, unless either new (or ST Micro) sources of income come on stream before or around Q1 22, or Samsung settles early. Neither seems exceptionally likely at the moment.

Shareholders that have been forced to sell at poor value and diluted holders have lost at the hands of Samsung. Only the exceptionally brave (and fortunate) have been able to average down at every opportunity and have potential to gain from their shenanigans. And even those investors have suffered ‘opportunity costs’ over 10 years or so.

Would it not be good if shareholders that have suffered loss could commence a class action against Samsung too, assuming it loses the case of course. Unfortunately, I can’t see many legal firms offering to take up that challenge?

Yes Basscadet, mainly tax benefits but there could be more too and we may qualify for relief on Capex, if within the Freeport.

If we win the trial, I don't think we shall have any difficulty demonstrating the financial hardship Samsung has caused. Judge and jury will hopefully empathise and push damages up

Just managed to read Edison's update, which is clear that value for scale up of the extended ST contract in 2022 was already factored into their projection, whilst this year's additional income was not. Also that NANO is "...likely to take the opportunity to raise ... working capital required to complete scale-up and initial commercial production phases ...". And break even arrives when we have £6m in annual revenue rather than today's £2m.

This helps to explain the market reaction to what initially looked like good news.

If you are reading this Brian, PI are shareholders too and should a cash raise be required there is more than enough time to allow them to participate.

hxxps://www.edisongroup.com/publication/sensing-programme-moves-to-next-phase/29487

Hi Basscadet. There are expected to be a range of tax benefits, including up to 100% relief on Capex and relief on National Insurance for certain employees. Great for expanding businesses.

It would be fantastic for the UK, if NANO and similar firms were nurtured by our government and actively assisted to expand here Screenlearner.

We require a little more than just words though. I am not sure if Runcorn scrapes inside the planned Liverpool City Freeport or not but it must be close .

In my view, the intent of Samsung’s application to the Patent Board for a review is solely an attempt to delay proceedings and continue to starve NANO of cash. If the ST deal falls through they could even get lucky and NANO give up completely (although the litigation would live on).

That would realise the biggest prize for Samsung, to neuter NANO as a supplier of CFQD and IR nano particles, leaving it as the undisputed leader and manufacturer in each market.

I suspect that LOAM, Mintz, NANO and their backers will not allow that to happen but what a struggle so far, and quite a lot hanging on that PTAB decision now. Either a jury trial in Oct/Nov (outside chance of settlement) or at least a further year’s delay. I know what I want, so fingers crossed - it is going our way this far.

I don’t like to speculate on settlement numbers but if we win, I think the worldwide total will be measured in $bn’s and certainly many multiples of $250m.

Hi SL. As you say, we need to demonstrate viability in order to avoid a ‘going concern’ qualification in the accounts. Having said that NANO has been on that line most financial YE and BT in particular will know if funds are required, of how otherwise to manage that discussion with our accountant.

I found it interesting that even with new money expected from the Stage 2 development, the cash runway remains of the same length. Is that because the deal is with ST Micro and expectation of we Stage 2 income had already been bagged, or are we spending more than anticipated?

Either way it looks like LOAM is committed to this investment, although we cannot rule out risk of further PI dilution.

To my mind, Samsung has demonstrated its business model is dishonest and that it cannot be trusted, full stop. Unfortunately, there is not much to be done about that without the international will to sanction them from government contracts, and/or enforcing injunctions on sales where they infringe.

Mintz and NANO have have a working estimate of the total no of displays sold, so we shall need to make do with those yardsticks for now, and if we win the case to negotiate a licensing deal that allows for minimum manipulation.

Despite being up 300% from lows, the SP is still a little disappointing given the fast improving prospect of success in both litigation and the 'new' sector of sensors. It is no longer just about Display, so if the Patent Board can please oblige by saying No to Samsung , we should see a decent uplift. Most important of course is to win at trial. However, with each step won our prospects of doing so improve greatly, and at some point the market will factor those prospects in the SP.

Nice to have good news today but as NANO’s RNS suggests, our path will be more straightforward, if the Patent Board rules in our favour.

As ‘suppliers’ to Samsung you would expect its arguments to be fully informed by Hansol. It follows that Hansol does not fully understand much about CFQD or patents either (lol). Then again could a car thief make an Audi S3?

Pleased for everyone the SP is going the right way again, particularly when the market is worried by inflation. NANO could be very good protection against that if things go our way. Cannot take the trial for granted of course but having it in November as planned would be a huge plus.

Very much the case Nanonano, and no doubt Samsung hoped we would not survive.

Having a TP funder (without name) effectively levels that playing field though, taking all litigation cost off balance sheet and allows access to the best available Legal team.

Feeling confident, and whilst not expecting a payout soon the SP could rise again, if confidence return on back of the Patent Board’s refusal for a review and favourable Markman output.

It would be best case scenario I realise, but I do wonder if the Patent Board and E Texas court are lining up May announcements, issued close together, which will together put Samsung’s attempt to divide the system and rule firmly back in its box?

Rather CNOC that is

Yes down 75% on the week. Rumour alleges the BoD has been talking it down for months to hand the firm over to Bondholders or sell on the cheap to CONOCO. Who knows but a very poor showing on HUR.

Still, on the positive side Bot still has a good few left in NANO.

More funding will need to be raised well within 12 months, unless there is either a successful outcome to the litigation or new cash flow from sensors, display CFQD or something else. LOAM’s increased share supports the view that either a further cash raise is unnecessary, or that if needed, it will cough up again for a larger share of the equity. So there is still considerable uncertainty but I believe, we shall secure income though the STMicro partnership in the next few months and secure our status as a going concern. If we can do that, an SP measured in £ and not p is not unrealistic.

If we ever get to £25 Botbot will be able to finance a modest space exploration programme.

It is a very positive trait to acknowledge mistake in my book Frostbar, and who amongst us has not erred?

If Dow is guilty of passing NANO ‘know how’ to Samsung, the proof threshold would be exceptionally onerous, unless NANO had obtained truly incriminating evidence. Perhaps Samsung got all it needed from the collaboration with NANO?

However, Dow was ‘buttered up’ with other contracts and has done nothing publicly to support NANO, so who knows? It has not always covered itself in glory either, e.g release of carcinogenic pollutants from Teflon production in the USA.

It is great that LOAM has the confidence to up its stake by such a margin, even if were just a defensive move to protect against Samsung’s agents building stakes. It shows real confidence in their investment.

I suspect it is more likely connected to orders/announcements than the litigation though, which probably has a number of twists and turns to take, potentially over a year or two. At least I hope so, because it will make for a far better outlook and returns.

Nice to be going back up again.

It is because NANO’s patents are so central to Samsung’s plans that we should expect them will slog the legal action out to the bitter end.

Think we shall win though and in a very large way.