Member Info for ddubya

Clutching at straws perhaps but there is always the chance BT will announce some good news in the next week or two. If he has any to offer, he will want sufficient daylight between that and ME’s departure to claim credit.

Poor share performance of late but without news to enhance the going concern value, it is perhaps to be expected.

Have a good weekend all and hope for better next week.

I am going to sit tight TLW but I agree that A statement of the ‘new’ way might help at this point. We are suffering from the over promise and under deliver approach I am afraid. The absence of any news on Merck or ST micro really does not help us, particularly as it represents more of the same.

If we know anything at NANO, it must be that it is unwise to have all its eggs in one basket. Other income streams, in addition to Display, IR and even the (little) success story that is Careware are needed

Vertical Farming has long been a potential opportunity for NANO and the Directors Talk article below highlights a number of firms that are pioneering it now, and raising lots of money too. Surely, it should not be beyond NANO to gain a foothold in this market? It is simple common sense it will be massive with Ocado planning farms next to warehouses, so that produce is super fresh and bass a longer shelf life. Crops grow faster and larger with less reliance on pesticides too. I wonder if BT is interested and planning to deliver here?

https://www.*************.net/innovative-companies-changing-the-face-of-vertical-farming/

Sounds like Samsung should be OK for cash to meet any court award - no need to dilute shareholders with a fund raise (lol).

Not sure about Apple but agree with balance. That’s the tested formulae.

It does seem very strange Hftb, until you consider that Samsung has likely been paying Hansol (owned by a family member) a good deal of money for something it (allegedly) did not supply. That would be corruption of course, so obviously Samsung cannot possibly be involved, especially with such upstanding Board members, who have never had their collars felt?

I am sure BT would like to commence his office with a rerate of that order but it has to be a pricing error on the Nanoco site, which is supposed to reflect LSE. The 52 week high would also be 45.85p and as SL says the market cap much higher. Nice thought but probably best we don’t spend our gain this weekend.

Echo those thoughts Hopingforthebest. In the same way as most CEO changes go, I expect BT will want to get all bad news behind before delivering good news he can claim as his own. NANO has become tarred with the lack of success that happened on ME's watch, so whilst I am sure it is not all his fault, it feels like the right time to reinvent ourselves.

Fingers crossed, and whilst I am not expecting as settlement any time soon, I have confidence NANO will argue and ultimately win on the technicalities. Whatever the outcome, CFQD is not a Samsung invention (as their defence effectively admits), so to be making $bn's from some one else's technology without paying makes them a disgrace both to industry and their country in my view.

On another point, I would not be surprised if ME was pushed because he stretched expectations too far with Merck. Still no sign of anything on that front, unless it turns up in Screenlearner's RNS tomorrow. Would that not be a nice surprise :)

It is a good point about covering the cost of defending a counter claim Basscadet. You have to imagine Mintz will have foreseen that possibility (it was predicted on this board) and so it will be included as part of the TP funding agreement. Presumably, the TP funder receives nothing unless they successfully overcome this challenge anyway, so it is in their interests to cover it and they recover a multiple of the additional costs if successful. Just possible it was not included of course but hopefully testing validity of the Patents is a shorter route to market and Judge G will see it for the waste of Court time that it is. I suspect he will be displeased with their inability to meet the first deadline only to find they dither further and lodge a defence they could have provided many months ago - predictable Samsung but I think they are wobbling.

Thanks SL. It was a little surprising that Samsung did not offer a rational defence seems only to have the technicalities to argue. If it is hiring new lawyers, that might further support the view it is on the back foot. ‘In-house’ lawyers may have considered their case weak, so the owners have asked another team to take it on?

BtB - Looks like Edison is using lost licence costs to arrive at the $250m but if it wins, we know NANO hopes that damages will be calculated by reference to profits - a far more equitable solution to this case if you ask me. After all, the real value of restraining NANO's development of CFQD and other solutions is incalculable, and as shareholders we have borne the full cost - in my opinion, plain theft by men in suits.

If I were Judge Gilstrap, I would be wondering why Samsung needed an extra three months to prepare and deliver its defence, to effect NANO’s Patents are invalid, when it would have known that in May (and many years ago). Has Samsung changed its strategy, or was the request simply time wasting. I remember ME made some remark about it not going unnoticed that Samsung is wasting time. Is that what he meant?

Yes that’s the comfort ME mentioned when he said the case has been ‘pressure tested’. It does not offer a 100% guarantee of course, even if the TP is putting up $m’s but it certainly provides confidence that several experts are convinced.

It is about time Samsung received a reminder that crime does not pay, and let’s hope the position becomes untenable for them soon.

I hope so SL. Feels like Samsung is saying we have no defence. We used the CFQD patents because we were sure that NANO filed them incorrectly. Is that not what any wealthy, respectable and honest firm would do?

The stakes have been upped considerably. If Samsung is wrong and patents have been filed correctly, I do not see how there can be any other outcome than a very ‘Large’ loss and if not profit based damages then 3X for ‘wilful’ basis.

We have been warned on this board that counter claim was the most likely outcome. It feels like Samsung admission of guilt but belief it can get off on the technicalities. Remember that Samsung was not even considering CF before NANO’s appearance, so it is dishonest either way. Fingers crossed we have this covered. Think we shall.

It must be almost impossible to have certainty as to which firms in the Samsung Group are implicated and which are not. Views might change as the case progresses, so I wonder why not proceed including Samsung Display and see what comes out in the wash? It can be excluded at a later stage I would expect? Either way, not having finalised a response at this point does not seem either acceptable or forgivable.

Nothing in HawI’s post suggests NANO agreed to removing Display from the action, which I find interesting, as they did in a previous amendment. Perhaps they don’t agree, but Samsung continues to try to persuade them in hope it can strengthen the response it does not want to provide now.

If Samsung wants/needs to file a different defence to that required if Display division is included I am suspicious - why should it impact the defence?

Does Samsung I tend to settle but also want to ensure that Samsung Display’s name in particular is not tarnished is as a defendant?

No doubt Mintz Levin will be guiding Nano but I have the feeling Samsung may be weakening. Does not mean it will settle of course.

Tend to agree Hawi. To not have a defence ready at this stage (following an extra three months) is not credible - requesting a two week extension suggests Samsung might be on the back foot. In my view their legal knows the defence it has is not going to stand up to scrutiny and does not want that fact coming to public notice. If they lose big against NANO and are shown to be disingenuous, other firms will have an easier time in court against them.

I am much more optimistic of early settlement now. Let’s see what the markets think on Tuesday as that should be a useful indicator.

Not at all sure why they would want a two week extension for anything other than discussion Hawi but they cannot be trusted for sure.

One interpretation is that Samsung is desperate not to have to file a response to the complaint and might want to settle. Perhaps it is more difficult than we thought to explain how Hansol, the paper manufacturer and logistics expert managed to mass manufacture CFQD?