Member Info for ddubya

It appears that ST Micro had previous?y been involved with Apple and now wants to market that IR sensor product to other customers now that exclusivity to Apple has fallen away?

This order is 'material' in size but to an extent appears to have been banked to extend the cash runway to Q2 22. So I expect we need to keep fingers crossed for extended orders too. A very Good step toward going concern status though.

Will take a closer look now - great news and it is ST Micro. Looks like Deutche Bank did slip up. I forgive you.

RG wanted in and has not sold out (at least not yet). So, like the rest of us he is probably waiting for news of the Purchase Orders (and Samsung’s response) and holds the same frustrations that many of us do.

He may not have timed his investment to perfection but that suggests he did not had access to Any privileged information, and I am comforted that II seem to remain long. I hope it is just a matter of time until better news flows.

This looks like a very interesting proposition Danny with a tiny market cap and only 9m shares. Cash looks tight so a cash raise might be needed soon as you say. A fascinating business model and worth a much closer look when the FIAT currencies are in crisis.

In a post Covid and Brexit era, the UK certainly needs businesses to be at the forefront of their sector and to earn revenue for the country. Technology and renewables are very good examples that should be supported by government in the same way as foreign nations support their own.

Many who have been burned wanted out with their money back or a profit and many will have achieved that today. A disappointing close yes but I suspect some of those who ‘day traded’ might be back for the longer term. Potential for dilution besides, there should be plenty of upside from under 4p.

Hi SL. Without hearing that litigation funding has been secured ‘straight up‘, there is a small risk it has not.

NANO is probably not incurring significant legal costs now, if the case is not being developed, but allowing the Court to issue Summons without the Means/ability to respond to Samsung’s defence would be a high risk and unwise step. I am not sure why that approach would benefit NANO, unless the view is that Samsung’ will either not file a defence, or it will be so lamentable the judge finds in NANO’s favour without a full trial/hearing?

Not sure how it works in Texas but reasonably weighty Court fees will probably have been paid already prior to issue of the Summon.

No one will want to get on the wrong side of the judge and so on balance, I believe it will transpire that funding is in position already. Not having it public keeps Samsung guessing too, which is no bad thing.

An outright purchase cannot be ruled out but now that litigation funding is in place, NANO is in a much stronger position.
Samsung's interest is Display only and any offer it made would probably not place much value on non-display, where arguably the greatest value sits. Had Samsung been interested, they would have bought already. It looks more likely they want only the seeding process and other technology, which they have taken already and are making money from.

My take is that ME and NANO realises it can have its cake and eat it by developing value in non-display such as IR and separate!y valuing the IP infringement through litigation. Shareholder value will be far greater this way, although it will take years to realise. It seems to be the direction of travel and to be honest that's what I would prefer.

On the litigation claim, Samsung is going to want to settle on a worldwide basis I am sure but having resisted all attempts to settle so far, it would surprise me if they made an offer everyone could agree is reasonable at this stage. I am sure our legal team has eyes focussed on a settlement based on the profits derived from infringement. That could mean much larger damages, but will take longer to secure and depends upon Samsung not having a reasonable defence. However, I really hope Samsung proves me wrong and offers now as NANO could put the cash to better use in R&D, which could multiply value.

Certainly felt that way at times botbot.

California, (Santa Clara) seems to be a centre for marketing, design and applications rather than a manufacturing site but that does not rule out use of NANO particles/CFQD in ST Micro products. The firm is certainly, a great potential fit with NANO, covering a huge range of services including semi-conductors, sensors and interestingly plastic solar panels.

Guess we just need to "...watch that space." as Mike says and hopefully we shall receive the good news that all NANO shareholders (big and small) deserve.

BtB not sure if you missed it but in the recent Webinar, the Deutsche Bank analyst suggested that NANO might ask ST Micro for an up front payment to ease its cash flow. Hearing this name mentioned was a surprise to me at least and at the time I wondered if he had inadvertently revealed Inside information about who is behind the purchase orders? That’s the link.

Hawi. Had a similar thought when I read the JD. Does ST Micro operate manufacturing plants in California, which might fit with IR sensors, or is it perhaps linked to R&D?

For some reason NigWit was always uber protective of ME and the Board. I would say most challenge here (and there) has been presented in a constructive way and he rolls out the ‘same old defence’ that we are anti NANO, and using emotive descriptors such as “hateful”only when he does not have a strong argument.

Otherwise, as you say, he can post some very good stuff, so it is a shame really.

The silver lining here is reminder of just how many great moments Faulty Towers gave us. I might binge watch a few episodes later on.

A process like that would make sense JBongo, although as you suggest few, if any of us, have understanding of the Texan process. There may be circumstances the defendant can bring a new argument to table?

I expect Samsung’s response will published and if so, I shall need to buy a copy. It is likely to be as comical as NigWit’s latest (see other Board) which reminds me of Basil thrashing the bonnet of his Austin 1300 with some fallen branches.

It is possible the Summons have been served, yet funding is not finalised SL but I would think that a less likely scenario. An RNS on the subject would have avoided doubt. That’s NANO.

Certainly think we shall have the best Rottweilers We can find on our side, and whilst Samsung will certainly not be engaging lightweights, I suspect no one knows the inside of a CFQD better than NANO. I feel sure that we have a good case and will ultimately win, unless Samsung is able to get off the hook on a technicality (always a possibility).

Whilst not beyond reproach, I think ME has developed the case and funding arrangements very well and should be applauded.

Of course Mr Market has rewarded news with a 14% Mark down asI write, but as seems to have been the case for a while now all action has been around the ask price, with the sell price staying largely around 9.4p - mostly down to volatility of the spread.

Securing those IR sales (if material) would leave the market few reasons not to tick NANO up a few points.

The legal action has been de-risked and can only be an asset to NANO, even if it cannot yet be accurately £quantified.

Hi Hawi. If you look at the link to PacerMonitor, the ‘Parties’ tab states Nanoco is represented by Ward Smith and Hill.

It might be that both parties are involved, as I have suggested, or even that the documentation is incorrect? Wherever the answer Ward, Smith and Hill is mentioned in the PacerMonitor information.

Ward, Smith and Hill that is!

Good spot Amerloque. Looks like NANO is being represented by award, Smith and Hill, which has been active in IP cases heard in the Eastern District.

It is possibly that Mintz is still co-ordinating in the background, or alternatively the TP funders want their own (trusted) firm in there ?

Checked it out Newbie and see you are right. Wavelengths below 377nm have not been developed yet, so that's the answer, thanks for the education.