Member Info for ddubya

Newbie. Think you might mean that no QD of whatever description can emit light on that wavelength? Is that right?

Electroluminescent dots should not be needed Newbie111, rather a backlight to bathe the QD in light, which would then emit light on the required wavelength. Same tech as Display and electroluminescent could come later. There is probably another technical reason why it has not been done.

QD as a UV disinfectant has been mentioned before on this board but from what I hear, many unfortunates who contract Covid-19 do so whilst admitted to hospital for treatment. This is particular problem for the elderly who are frequently discharged back to vulnerable residential homes, whilst positive for the unwelcome virus.

The attached below suggests an urgent need for technology to eradicate a range of bacteria (and virus), using UV of particular wavelength(s). I would think this is something NANO should be ideally placed to help with, but it does not feature as an area of focus. Quite possibly there is good reason for that but if you are listening NANO, it could be food for thought?

https://www.ledinside.com/products/2020/4/uvled_asahikasei

The RNS states in “...advanced stages of securing third-party funding.” although the webinar might have suggested early May?

Early would be nice but the funder will want to be sure as it can that it is backing the winner, so I guess it will to take as long as needed.

It does make you wonder what 'influence' Samsung has had over the European Union? There has been deathly silence since last October.

I may have picked it up wrong Amerloque but I thought whilst the choice of legal advisers is settled (Mintz) the choice of third party funder is subject to agreement of terms?

Yes to all of the above please.

Litigation in multiple jurisdictions would be a distraction even for Samsung's deep pockets. If they know they are guilty and likely to lose, an early settlement should Samsung to keep what has been stolen at a remarkably low cost. It should be a 'no brainer'.

When the TP funding arrangements are signed, full control of litigation leaves NANO's hands, and a large payment may also be due to both TP funder and Mintz in event of settlement/termination so at that point, litigation may be the only viable course for NANO. Perhaps ME is offering Samsung a final window to settle before TP agreement is final?

Ideally, I do not want to see NANO sold whole, as I believe multiple payday are to be had in other sectors. However, I would not be sorry to lose the Display patents that are subject of the infringement suit for the right £value.

Thanks for that rc30. In Mike’s portion, in terms of the litigation, he again focussed on the additional $14bn additional profit that Samsung has so far made from QLED “...using our technology.”

In Brian Tenner’s portion, he suggested that the cash runway extension might be contingent upon other things, inferring securing the new orders. I take that to mean either that they are relatively short term projects or more likely that NANO is expecting up front payments.

The Courts must know the game Samsung (And others) play and so should perhaps look to see what they to ensure their judgements are adhered to.

In the KAIST example Samsung only paid roughly half of the award. Strikes me that a court award should be final, due immediately and non-negotiable.

That’s good to hear Pirate Pete. If we win a settlement or the court case, it should demonstrate just how fundamental NANO is to Samsung’s success and a larger payout as you say. I shall not be buying on principle though :)

Good morning Nige. I hope I do not appear too negative but having been here for nearly nine years, I like some others have seen all the false dawns and tears.

I have averaged down heavily but as it stands at 22p I am still well underwater. My hope stems from the chance that we can secure orders and diversify away from Display. Unfortunately, Samsung has already won the battle to frustrate NANO’s commercialisation of patents. Some have a relatively short shelf life and Samsung is the one using them to make money.

The litigation if won convincingly is the cherry on the cake but NANO needs to look to use its expertise to develop new areas of sensor technology and support other OEM to leapfrog Samsung.

What the UK really needs is a government that supports its business to succeed and sanction those that clearly want to cause it harm, e.g. no Samsung contracts for military radar. I am not a protectionist but our governments role in business is almost uniquely passive.

Hoping for better things soon :)

Given the reported $1000 dollar premium To reflect the performance of a QLED TV you might think there would be headroom to buy a NANO licence at $15 per TV.

If Samsung is guilty of infringement, it feels like it has been doing so because it can, and by its scale for a relatively small amount of extra extra profit.

Stifling NANO’s development for 5 years, whilst profiting from its IP is about as low as it gets, so if found guilty, lets hope the judge sees it the same way and applies the most punitive damages possible. We know it goes on but if guilty the punishment needs to fit the crime.

I am also going to guess that as Samsung has always been Cadmium free and NANO was probably receiving all the right signals from Samsung about buying a licence, they did not feel need to open up a few Samsung’s sets until a little later down the line.

The letter last year may also have formalised earlier messages into one legally dependable document they could rely upon for more formal proceedings.

If Samsung stole NANO’s seeding process to make CFQD some time before 2015, all discussion with NANO regarding licensing since that point has been completely disingenuous and designed to do nothing but delay, divert and waste valuable NANO resource. If NANO can evidence the meetings and what was said in them, it may help sway the judge both in his decision and the basis for calculating damages.

We’ll take £500m and a licence now please Samsung. It would be so much better for everyone involved (except perhaps lawyers and TP litigation funders).

Yes - not too far to travel!

My guess is that proving collusion between Dow DuPont and Samsung would be exceptionally difficult and have a very low chance of success. Best chance is to keep it simple.

If NANO win, you would think that Dow would then have a straightforward ‘open and shut’ case against Samsung, so if they did not litigate one those circumstances that would speak volumes. Years off that though!

Last sentence should say to 'rave,' reviews rather than 'Dave' reviews, although personally, I don't mind where they show them. That's what happens when you use a Fire tablet.

Almost all reading this board want to see NANO survive and become profitable Nige, and ironically, the Covid-19 response increases that likelihood through Furlough and Future loans.

As you say NANO could benefit enormously from even a modest settlement. If it wins its case, the most pessimistic award would be £140m damages, around 60% of which would be paid away to the litigation funder ( a guess since I have not been able to find a practical example yet) and receipt of annual licence fee worth around £20m pa, assuming only 2m displays per annum at £10 each.

Even on this conservative basis, value of over twice the current market capital would be introduced within a year should NANO win or settle. The actual cost to Samsung is likely to be many times more but my personal view is that just how much is largely in Samsung's (dishonest) hands. This could be very damaging for Samsung and result in eye watering damages, particularly as QLED has been selling like hot cakes to Dave reviews.

Agree Itsamaybe. If we secure the TP funder as expected, events will move according to their tune and as you suggest the dynamics could all become very interesting.

There are a number of basis to calculate damages, including cost of the licence, x3 for exceptional wilful cases and, by far the largest, based on profits gained by the perpetrator. Obviously, the TP and Mintz will hope for the latter but they will also be acutely aware of the balance between risk and reward. NANO would probably settle (wisely) for a licence and sensible damages, if it could be agreed early.