Member Info for ddubya

Interesting Amerloque. Is my recollection of the webinar correct, to effect infringement of NANO patents dates back to 2015 correct (which is earlier than I had understood)? If such a conspiracy theory were correct, it would mean that Samsung and Dow were partners in crime to neuter NANO.

On the question of the purchase orders, it is down to how you interpret the text. I can see how it can be read to mean the firm involved is from the US but another possible interpretation is that a firm is now commissioning similar technology to that requested by Apple and also going beyond what that was intended to deliver. Mike made a point of saying that now we were beyond the 2 year exclusivity period we could sell to anyone. Hopefully not to long to wait to find out.

If contracts are signed and it is of meaningful value the SP could bounce upwards rather quickly.

That's a possibility Amerloque, although it is a sanction the court will use sparingly. If it did, it would certainly grab Samsung's attention to lose the $1000 premium on each set in that jurisdiction. We would likely see Samsung moving faster than it is used to and reach agreement rather rapidly.

It would be interesting if one or both projects turned out to be commissioned by ST micro.

Hello T. An out of court settlement is one example of the ‘out of the blue’ developments I had in mind. That could happen at any point but I cannot see Samsung offering unless NANO has a strong case and is also able to fund the litigation. I suspect Samsung would prefer we stop trading and hibernate and have gambled on the likelihood that we shall.

Meantime, until the court case starts (and possibly during trial too) there will be an embargo on information being made public, so the silence is likely to become deafening.

BtB. Would we have to change our name to NanDows?

That’s certainly my view Nanonano. Meantime, Little point in following the litigation too closely as there will be no commentary until trial, and anything could happen out of the blue. However, it will be good news when de-risking is confirmed via TP funding, even though a large % of any spoils will ultimately be paid away.

Focused must be (and is) on the existing and new IR and/or Display contracts, which could ensure survival ahead of likely orders for OLED/QD hybrids.

Something else I thought interesting in the webcast is that Mike suggested we should “Watch that space” in connection with Merck’s contract renegotiation.
I gained the sense he viewed it as an opportunity, rather than a case of Merck taking advantage of our predicament to extract better terms. Don’t know if anyone else got the same feeling but it leads me to think the new arrangement may be expanded in some way?

Regarding Dow our other partner - other than being disappointed Samsung has not Bought a licence, it feels like they are sitting on their hands and did not featuring in the Interim presentation. Merck was identified as the most active partner. Perhaps Samsung has somehow caught Dow by the short and curlies, or they have just given up

The approach to damages being awarded according to the full extent of profit gained is a relatively recent development (makes sense as a deterrent).

In NANO’s case, Mike was clear that mark up between Samsung’s previous generation TV and QLED TV is large at around $1000 per set and that is why we have the full attention of Mintz, which sees a share of $billions In potential damages rather than hundreds of $millions.

Mike will want to keep Samsung guessing as to NANO’s approach and so confirmed the Deutchebank model estimate of $10 to $15 per screen was accurate but at the lowest end of expectations. In any event, only the Court can decide the basis for calculation of damages and he likely wants to avoid making comments the Court may view as presumptuous.

I suspect Samsung will come to wish it had done the ‘right and honourable’ thing and purchased a license but also that it will defend the action to the point it becomes hopeless. At that point, NANO will hopefully be a profitable company in other sectors and if it has not been purchased by a Samsung competitor, able to charge it to Samsung, full price for a licence.

Hi Hawi. Mike certainly appeared to lack confidence during yesterday's presentation.

Interestingly, on the point you mention about an up front payment from ST Micro, my take was that NANO may have considered it but did not want to comment further, suggesting it had either been discussed, if may be subject to on going discussion. Either take could be right.

Having a CEO based in the USA, is not helpful, particularly not in the current circumstances. I expect it is really Brian Tenner who is running the show at the moment and perhaps at the end of his 12 months notice, Mike may give way, to him, or someone else? It is not that I think Mike a bad CEO but every now and again a refresh is required.

Listening to the presentation now and noted Brian Tenner's comments at the Billings section. He noted one customer is billed annually in arrears for Display product. If that customer is Wah Hong, it explains why we have seen no income to this point. When billing commences post the FY end, there could be a decent income stream in Display? This will be needed as the reduced expenditure of £400K per month will last only as long as the government's Furlough scheme.

Thanks Morbox. Strange goings on with the share price. Is there better news hidden within the detail of that purchase order?

Your comment sum up quite well Morbox. We are not out of the game yet but the waiting goes on, which is a poor show, however we look at it.

The short term test is the reaction of current II and the Directors BUY, SELL or HOLD, and the content of that webinar.

Incidentally, has anyone got the link? NANO said it would accompany the Interims but I did not see it within the announcement.

Let’s hope the new purchase order involves Apple and Nano particles. We need something large and special, such as that.

I may be more pessimistic than others but there is no sign of increased orders in H1 20, which might suggest that Wah Hong is not buying NANO CFQD, and “...a new joint development for R&D services being currently documented with an existing customer. “ feels like it is a reference to the renegotiation with Merck, which presents a reduction in income.

NANO has not even finalised the funding for litigation against Samsung, so the only new and positive news is purchase order for sensors and CFQD. If those were significant It should have been said in the RNS.

All ears on the Webinar later this morning to see if there is any better news we have not heard yet.

The FSP has been “Terminated” in light of the current “uncertain” environment, and now looking at other means of funding. Let’s wait to see what the markets say but in absence of some magic numbers from the sensor purchase orders, the market will assume no interest in purchasing Nano and cash raise soon. The webinar will be unmissable and ME better have some good answers.

A nice uplift this afternoon and touching 10 again. Last time we had a decent jump upwards there was an RNS on the way, although the outcome was disappointing.

It would be nice to think there could be a pleasant surprise soon.

NANO is a source of worry but I don’t have the feeling it will have been anything other than open and ‘straightforward’ regarding its IP claims. There are always exceptions of course but that would not the way of the scientist.

Just why NANO cannot not make a success of anything other than Careware is another matter. Why is that Mike?

Understand that thinking BtB, although unless there has been increased revenue from somewhere such as Wah Hong, then we knew they would not make good reading. Agree there will be more pain without news.

Ironically, there is more financial support around for us too, which should mean more chance of survival.

Currently 9.78 to buy. Down over 13% earlier and now up over 2% on the day so far - exceptionally volatile today.