Member Info for Ecclescake

Not sure if this is relevant to anything we might be interested in knowing. Last November Phillips announced QD oled TV launch end of Feb, now we hear its been cancelled. TLC made a simular about turn at CES.
could be nothing or something, a supply chain issue, technical issue at the panel producer, patent enforcement.
I don't believe believe either they would have been supplied Samsung panels.
FYI
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1675924586

Pendulum way forward, looks busy
https://twitter.com/pendulum_chain/status/1624064671194939394?t=5J6T1mDtWhANftTtCe1ZfA&s=19

The settlement with Samsung will be transforming for Nanoco, CFQD use in display is only one part of the equation. The other areas already highlighted will fall into place. We haven't been given a time line on transformation, could be over a period or ongoing, its taking place now and will take time, didn't imply instantly

Robust demand
https://masterinvestor.co.uk/latest/smallcap-round-up-a-brace-of-bargains/?mc_cid=9c741367e0

I might add iofina predomity sell flake, it is discounted to the spot price which is 99.9% pure. anything which goes to be processed by iofina Chemical has added value.

No threats on the horizon as far as i can see. the iodine price has been strong and there are shortages continuing in some sectors. With output becoming a focus to increase current levels to 1000mt pa target it could withstand some softning on the spot price.

Getting entrenched in a position can be comfortably and to easy. Try and look at the downside off course, but do re vist outlooks. Forward looking statements aren't set in stone. There are two numbers in this statement one is an estimate the other is a fact based on todays know knows.
“Meanwhile, we note that deployment of its sensing materials by a major mobile phone company in a key handset model could potentially generate c £15–20m annual revenues for Nanoco, while the existing production capacity in Runcorn could generate sensing application revenues of £100m/year working 24/7.”

FYI another nail in the cadmium coffin
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/eu-considers-ban-on-forever-chemicals-urges-search-for-alternatives

Henry it's a shame you didn't apply that level of sceptical analysis previously. I doubt Nanoco will have to go after anyone.

I would put the others in the 'offenders' category just yet. Over the last 7 years or so Nanoco had agreements with some of the biggest dot and film manufacturers. Those agreements would have been centered around IP. Samsung's actions would have negated those arrangements. The recent settlement places any doubt about the validity or ownership squarely back with Nanoco. I would have imagined dialogue has been going on for sometime and would expect those agreements to be refreshed and some back payments or licensing to be announced at some point.

Coolnamesgone To invest in a share without understanding or research ìs your perogative, but to highlight remuneration in the way you have is disrespectful to the BOD and invested. You can't even claim to being mislead.

Short update from TB
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1005322/iofina-off-to-a-good-start-in-2023-1005322.html

An indication of how fast things move, working out a royalty value should accommodate life time values. A value at the start isn't going to work at the backend.

This is all possible thanks to dramatic QD technology improvement as well as increased competition and economies of scale that all contributed to reducing the cost of the QD films from more than $300/m2 back in 2014 to less than $20 in 2022.

Nanonano, the settlement could bring those 2017 partnerships together with royalties back into play.

FYI,
State of play Jan 2017
https://www.ledinside.com/news/2017/1/nanoco_showcases_tcl_philips_and_hisense_prototype_tvs_incorporating_its_patented_qd_technology
Most likely supplied from Wah Hong film, not sure who was making the panels. Hisence makes it's own panels, but use LG for OLED. They could be the supplier to othe companies but if royalties are due they should come from Wha Hong as the film supplier, if I've joined up the dots. ;)

The legal proceedings started early 2020 so it's taken 3 years.
Nanoco's cfqd use in TVs was lined up to start late 2017 and get going 2018, Samsung really dis throw a spanner in the works with all the other film suppliers questioning the validity of the Patents and probably asking why are we paying royalties on this.
Why would Nanoco choose to extend the legal process unless absolutely no alternative, who could have predicted the end date or outcome.

If hansol supply film to Samsung then the ideal duel source would be another film supplier.
2016 Wan Hong signed a 7 year licence with Nanoco, this was possibly negated by the IP litigation.
As far as I can see WanHong 100inch film line came into production May 2017 supply film using cfqd supplied by Nanoco. They supply OEMs possibly 12 or more, among those are Hisense, TCL Phillips.
What do we think happened to those agreements, on hold maybe until Samsung case was concluded, could been accumulated back log of licence payments?
Plus Dow and Merck
The only bit which doesn't add up is where have all the cfqd resin been supplied from?
https://www.ledinside.com/news/2017/1/nanoco_showcases_tcl_philips_and_hisense_prototype_tvs_incorporating_its_patented_qd_technology

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Hisense-declares-itself-1-in-shipping-TVs-worldwide-in-December-2022.690352.0.html

The ip relating to the litigation has been tied up in limbo and unlicensable because of the settlement that ip has been stress tested and now equivalent to IP kryptonite. Almost uncontestable.

I think you've been too quick to judgment, and you're going to be shown to be incorrect.
This settlement clears the deck and opens up opportunities. Enforcement, new licences, management focus, world standing, etc, etc.

Some can't see the wood for the trees unfortunately,
Brian Tenner, CEO of Nanoco Group, said:

“In the first half, we have continued to build on the significant positive momentum achieved in the last few years, positioning ourselves for significant organic growth in the near term.

“For potential customers, the validation of our IP and the funding that the litigation settlement announced separately today cements the viability of Nanoco as a robust and reliable supplier operating in huge international electronics markets.”