Member Info for Ecclescake

It has come up before, Nanoco's permutations for supply are multiple and varied. I don't see them supplying Hansol for the Samsung application. Part of Nanoco's expertise is to develop CFQD to specific requirements, so the opportunity for supply agreement for othe applications is a high probability. I'm not sure any of the large chemical corporations can match Nanoco on qd technologies. Firing up Runcorn was based on other supply requirements.

FYI
https://twitter.com/ST_World/status/1620852654246342656?t=YtcOkCnvKXUN9rNR60LCUw&s=19

https://lasaralliance.org/

It's worth a refresher visit on the Nanoco website.
I'd forgotten about one of our major shareholder Tariq Hamoodi specialist in Litigation Funding and finance.

Samsung Flying Lower you might say probably catching the bus

Samsung Electronics Share price going in the opposite direction, dropped off a cliff this morning.
https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+share+price&oq=samsung+sh&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i433i512j0i131i433i512j0i457i512j0i402j0i512l2j0i131i433i512j46i175i199i512j69i60.8692j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung-nf-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Nanoco 2D Materials Limited, currently listed having 45 patents, the majority lodged in Taiwan.

Plessey are have been hiring, over 50 new jobs last year, still hiring now.
It's a race for first to market with microLEDs
https://plesseysemiconductors.com/microleds/active-matrix-display/

US partner invested £4.2 million in Runcorn. Orders imminent.

First across the line its difficult to choose with multiple option, STM is favourite following closely behind has to be the Large Asian Chemical company then Apple. Could be a surprise in the rest of the field, Plessey, LG, Samsung, DuPont, Merck, Wah Hong etc.
Runcorn facility has the capacity to make high volumes of CFQD® quantum dots and HEATWAVETM nanomaterials for IR sensing applications. The revenue generation capacity can be easily scaled up. Revenue potential: Massive

I wouldn't want to be out of this share this week.
https://woodsford.com/litigation-funding-news/

Try this
https://woodsford.com/us/nanoco-v-samsung/

Excuse the hype
Recent developments illustrate the possibilities of big payouts for universities, TTOs and spin-outs
https://*************.net/recent-developments-illustrate-the-possibilities-of-big-payouts-for-universities-ttos-and-spin-outs

BB is this what your looking for.

We're not going to know all the details.
1h.01m from BT he does mentio about RNS release and talking to advisers over a weekend which could be the reason we had two. First had one author the second had imput of 3 directors. Considering the implications of the Settlement RNS it may be advisable the get it right first time ;) a Monday morning RNS after talking to advisers please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY

It does take some gymnastics and pedantics or is it semantics to accept there could be a annual licence outside of the litigation agreement but part of the settlement.

The key is historical precedent.
The paragraph 'Historical precedent shows that any final agreement is likely to be a one off payment, with no forward royalties, for the full and final settlement of all current and future patent litigation between the Parties in all jurisdictions (colloquially referred to as "patent peace").
Sounds like they have a formula. It shouldn't be detrimental to either party.
I found a couple of articles on patent precedent, but nothing that show what could be applicable.

Yes Feels it's really an illustration, I don't believe the parties have been left to their own devices finalising the settlement. There looks to be a strong oversight. Two things,
first. "The settlement process requires further negotiations and continues to operate within the control of the US judicial system, and hence the outcome of the litigation, its settlement, and timing are not wholly within the control of the Parties. As a result of these factors, the value and terms of any final agreement are not yet certain."
Second "The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company. Does that include the wilful element, could be argued either way.
It could be that this settlement has to meet a judged equilibrium, rather than weighted negotiations.

While it appears we have a ceasefire.
FYI old article
https://www.thejuryexpert.com/2015/02/the-psychology-of-a-persuasive-settlement/

Key time lines would have been set to achieve the 30 days possible 21 days plus 7 for discussions if needed it could be done and dusted Samsung aren't new to this a lot of the terms will be cut and paste. Hopefully ;)
Bit of light reading.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/patently-unfair/

You can find a number of examples but to show how the guidelines are given to the jury, they don't just pluck awards from thin air, the judge guides them. Nanoco and Samsung would have know the range from low to high and they have settled terms towards the lower end.
https://www.hgexperts.com/expert-witness-articles/largest-ever-patent-infringement-damages-award-6726

Usual practice would be to treat each patent value separately, where this gets into realms unknown is territories. I don't know how they would have settled this financially. Patents cover territory. World peace to means you can use the IP Global without restriction or the need to enforce where the patent is protected, give and take required. US courts only cover USA
This indicates where Nanoco Lodge patents, not up to date 2018
https://howmanypatents.com/reports-companies/nanoco-technologies/