Member Info for Ecclescake

I'm reading that as no litigation on existing patents going forward. No litigation ever on patents publish for the next 3 years, after 3 years new patents will be protected. Basically a 3 year truce. Is this to see out Nanoco's key display patents which are about to expire.

Apparently Nanoco filed a joint stipulation regarding the cross-use of protected materials in its IP litigation against Shoei. and Apple Inc.. It's procedural agreement maybe part of the Samsung settlement, aimed at streamlining discovery for the upcoming trial. In Samsungs interest to have Nanoco win this litigation.

Shoie might argue that translation would hurt their defence. What's the argument? Shoei is seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing their quantum dots lack the 'molecular cluster compound' required by Nanoco's patents. The Japanese documents likely serve to explain their manufacturing process or prove the structure of their materials, but where did this process come from, if its Nanosys then they should be able to prove and explain that. If it's shoei's process then I doubt they can claim prior art so they must show it's different. Almost certain the judge will demand certified English translation to be admissible as evidence. Shoei look to be on the back foot.

Shoei will have conducted a thorough prior art search which is vital in determining the true validity of patents by uncovering potentially invalidating prior disclosures like the Samsung settlement. Shoei had clear view of the competitive landscape, investigating the patents held by competitors and their technological strengths they definitely used that that knowledge during negotiations to aquire Nanosys. Who knows they may have written in a buy out clause, but it wouldn't have been open ended and would Nanosys share holders agreed, i doubt it. Maybe Nanosys knew this moment would arrive and offloaded at a knock down price and maybe Shoei knew this was the case.

The time line should have given Shoei clear overview and must have made them stop and check the validity of the Nanosys IP, and we have no idea about the deal to aquire Nanosys, but their investment in manufacturing would have been substantial.

2019 Shoei and Nanosys started collaboration where Shoei manufacturer Nanosys' quantum dot materials.

Feb. 2020 nanoco start litigation against Samsung

Jan 2023 Samsung settlement after confirmation of the validity of Nanoco's IP

Sep. 2023 Shoei aquire Nanosys

It's the cost volume analysis. Highlighted when apple gave Nanoco 1.4m to expand production facilities. The move from laboratory production to mass production can be enormous. So Samsung et al want the down and dirty price cost plus, but won't give the security of a covering order and Nanoco can't raise the funds to build the manufacturing. It where Shoei stepped in with Nanosys they where happy to quote supply at the volume price and fund the manufacting with a payback in years. Having said that we wonder why the DOW venture failed , could have been the CVA if the ramp up volume didn't suit samsung. Samsung at the time where investing billions in a panel production line and the risk analysis probably said spend the extra for qd controll and build in a bit for litigation if it happens.

Interesting development involving apple. Apple was working with both Nanosys and Nanoco in 2018 / 19, terminating Nanoco in JUNE 2019. Is this a replay of the Samsung scenario of using Nanoco IP in thier preferred supply chain.

I agree, but corporate thinking is let's get this sorted and Japanese approach straight dealing.

Interesting share action today. West Virginia 10am is 3pm GMT and shares buys start.

RNS Monday maybe 🤔

There can be a number of reasons otherwise unknown trades, we do known there is one or more large buyers and my guess is they are choosing to be anonymous.

ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING: The Board of Directors of ATOME Paraguay S.A.E. hereby convenes its shareholders to an ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING to be held at the company's registered office located at Aviadores del Chaco No. 2050, WTC Building, Tower 3, 15th Floor, in the city of Asunción, on February 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for the first call, with the presence of shareholders representing a majority of the shares with voting rights. If the necessary quorum cannot be obtained at the first call, the Meeting will be validly constituted at the second call on the same day at 11:00 a.m., regardless of the capital represented, for the purpose of considering the following:

AGENDA:

1) Appointment of a Chairman and a Secretary of the Meeting.

2) Consideration of the Board of Directors' Annual Report, Balance Sheet, and Profit and Loss Statement, allocation of profits, and Statutory Auditor's Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025.

3) Appointment of Directors for the 2026 fiscal year and determination of their compensation.

4) Appointment of Statutory Auditors for the 2026 fiscal year and determination of their compensation. 5) Appointment of shareholders to sign the minutes of the Shareholders' Meeting with the Chairman.

The Board of Directors reminds shareholders of their obligation to deposit their shares or share certificates with the company no less than three days prior to the meeting, in accordance with Article

This article gives a bit insight, 18 months old but helps explain where we are with Shoei.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do/10.1002/0050078

The good doctor persuaded his mates to join him in voting against the new BoD. Should we assume there was a falling out after all.

The volume of buys on the day of the RNS is unusual and encouraging.

Its becoming tougher and tighter to use cadmium. The RoHS Directive restricts cadmium in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to a maximum concentration of 0.01%.

With regard to TVs and Displays a major exemption for cadmium in LED chips (Entry 39(a)) expired on November 21, 2025, with a new, narrower exemption for specific semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots in displays remains valid until December 31, 2027.

Looking back I felt more confident of a positive outcome against Samsung and LG, not getting the same vibe, maybe it's because Shoei have instigated the action.

If Shoei loses its patent case against Nanoco, its position would be significantly weakened, facing potential US market restrictions for quantum dot products, needing a license from Nanoco, and potentially having to cease sales of infringing materials, impacting its supply chain for display film. A loss validates Nanoco's IP, forcing Shoei to negotiate or find non-infringing methods, making its future in this tech segment dependent on licensing or innovation.

On the other hand...........

The expected response on the 9th is for Nanoco to defend the IP and patent infringement, just the beginning of the litigation and some way to go before a judgement.

There was a increase in trades could be something or nothing, news of commercial orders maybe 🤔

Shoei have already made a decision buying Nanosys and investing in a production facility, if they don't win in court nanoco shouldn't let shoei buy the company, just negotiate a licence to use the IP. If Shoei win then it will be tough for Nanoco without commercial orders and of no value to Shoei.

Samsung looked at the different processes and chose the molecular cluster compound process was the best option. That could mean Nanoco had something Nanosys didn't or it is the same MCC method.

CDX. unlikely with ongoing litigation

Commercial sales. Possible at any time

Litigation. High chance of successful outcome based on Samsung and LG wins.

Alway been a Speculative investment, just different parameters.

I don't think Nanoco will be counter claiming, as this action is Shoei testing Nanoco’s IP

Follows the LG settlement. Shoei is seeking a court ruling that its quantum dot products do not infringe on certain Nanoco patents, specifically those related to semiconductor structures. Shoei's complaint alleges that its products lack a specific 'molecular cluster compound' (MCC) element required by Nanoco's patents.

This is a simular argument Samsung had regarding MCC and didn't win. A good patent will cover process in wide description as posible samsung argued Nanoco patent was to narrow and didn't cover Samsungs processes. This attempt was rejected by the court. Shoei are trying the same argument.

If Nanoco's IP prevail it could lead to some royalty negotiation which may look at past usage. narrow the scope of Nanoco's claims.

Samsung did use Nanosys dots back in 2016 but moved to own QD Vision and use the Nanoco IP. The question now is the Shoie/Nanosys MCC covered by Nanoco’s patent?

Not promised anything you say. The job to put this project together without top level government support would be nigh imposible and a lot more expensive.

Low-cost, 100% renewable hydroelectric power in a tax free zone with 10% corporate tax. FTZ status in Paraguay is designed to attract investment by making it financially advantageous for companies like Atome to generate and repatriate profits.

The project's location in the Villeta FTZ provides these advantages, confirmed by presidential decree, indicating strong government support.