Member Info for Ecclescake

Maybe he became an obstacle.

Nanoco are in a conflicting situation with the LG litigation and the sale of the company.

In previous presentations they state ‘Molecular Seeding Technology: Enabling Sensing Applications of the Future’, and highlight how Nanoco’s technology enables the production of Quantum Dots at scale making high-performance infrared image sensors more affordable and available. These sensors are in growing demand and Nanoco is positioning itself as a key player in that industry. In other statements they tell us

“Molecular seeding technology is our foundational IP for high volume quantum dot production.” “It allows us to manufacture high-quality materials efficiently, meeting the strict demands of the electronics industry. We believe it is the only feasible method to manufacture Quantum Dots at scale. This technology has already played a pivotal role in advancing display technologies, and we are now seeing the same potential in quantum dot enabled sensing applications where Nanoco has the largest product portfolio.”

Nanoco have successfully defended this IP against Samsung and there is a high chance they can be successful against LG but there are risks IF they loose. One risk is in the value of the IP and the other is in the cost of the Litigation which could be substantial, not just in Legal fees if they have to pay their own and LGs, but if they get and injunction against the 19 LG products and loose it could be a large some of money.

I'm not sure what deal could be put together for the company or what CEO would stick his neck out and purchase the company until the litigation is resolved and this IP is secure. Maybe the litigation could be ring fenced or dropped but what value remains, but i can't put together a credible scenario with my buyers hat on.

I suspect the final agreement will look simular to the Samsung settlement, maybe lower financially because of the volumes involved.

I think the big future value is in sensors. The last two M&A deals both valued and retained the R & D because this is all about developing and securing future tech.

Who is their hansol.

https://www.quantumdots-info.com/lg-display-invests-21-million-qd-film-developer-innoqd

FYI

https://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=5398

Interesting fact of little consequence.

I believe Nanoco have supplied Sigma-Aldrich in the past and maybe still do. Sigma-Aldrich is owned by Merck.

Using Chinese electrolysers are a major concern for me. Levin had a bad experience when President energy used Chinese equipment in Argentina. Looking at the current crop of 100mw plus projects I can find any using Chinese electrolysers. The one key component in the plant is the electrolysers they have to be reliable and efficient not cheap.

Amerloque if you haven't already, take a look at Nanosys web site and some of the vocabulary to appreciate the challenge ahead for Nanoco. Going it alone just doesn't look to be a credible option. Deep pockets and industrial heavy weights are positioning. Nanoco have the technology and should be able find a suitors for a deal, I do see a need to get the LG litigation settled first. Then serious negotiation can take place. The deal permutations are endless but there does appear to be a need for Research and Development. LG are due to reply to court tomorrow, maybe a details before end to play or shortly after the market closes.

You can patent something that's previously been a trade secret if it meets patentability criteria, but this action makes it public information and removes trade secret protection and can possible give the process away which then exposes the cost of enforcement.

Why you can't patent a trade secret

Disclosure is required for patents

A patent application must fully describe the invention so the public can understand and potentially use it after the patent expires.

This public disclosure inherently contradicts the definition of a trade secret, which relies on keeping information confidential.

Loss of secret status

Once a trade secret is publicly disclosed through a patent filing, it loses its legal status as a trade secret.

When a trade secret and patent are complementary

Strategic advantage

You can strategically combine patent and trade secret protection.

For example, you can patent the core invention but keep certain aspects or improvements as trade secrets.

Trade secrets can protect information not eligible for patents

Some information, like a particular recipe or customer list, may not be eligible for patent protection and can only be protected as a trade secret.

During the application process

An inventor can maintain a trade secret while a patent application is pending by requesting a non-publication of the application, which can be an interim step to preserve trade secret status for the information at issue.

Nanoco could well have decided to go the secret invention route, patents are expensive to file mega expensive to defend and limited territorial, also in a fast moving technology they become obsolete either because they've taken time to be taken up or because somethinghas replaced it. The learnt a lesson with Samsung in so much it appeared Samsung could formulate the dots but could do the last bit of turning them into film for there use. Nanoco may have decided to keep the technology secret because they have confidence it can't be reversed engineered. The problem for Nanoco comes when mass production is required hence the collaboration with Asian chemical companies who I think are the likely suitors. Interesting to see the last two big deals, Nanosys and Shoie, and Plessey with Haylo. The later appears to make Plessey focus on research and development with manufacturing in China.

For Nanoco it could be said the sale becomes a little more complex because the buyer will what to keep the pipe line of R and D another problem which has been addressed in the departure of Pickett and the reorganising of department.

Eldermanas sale of shares before the Apple project cancellation was highly suspect.

Highlighting that and other market developments to show increasing activity in and around quantum dots. Interest in Nanoco buy out requires a high level of activity. Million $ a week

https://www.microled-info.com/foxconn-says-microled-displays-are-key-technology-future-ar-headsets

A massive player is Hon Hai could be our Asian partner.

News article about South Korean government investing in MicroLED, this can only be positive for Nanoco if China and South Korea are looking the the next generation tech.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1755780192#disqus_thread

Anyone able to confirm if the Samsung license is exclusive or non exclusive.

This from Nanoco.

Samsung has since announced that its QLED TVs have received certification for cadmium-free quantum dot technology excellence from the Société Générale de Surveillance,4 to reassure the consumer that its products are RoHS compliant and completely free of toxic cadmium. In 2023, Samsung took out a licence to Nanoco’s patent portfolio in settlement of litigation for alleged infringement of certain Nanoco patents in its QLED TVs. The licence allows Samsung access to Nanoco’s unique IP relating to cadmium-free quantum dot technology.

We endeavour to continue improving our materials and promoting the use of cadmium-free quantum dots over toxic cadmium, with the aim of converting the industry completely over to cadmium-free materials for display applications and beyond.

Was Plessey looking for growth capital, 5 years working with Meta maybe this was the cheapest venture capital to fund growth. Not sure Nanoco are looking for this type of deal.

https://atreg.com/press/atreg-announces-sale-of-plessey-plymouth-fab-to-haylo-labs/

What we are seeing is mergers and takeovers in the technology which is what we want if Nanoco are looking for a buyer. SHOIE Nanosys, haylo ventures Plessey, the corporate men are looking at what is in development and they want to get in to be in a position to be first. Apple reportedly using qd in the latest Apple book screen possibly supplied by LG.

Nanoco look to be in a key position after the LG litigation is settled, the corporate guys don't like risk or upsetting existing or future customers. How does Nanoco look from the buyers perspective.

Clarification of reorganisation at Nanoco.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250820925339/en/Nanoco-Reorganizes-RD-and-Invests-in-New-Technology-Resources-for-Next-Chapter-of-Growth

Apparently the deal took 9 months to put together. David Hayes new Plessey ceo on LinkedIn. Waveoptics is the Plessey / Nanoco link about 5 years ago.

The deal is opaque, it's not apparent to me how much was paid for Plessey. The £100m figure looks to be a 5 year pledge for investment with a payback clause it Plessey get listed in that time.

'Goertek, a major Apple supply chain partner, is ramping up upstream AR/VR investments with a US$100 million deal to acquire UK-based microLED specialist Plessey Semiconductors.'

I suspect a lot of the high volume manufacturing will move to Shenzen.

I highlighted the deal, because of the ripple effects this could create as players maneuver to advantage positions. Also interesting how apple are key players again after dropping Plessey some 5 years ago. Things are definitely on the move. LG should respond in 10days.

https://www.trendforce.com/news/2025/08/19/news-goertek-to-invest-usd-100m-in-micro-led-company-plessey/

Plessey PR on the deal with the Chinese.

https://plesseysemiconductors.com/haylo-labs-acquires-plessey-semiconductors/

Interesting structure to the deal.

https://www.microled-info.com/haylo-ventures-acquire-plessey-semiconductors-100-million

Near term focus is the litigation against LG. A buyers perspective would be to wait for the outcome of that process. I can't see a buyer making a move before that's settled. LG did win a extension which may have thrown a spanner in the works regarding Nanoco objectives and timings.

Players perspective. LG, we can play the long game because Nanoco want to move on.

Nanoco, we want the litigation settled so we can move on, but don't want to appear desperate.

Buyers, sit right hear of LG win or appear to win we can pick this up for a song, if Nanoco win it'll be worth every penny.

They can raise the money it's just a what cost are where the negotiations are at. If your nervous know you wait until they have to implement building a plant on time to a budget, not for the faint hearted this one.

If Nanoco what to sell the company then they will motivated to get this LG litigation settled. Any potential buy isn't going to take on any risk particularly a injunction against LG. A weak settlement will hurt the company value. An injunction against LG will make a sale almost impossible. I think Nanoco have a winning hand let's see how they play it.