Member Info for Feeks

Yes BeContrarian - for me it was 10p, 19p, 25p, 30p and 41p (after PTAB) and now 37p. My portfolio is rather overweight in Nanoco shall we say! But Mr Nakhla has me beat

I did start wondering about a small raise as Nanoco was not to know for sure if the trial would be delayed and will not know if commercial orders will be forthcoming as expected - but it never became much of a thought in my own mind. I really did think the market did not give sufficient value to the PTAB result and said as much here. Things are changing fast now, with greater investor awareness and media interest

Mr Nakhla - please do leave some for the rest of us!

Well you can check on my posting history NigWitty. It may not seem this way from my profound optimism of late however I am rational and unemotional on Nanoco. This may sometimes mean boldly leveraging up an investment to back up one's assessment of the risk/reward business case, as I have done. I see no good reason to hold back given recent developments other than as a general point of caution / market investment strategy - that will reduce odds of major catastrophe in the long run - but it comes at a price when there are good things happening. I have not been wrong at any time yet on Nanoco (as Amerloque will confirm). It may happen that this is my downfall, as I firmly expect things will continue to improve as we approach trial , and I won't feel inclined to sell until a verdict is reached.

BBD that is not gambling, it's fixing the odds.

NGR - I think they put have back trading to 13th June now

NGR - snap - I just worked that out too. Happy days!

I have quite a lot of practical experience too. The plain fact is that the vast majority of cases never get to the start of trial - and settlements when they come usually occur very close to the trial date. I am pretty sure that Samsung's legal strategy - which is not rocket science - will usually depend on causing delay and uncertainty to a financially weaker opponent. But all this vitally hinged on getting some sort of result at PTAB but they fell flat on their faces.

Just show me even one reported case where Samsung has ever risked anything close to $1bn by delaying then I might be persuaded this is what it will do. The longer this goes on without a settlement the greater the chance N will secure it s financial future outside the litigation by other means (commercial contracts).

Lawyers only give advice and rest assured they will be giving that sort of advice or they will get sued. They will then act on Samsung's instructions, whatever those might be.

Please don't take this the wrong way but you seem to be the re-incarnation of BTB!

Agreed Mattyboy - on that analysis your £400m figure would therefore represent a low ball offer accepted purely because it means early cash flow for N, which is easier to agree with (but still too low in my opinion). It all depends on how that figure stacks up to the N board when pondering its future. Maybe a low ball settlement with a higher royalty works sufficiently to be persuasive. Personally, I wouldn't be easily persuaded to take that sort of a deal now.

Hawi - agree with you 100% but also glad to be taking advantage that the market has been so very slow to wake up to the reality of this situation. No trial is a foregone conclusion but S is staring to an empty place with not a heap of worthwhile options to pursue now. A commercial contract announcement in H2 would be the final nail in its soulless coffin.

They can delay for up to about 2 years on the appeal processes - but that is all. It gets them no where but will serve up vastly inflated losses when wilful infringement is factored in. And EU injunctions will be damaging too. To echo Hawi's thoughts (which I agree with) what exactly do you think is in it for Samsung to pursue this tactic of delay? I see nothing, It had to win something at PTAB - and fully expected to - but it failed miserably.

Mattyboy - by my reckoning your £400m is much too low. It barely covers minimal royalties on historical US sales alone! If I thought you were right for even one moment I would sell up straight away, and I would not continue to buy. Any agreed financial settlement is going to need to factor in a sum for the global infringement (where historic sales are 3 times the US QD display sales of 14m), and a future royalty too. Indeed, one of the prime reasons for Nanoco agreeing to settle now is to cut the time lag to getting its hands on these funds and not having to undergo the time and uncertainty of litigating for it. You can bet your house that Nanoco will be keeping very close tabs on its progress with ST Micro and its end customer right now because this may sway things - if contract news drops soon there are even fewer reasons to settle on the cheap.

This could even be a very good reason for Nanoco to cut that would-be end customer a nice early deal (via STM) to really get things moving! Sprat to catch a mackrel and all that.

My view is any agreed settlement will come out in the range of $1-2bn because this to my mind is the minimum baseline for fair value (standard royalties) on worldwide sales which would be of any interest to the board and its shareholders. Nanoco can reasonably hope to gain more than that if everything has to be litigated to the bitter end, especially when there is a kicker of up to 3x damages very much on the cards for wilful infringement. Oh what a good place to be - the shares are still not fully valued IMO.

I genuinely hope Nanoco's board and funders are not even remotely tempted to settle this yet.

NIgwitty no, I wouldn't want to work for them but you might get one or two entrepreneurial employees staying long enough to drag their heels on good pay, then walk off to Apple with a few trade secrets in the bag LOL - I am obviously joking!

WISHIknew - I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. Firstly, because we did have an opportunity to buy in, which is a rarity in my experience as a retail investor, and secondly, because the discount is not very much and indeed there as been a plentiful opportunity to top up at lower prices (sub 37p) ever since the PTAB result was announced.

That's really no surprise. "Very" significantly oversubscribed means we shall have to buy in the open market. I don't think there will be too many flippers holding the price back.

They are not shy to boast about the victories but their own commentary on the Nancoco case ...

(https://www.kirkland.com/news/in-the-news/2022/01/samsung-gets-ptab-to-review-5-patents)

..... extends to just a single article, which happens to be the only slight success they have had in this case, which was then quickly ruined from their client's point of view by conceding 47 goals at PTAB whilst failing to register one themselves!

Going back to S readiness to settle or not, no one should be fooled into thinking S behaves irrationally and will argue whatever the cost. It isn't in the business of handing over an extra billion dollars or more of damages just because they prefer to argue. Damages on the scale involved in this case are already several times bigger than the 'massive' awards Kirkland.ia boasting about winning for clients in this article:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.kirkland.com/-/media/news/press-mention/2012/01/ip-group-of-the-year-kirkland/ip-group-of-the-year_law360.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj43MOMiZ34AhX-QUEAHRXnAZAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07jxYhzfPRxfQMmPhBjwBF

Intrusiveithought, yes I actually hope there is no settlement but either way it is a win win. S is going to have to make the offer too good to refuse or else N won't settle. I'll be surprised if any offer which is deemed acceptable to N does not lead to a multiple of the current SP.

The £1 party is well in sight. I hope Runcorn has some decent hotels and pubs.

"Excellent summary by Hawi. I still don't think Samsung will settle"

BBD you are assuming that S has a right to settle. It doesn't. It can only make a offer which it thinks N will accept. The sort of price needed to make a settlement attractice to N is now much higher than it was. Everyone should be able to agree on that.

Nanoco stock is still chronically undervalued IMO but the day of reckoning is near.

I agree with so much of the comment here it is barely worth repeating. I think Samsung can more easily afford to take on the risk of tactical delay in a case where the opponent is weak and susceptible to low ball offers, or where it is not still selling infringing product but its a huge gamble in a case like this where the lost royalties are obviously so large and where N has a credible argument that damages should follow a different model and lead to an even higher award. The multiplier starts to look very worrying for Samsung under some of these scenarios. IMO S will need to offer a hefty sum to settle now; it missed a chance to settle when N was much weaker at the time it was put up for sale but now things could still get much worse for S. The bottom line is N does not have to settle and can be reasonably confident of winning at trial. Let's not forget 4 of the 5 Markman constructions favoured N (with one neutral) so the chances of S defending itself on the infringement claim has already dimimished significantly. N's main reason to settle would be to create a stable financial company before commercialisation but ot seems to be close. S really should be thinking they need to make a bold and swift financial offer to solve this problem. I think they will do that before trial.

I am sure they will tomorrow.. The Order had only just been made when it was posted here.