Member Info for Feeks

You may recall Guident has pitched for business from the JTA in relation to the Utimate Urban Circulator project -

https://u2c.jtafla.com/

It doesn't mean Guident will be successful but it was interesting to see that Guident has recently entered a strategic partnership with Perrone robotics, as Perrone already have won business from the JTA: see article Jan 14 2022

https://insideunmannedsystems.com/setting-the-vanguard-for-the-future-of-public-transit/

The JTA tender Project Description appears below:

The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (the “Authority” or the “JTA”) hereby requests Proposals for RFP No. P-22-010 JTA Test Environment.

The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) is seeking proposals for its Autonomous Solutions Testing Environment as JTA plans to continue its Autonomous Solutions Testing Environment to determine which solutions but not limited to (AV shuttles, autonomous retrofits, innovative technology, connected vehicle infrastructure technology, remote command and control, simulation software, testing equipment, as examples) will be appropriate for the Ultimate Urban Circulator (U²C) Project in the Jacksonville urban core. The JTA is open to reviewing all proposals for innovative technology solutions that will support the testing environment.

P(%) = 1 - (0.84) to the "n" where n is the number of tries.

This is calculated as follows: 0.84 x 0.84 x 0.84 x 0.84 x 0.84 = 41.8%.

Hi Nanogeddon

The recent article said 84% of patents are invalidated either wholly or partially (each patent being made up of multiple claims / embodiments). If the chance this will happen is 84% then it means the probability is 0.84. If you tried 5 times then the probability that all patents will be invalidated - either partially or wholly - is expressed as P(%) = 1 - (0.95) to the "n" where n is the number of tries.

This is calculated as follows: 0.84 x 08.04 x 0.84 x 0.84 x 0.84 = 41.8%. This leaves a 58.2% chance that one or more patents will survive wholly, so in fact my 59% has a small rounding error.

In practice Nanoco does not need any of the five patents to survive wholly intact.

Totally excited, far less concerned. I'll enjoy the stampede if and when Nanoco gets a few of its claims through PTAB, and hopefully a good number of them. Leaving aside the strength of the legal arguments the pure statistical odds of one or more of its patents surviving wholly intact (and there are five in total) are 59%.

Some time ago ME also quoted that only 1 in 20 cases (5%) reach trial (i.e. the ones which don't settle by agreement), so it appears the odds are stacked in favour of Samsung making a financial offer to end it all after the PTAB decision is known, unless it wins on all claims (in which case I would expect Nanoco to appeal anyway).

I will add that Nanoco postively agreed with Samsung's PTAB referral application, and this made the judge's deciaion simpler. I bet Kirlkand didn't anticipate that! It is a sign of Nanoco's confidence in its patents being validated.

Good article. It refers to Fintiv which is what I was alluding to earlier in my reply to BTB

Sorry please can you interpret for me?

Thanks Hawi
I've still got some other juicy bits of research to post.

This board is positive following the lead from the Nanoco board which is also increasingly positive so it is not surprising.

The litigation case also concerns damages for massive historical global Samsung sales which go back - oh wait, 7 years - so its premature to say there have been "7 years of broken promises and hype.". This all turns on the judgment which is coming out any day now and will arrive no later than 19 May being the one year anniversary. But it could arrive next week.

BVTB - It's a bit lazy to adopt a baseless negative viewpoint on all these matters until you have been corrected by one of us, which keeps happening. You can research all this stuff for yourself, as I have done, for example, with regard to the legal rules around the sort of considerations which come into play when the judge decides in June whether the trial will have to be delayed beyond Oct/Nov 2022. It is unlikely to happen from what I can ascertain (after researching it) and this is what BT has said too. If it is delayed, the upside is more historical sales as the display volumes are escalating fast in 2022.

BTB -
I can well understand that you are extremely nervous if you are siding with the shorters and on their payroll. My antidote for that would be to invest in Nanoco stock, but just don't tell them you have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY

BTB -
Check out the slide which appears at 12:30 of the presentation. 50% is just for a modest award.

They have qualified this to say that the funding deal equates to 50% of a low end award and 80% of a larger damages award. Check out Brian Tenner's recent presentation where he states this, and not for the first time.

How are you defining "recent"...? I've heard not even a squeak for eons.

One thing I didn't mention but which BT did mention in his presentation:
The court judgment may or may not include the future royalty. What a kicker that would be if it does..... And we don't know if there will be a multiplier or how much. The SP could go anywhere if Nanoco does win big.

BTB -
- Nanoco will get 80% of a higher award not 50%
- What about corporation tax (minus £36m of offset losses)?

A US litigation win will open doors to new territory litigation and this will suddenly have a significant latent value which is not so much reflected by the market now. There may be fresh licensing deals too, so all in all it is very hard to predict where the SP will go except upwards and fast.

CONTINUED.....

[My note – the investment is even larger than what was first planned in 2019]

Yes, plenty can go wrong, but the signs are very good. And contrary to popular belief, litigation done right is not always such a gamble (it won’t be seen that way by the IP litigation funders that staked $10m on winning this case).

Another point that I didn’t make in my piece yesterday because it is obvious to me having become well-acquainted with the Nanoco tech now (but which was certainly bewildering to me at first) is that the display side IP litigation does not have any relevance whatsoever to the organic business opportunities which are currently being discussed in relation to the fledgling NIR and SW infrared QD sensor market. These QD sensors use Nanoco’s nanomaterials – Heatwave quantum dots – whereas the display tech uses CFQD® quantum dots.

You can this all neatly explained on the Nanoco website here: https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/products-applications/heatwave-tm-quantum-dots/

And here: https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/products-applications/cfqd-quantum-dots/

This market opportunity had not even loomed into view 10 or so years ago when Nanoco was being touted regularly on this site. The tech world is developing very fast.

No-one knows yet the size of the prize but for me right now even at the current SP after recent gains Nanoco makes for a very alluring investment prospect.

The general point I made earlier is that in my view the lower end of damages quoted by Edison ($200-250m) are underplayed by at least 50%. However, I really should have posted the link to Mike Edelman’s comment which he gave on 14th July 2020 where he quotes Samsung display sales “to date” at 14m. It is here (The bit you need to listen to comes at 5:30 to 5:52):

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/edison-executive-interview-july-2020/

This squares with the numbers produced by the Omdia research quoted here: https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-worlds-biggest-tv-brand-16-years-row/amp/

At this point in time ME was referring to the additional $14bn of profit which Samsung made from selling these QD enabled TV’s. I don't necessarily agree with ME's speculation on what this might amount to by way of damages but one can see clearly the size of the prize as it was looking way back in mid-2020.

Brian Tenner said very deliberately in his recent investor presentation that the US damages award will be for historic sales at the date of trial, which is exactly as one would expect. So, it is not at all surprising that this number would be rising over time as the QD market expands, and it has been rising sharply since mid-2020.

Here is another useful article which gives a decent overview of the market opportunities for Nanoco:
https://www.edisongroup.com/investment-themes/quantum-dots-all-the-colours-of-the-rainbow/29972/

I have extracted the following quote which indicates the size of the opportunity:

“Market analysts Mordor Intelligence notes that the global quantum dots market was valued at US$652.2m in 2020 and predicts that it will reach US$4.4bn by 2026. This represents a CAGR of 40.9% between 2021 and 2026. Demand is being driven primarily by consumer appetite for high-quality TV displays.”

The same article also refers to the massive investment Samsung is making in QD displays.
“In October 2019 Samsung announced that it was planning an $11bn investment in the world’s first dedicated QD display manufacturing facility which will be used to produce second-generation displays.”

As we know, the factory location just happens to be Texas where the current trial is happening! https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/as-expected-samsung-picks-texas-for-its-new-dollar17-billion-chip-plant

“South Korean electronic major Samsung today announced that it has chosen Taylor, Texas as the location for its new $17 billion plant to make advanced chips to be used in mobiles, 5G, autonomous vehicles, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence. Samsung said the facility will become operational in the second half of 2024.
....
The total expected investment of $17 billion is the largest-ever investment made by Samsung in the US. This will also bring Samsung’s total investment in the US to more than $47 billion since beginning operations in the country in 1978, where the company now has over 20,000 employees.”

CONTINUED

Thanks Hawi
It will be a lot higher than today's SP if that lot works out.

Thank you BTB. That's not quite right because the US litigation only addresses 5 Nanoco patents in relation to display technology. So the outcome of the trial won't affect any of the expected commercial deals in the pipeline in relation to the nanomaterials which Nanoco uses for its NIR and SW infrared sensors.