Member Info for FlyingHigher

This is absolutely not a case of unrealistic expectations, its a hugely disappointing outcome that is the result of a short-sighted incompetent board. I thought ME was bad.

Yh but very few suspected it would be as unappealing as the one Nanoco have just been shafted by. Even if they said on-going royalties with no historic damages that may have been better.
Also you say those with Legal experience, do you accept that BT referred to multiple damages models on numerous occasions and that all of them potentially would have resulted in a substantial settlement way above this what this one appears to be?

Yes you're right they do say for US but then state that the overall amount could be lower or nothing at all after legal costs in an early settlement.
It's actually worse than saying $200m, it's potentially higher than $200m but retaining nothing.

They're incompetent fools then. Focus on what makes you most money. That was obviously the lawsuit by both damages models.

Hawi - Edison have just cited $200m themselves

Gigawitt - yes it is! That investment case is very shady too. We have no visibility of it.
Win the marksman- check
Win the PTAB - check
Ramp up litigation- check
Ahh you know what let's just give up.
We may have some revenue from STM that will be nowhere near what we could have got but it will be fine.
The board need sacking

Edison suggest that the upper limit is the $200m mark, Nanoco will still pay full fees etc and so may not retain anything at all. This is even worse than the worst case scenario. Samsung potentially have use of display IP for nothing. What an absolute shambles.

Gigawitt- It gets worse! If the company retains any.....
They turned down a hook, line and sinker trial for a settlement with no royalties for which they'll potentially retain little or nothing.
You couldn't write this. It's an absolute shambles.
I'm speechless!

Yes exactly! That's what irked me.
I think Nanoco have been lazy.
They took something and ran. Its really terrible business, especially given that the enhanced revenues damages could have far exceeded any revenue they're likely to get from sensing applications for many years. If they just became a litigation company, it would have been better than this.
Incompetence of the highest level - truly shocking.

You know that statement is ridiculous. The share price is based on lots of things and doesn't necessarily factor in true value prospects.

I said myself that $1bn from a settlement was realistic and I stand by that. $400m on the licensing model, up to x3 for willful infringement.Nanoco retaining 60%.
Enhanced revenues would have been a percentage of many billions.
I didn't have unrealistic expectations, they were based on the models presented by BT.
It doesn't matter that some peoples' estimates look like they'll be more accurate, what were they based on? Pure guesses, claimed industry experience which has limited relevance to this specific case.
Something has transpired that's less favorable than anticipated based on the information available to us.
That's just life.

I agree with those estimates and I would also go to court, but don't forget the share price has other factors such as the Sensor market (our main market) and the cash flow risk resolved by a settlement. I think the share price will therefore be a lot higher even on $100m settlement. We'll have the resources to ramp up our production for the sensing applications, which could generate a revenue stream of $100m annually in the next 2-3 years.

The lower estimates could mean Nanoco retain around $100m.
With the STM sensor business and $100m in the bank, I still think there's a potential premium to the share price, it's just not going to be on the same level as whatever we would have retained from $500m.
This business is very difficult to value once again.

That up front payment is effectively a takeover of the Display division then because there will be no future payments made.
Obviously Nanoco can still license their IP to other display providers, but those other providers have been undercut by Samsung so are holding off QLED in any case.

Gigawit there is ambiguity around what happens in the future. There will be no royalty payments so in essence Samsung have purchased Nanoco display IP. It's terrible however you try to dress this up.

A very disappointing RNS, but not entirely unexpected with Nanoco.
7shares, you're right! Nanoco have effectively just sold the display business with an all-encompassing low-end settlement.
That's terrible business given the company could have gone in for the kill on a global scale and squeezed billions out of Samsung.

Why don't we have a prediction game on the settlement. Here's mine:
$1bn, a 3 year royalty deal worth hundreds of millions, a Ford focus, a DFS corner sofa, a salter air fryer and a year's supply of walkers crisps.

We've discussed at length here how the $200m figure is more likely $400m with the sales to this date.
This is on the loss of licensing model, not enhanced revenues and does not account for willful infringement, which Samsung are almost certainly guilty of.
The question remains, what terms have been agreed for Nanoco to walk away from years of frustrating lawsuits, but that could have given them billions?
How much is it worth to Nanoco to get it sorted now? I would say something, but they need to ensure their IP has been respected, will continue to be respected and royalties are fair.

Perhaps, but then also consider the potential damages incurred from China and Germany followed by an injunction. This all pushes Samsung into an extremely vulnerable position. The settlement may not be about finances at this point, it could be trying to save face to preserve business relations and government contracts. This means it could still be a massively lucrative settlement for Nanoco. I personally don't think it could be lower than $500m with royalties, but Nanoco may have accepted this for the EU and China too.
All baseless speculation at this point, but we enjoy having the conversation.
Risk: Samsung are just using this as a means to disrupt the trial and driving Nanoco out of business.

A world wide settlement is also completely speculative at this stage.
It may be that the settlement does just cover the US and Samsung will see what happens separately in Germany and China.
I don't care for share price predictions, but the value of a global settlement could be upwards of $1bn potentially.