Member Info for FlyingHigher

crisplex - stop being a simpleton and the same goes for others posting here.
There's nothing concrete in the settlement announcement.
What we'll be looking to understand in the next 30 days is the historic damages and future royalties agreement.
This is still unknown. The risk is the agreement falls through at this stage because it's non-binding.
Then we wait to see whether there will be any settlement for the impending German and Chinese trials - again what this looks like in terms of future royalties and historic damages.
This is just an indicative RNS at this point and I must say, one that is typical of the vague Nanoco RNSs from what I've seen in the past.

I'm also very suspicious here. Nothing announced, just an intention to settle in the next 30 days. Oh whoopsy daisy it fell through and the trial is delayed. Definitely still risk here until the final agreement has been decided, but lets be honest that agreement better be good to compensate for US, China and EU. This is very suspect. I'm out with my small holding for now, well done all!

Whoooooo? I've never heard of him!

Would anyone be willing to bet that we're on this board having exactly the same conversations this time next year?

It doesn't exactly bode well that a large II are selling down days before a hopefully game-changing trial though does it?

"If court case goes well will take the profit and let the original £10k run." You hope there are substantial profits for you to do that. The share price may not rise that much, this one is a tricky one to call.

Brian Tanner said they could apply for a German injunction straight away. I understood that was off the back of the validity of the claim being proven in the US. I might be wrong.

katstrangler - As it stands they're completely separate cases. It's probably possible that Samsung may wish to consider how they settle overall, but they'll probably see how the US case goes first. They could just keep frustrating us I suspect. Appeal the PTAB ludicrously, appeal whatever the trial says, keep appealing indefinitely. Then maybe Germany will have to wait for a trial before setting an injunction if it's deemed to be uncertain. An outcome is possibly still years away.

I don't understand how low damages would be arrived at.
If Samsung have made billions resulting from Nanoco's IP, Nanoco made numerous attempts to reach a legal agreement with them and had their own means to mass produce via Runcorn and Dow stalled due to Samsung's competitive advantage, then it's hook, line and sinker.
Samsung can't credibly claim they weren't aware of the infringement because Nanoco were in a relationship with them from 2017.
They can't credibly claim Nanoco's IP didn't have value without them because there was a whole production line set up to mass produce their tech. It's only that Samsung had the means to produce it cheaper because they were stealing it.
This sways me more toward the enhance revenues calculation than the loss of licensing royalties and it's undeniably willful.
Samsung's corruption and influence could save them - I can't rule that out sadly. It's not a fair world.
Nanoco may have a massive oversight in the scope of their IP and Samsung did something outside of it. This one seemed to be resolved in the PTAB.
OR
Samsung rejected multiple attempts to reach a legal agreement, continued to generate billions from Nanoco IP, illegally destroying Nanoco and Dow's display business in the meantime.
It should be at least $1bn. Any lower is corruption in my opinion.

That suggests to me that STM are moving to mass production next year?

Brilliant! :D
Not long to go now folks! :D
I hope everyone's enjoying the festive season and we all have a very nice surprise waiting for us early Jan.

I reckon LOAM are reducing to further derisk. There are some notable transactions of similar size and the share price has been in decline. I don't blame them for doing it, not that I'd want to myself.

It's not a fantastic product.

We also can't entirely discount Samsung from this technological advancement. In fact, we can only credibly applaud Nanoco's IP at this point (if they win the trial), nothing they've done operationally.

Thank you, do you and others have any idea on how long it could take to get regulatory approval on the graft from here? I'm still very unclear.

Sorry for the O/T comment - Anyone thing a settlement is likely here? Carry on.

What a childish retort. I think you mean Vlodimir too. Vlodimir and his Nazi/Ultra-nationalist accomplices.

This update still doesn't provide any clarity on the regulatory timescales for the heart valve project. The reason this fell from 160p - 30p is that we were to believe it was imminent then they turned it from an application to some form of enquiry and hinted it could take 3 years (now two) to get to approval. So are they on target for 2024?
Also revenue looks good, but what clarity can they provide on the breakeven timescale?
For all the good news and better numbers, the reality is this business is still losing a lot of money and further dilution will be needed fairly soon. That's what holds this back and I expect a retrace back to 30p unless this can be clarified.

After many years monitoring this forum I can't believe we're still having the same old boring conversations about early settlement. We're now 1 month away from the major inflection point, not long to go.
This trial will be massive. PTAB reduces appeal time, then potentially the massive one - The German trial / injunction.
Expect big movement when this is put on the table. That's when a settlement is most likely because Samsung will have a quantifiable cost.
Sadly this could still be a way off.
Odd that the share price is falling now, some strange transactions too.

I agree! but I still think the hostile takeover bid would be at a significant premium to current share price.
I wonder if VOD will introduce an anti-takeover plan like BT did.
I also wonder if VOD would be considered a critical asset by the government and prevented from takeover.