Member Info for Glorfindel1

Be nice to get back to talking about the Company instead of slagging each other off! My Q: given Milkwood previously tried to get control without actually buying out existing holders to turn it into a cash shell / investment vehicle (because they know nothing about QD's) - how long before they come back around to try the same thing?

Hi all. Folk seem to have forgotten a few things. There is a lot of ART / PSYCHOLOGY / TACTICS / STRATEGY and "playing chicken" in IP litigation. It is not a black and white science - though obviously having science on your side makes it easier to win arguments in court!

Why did Shoei (or anyone else for that matter) not just buy Nanoco to avoid a lawsuit? Ask the same question of Samsung - they could have bought Nanoco for roughly HALF of what they ended up paying in settlement costs and fees. So deciding to fight cost them an extra $75m.

On counter-parties - just look at Nanosys list of claimed customers (Samsung, TCL, Hisense, and Skyworth, "all of the top 10 global television brands and four of the top five IT brands", as well as technology firms such as Amazon and 3M - the latter being the possible route into Apple) - if Shoei are relying on Nanosys IP (that did not allow Samsung to go all the way and win) and fail then all of those names are in the damages queue for Nanoco to go after. Nanosys claim to have their tech in 75 million devices.

On Apple work with Nanoco between 2018 and 2019 - probably a red herring. That was on PbS for sensors - NOT CFQD for display - and on PbS where Nanoco themselves said they have very little IP. So probably not worth speculating on.

So my take is this is a game of chess and has quite some distance to go but we do know that if it all gets a bit "scary" for Shoei (and more importantly its customers) then they (not really Shoei) have deep enough pockets to buy the Company if they think they have a serious risk with the public jury in Texas.

Last Point - CALDWELL CASSADY AND CURRY (Nanoco's lawyers) have won multiple massive lawsuits against Apple - so if anyone knows how to play Chess with Apple - it's Nanoco's lawyers. So yes we could lose and get nothing except legal bills - but judge yourselves if you rate Nanoco's advisers, win rates to date (all PTAB claims, Samsung $150m) .......................

TW: "And it's possible, even likely, that LG have asked Shoei to reimburse the costs" - I'd say guaranteed. I've never seen a company take a product from someone that has IP protection and not be indemnified for using it - otherwise what is the IP holder offering??!.

So why did Shoei go down this legal route? Some thoughts: putting Nanoco and Nanosys / Shoei together would tie up a huge amount of QD IP (cad and cad-free). Would also take out the majority of non-Samsung controlled (Hansol) QD manufacturing capability. So if Shoei were thinking about buying Nanoco - what better way to do a value inspection report than get the PTAB to say "No these patents are rubbish / not infringing" - so walk away form acquisition / pay low price. Or PTAB say "Yes good patents and you are infringing" in which case rest easy when you pay a hefty price that gives you comfort you have not overpaid. Could be other reasons - auditors telling Shoei "write down your Nanosys investment" unless you can prove the patents are worth a lot - could have implications for banking covenants etc. So the law suit might actually be positive given obvious strategic fit of Nanoco and Nanosys. I'm prepared to wait and see as I feel the current price is oversold. Maybe top up time (or averaging down if you prefer!)

Did a little digging. History may be very revealing. In 2009 Nanosys sued Nanoco for IP infringement (just as Nanoco floated so timing may have been deliberate). Nanoco settled and the cost of the deal was Nanoco agreed not to sell Cadmium QDs in North America (article is in media section on Nanoco website - no idea why not in RNS but that's another story). Given Nano was going 100% Cad Free at this time it hardly seems like much of a victory for Nanosys. THEN less than a year later Nanoco sued Nanosys (or rather petitioned the PTAB for IPR's over Nanosys / MIT patents (including those filed by Nobel Laureate Bawendi). Result was the vast majority of the claims in the Nanosys / MIT patents were thrown out - seriously weakening the Nanosys patents. FAST FORWARD - despite having a licence to over 800 Nanosys patents (including the Bawendi ones etc) - Samsung paid $150m to Nanoco as they felt they could not mount a robust enough defence of non-infringement - so begs the question if they were even using Nanosys IP or if the Nanosys IP could not withstand Nanoco arguments. So basically a licence to 100& of Nanosys IP portfolio was no defence for Samsung. FAST FORWARD AGAIN. SHOEI (the £400m revenue company) purchases the R&D, marketing and sales operations of Nanosys (which looks like it was on its way to bankruptcy) and its quantum dot IP. So if the Nanosys IP could not save Samsung (either in defence or reducing costs to the $28m they paid Nanosys for the licence), then HOW ON EARTH is the same IP going to save Shoie from Nanoco? Bear in mind Shoei will have only a limited view of Nanoco's arguments as most of the technical stuff was never made public. Message getting long - more in next post. DYOR (without AI !).

Settlement could also clear the decks for CDX process - I imagine many potential buyers of Nanoco already supply LG and do not want to inherit a lawsuit against one of their biggest customers. Awkward!!! And it's almost a full year of operating cash when cash runway to commercial revenue is critical. Could pick up a few when see opening price movement

Your analysis Maxi is not daft - but tax is such a personal affair that there is a lot of supposition in your conclusions. For Dieter May he sold £60 of shares - why not just open his wallet instead of the extra paperwork. He is German too so no idea on what the double tax treaty is with Germany or how shares vesting gets treated in Germany - we know in US the tax point is different vs the UK. Hurts my head to try to read anything into this - other than Nanoco NEDs yet again doing right by the Company in taking the cash salary deferral in the first place and also linking it to share price performance. Which it looks like they made a small gain on (selling ta 11p vs average grant price of 10.4p). Wait for the howls from some quarters about them lining their pockets again :)

Before we get carried away on a wave of optimism or hate for Nanoco - Anyone got any actual facts on the Emberion deal? “Substantial funding” could be anything - from 6 months operating losses to 2 years operating losses. Anyone know how much a year Emberion are losing? The cash raise might not even be £3m. And the massive growth - any actual numbers? As a private company they do not have to operate to the same standard of verification as any public company. It’s a bit like the hype over Quantum Science winning “significant grant awards” when the Innovate UK website showed one of them at £10,000. And remember Emberion are NOT a QD company - they say themselves they have bought the QDs from Quantum Solutions and Nanoco themselves. And remember all the hype about how good Nanosys were - when it turned out Samsung paid them $27m for a perpetual licence and paid Nanoco 5 times that. And then Nanosys went bust having raised and spent nearly $250m. Absolutely not saying Nanoco in a good spot - clearly lots to do with - but we’d be daft to say they are worse than all the other QD companies - not one of whom are currently “self-funded”. Feels like a bunch of the 1%-ers are still hanging around spouting bile.

Doesn't all this come back to simple core beliefs for us long suffering investors - do we believe in the technology? Do we believe that the IP has value? I'm still struck by the fact that Nanoco is still the only QD company that is all three of 1. independent, 2. has not gone bust, and 3. to date has generated more cash for shareholders than they raised from shareholders in primary equity issues (ignoring those of us who bought low (7p - so happy) and those who bought high (£1.00 - so very unhappy)). Personally I think the technology will come of age - and hopefully we survive long enough to see it happen - and not go the way of QD Vision (bust) and Nanosys (bust) and the seeming large number of small fry who claim to be world leaders but from what I can see at Companies House lose a few million every year and effectively zero revenue (like much talked about Quantum Science who have raised £9m, spent £7m (to May 24), lost £2.2m in that year and have trade debtors of "nil" - meaning no revenue despite trading since 2018. DYOR.

Any views on what the appropriate percentage discount is for any IP number for a settlement ahead of trial? I've seen quotes of 20%, 50% and even 90% from various research papers. Changes the maths - a lot!

The Gorilla in the room is what "negative value" are bidders attributing to the pension deficit. And how are they treating it - a reduction in EBITDA / PE or treat it like debt and deduct from EV? Shame we have to wait until July for FY25 results (albeit trading update was decent). Pension IAS deficit nearly £60m last September.

Hi all. Was getting confused on the conflicting technology messages. So looked it up. To clarify (from Google) Yes, Apple's Face ID system, which utilizes structured light, relies on a combination of sensors to capture and analyze the 3D shape of a user's face. Specifically, it uses a dot projector that emits a pattern of thousands of infrared dots, which are then detected by an infrared camera [read sensor]. These sensor readings are then used to create a depth map of the face, enabling Face ID to authenticate users. Nanoco (Tenner, Pickett and Edelman) all explained that Nanoco was on the receive (sensor / camera) side of the mechanism - not the emission side. Hence the work with STM on "sensors". The issue Nano tech was addressing was that the camera only captured 7% of the available data whereas with QDs that went up 10x. It was not about lasers (as QD sensors can also detect laser light) so even if Apple move to ToF instead of structured light QD sensors are still potentially relevant IF the 10x enhancement is added value that will fit in the BOM.

Injunctions - if you read the Samsung filing and the LG filing you will see that the "reliefs sought" are pretty much the same (find them guilty, pay our costs, give us an injunction, pay us interest, pay our attorney's fees, etc) - suggesting that the reliefs sought are "formulaic" and designed to get the one you actually want. So not a "new" strategy ................. it's common practice in any business negotiation to ask for stuff you do not want so you can then give it up to get the stuff you do want. In this case getting an injunction does nothing for Nanoco (Nanoco would not sell more TV's and LG competitors don't necessarily buy QDs from Nanoco so no help there) - but the threat of an injunction which would hurt LG may persuade them to either settle rather than risk trial (see earlier post re 90-95% of cases settle before trial) or take out a licence / buy QDs from Nanoco (any / all of which Nanoco would like).

All - the injunction debate. See following text that shows Nanoco also applied for an injunction against Samsung in Texas - so not a new tactic with LG. Also Tenner said last time around they were suing in Germany because it was much easier / faster to get an injunction there. Think he also said injunctions were rare in US unless a direct competitor (so not a TV co vs a chemical co).

[Court paper - initial filing] Temporarily, preliminarily, or permanently enjoin Defendants, its parents,

subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, agents, servants, employees, directors, partners,

representatives, all individuals and entities in active concert and/or participation with it, and all

individuals and/or entities within its control from engaging in the aforesaid unlawful acts of

patent infringement;

Firstly - Settlement vs Trial. 30 seconds on Google will tell you that in US IP cases 95-97% of cases SETTLE before trial. So it's utterly wrong to say that anyone who settles "knows they were going to lose". But it must mean (because it takes both sides to settle) that 95-97% of plaintiffs started a litigation that they were then prepared to settle (for their own reasons).

Secondly. Success rates at trial - "Between 2008 and 2012, the trial success rates were 57% with the bend bench vs. 76% with a jury. " - per PwC US IP Litigation report. These stats are all freely available online.

Thirdly - Nanoco published their TV tear down analysis three or four years ago and found only 1 TV containing cadmium free QD's (they also weighed in on the TCL / No QD debate on their LinkedIn feed a while back too). So presumably they could only publish this if it was true?

Just looking at this now. Decent business with a strong balance sheet and some (small) growth ideas - hard to see the SP languishing as down to much other than small cap sentiment - or is there a structural issue? I do think returning cash to shareholders is a bad idea - often just pulls the SP down as the underlying cash diminishes.

Remember to knock off the big interest bill and the tax bill - I get the PER close to 6 than 3 but still mega cheap since industrial average PE is between 14 and 20 (per google). Question is why? Is it just UK seems to hate small caps (and has done for a few years) or are folk still scared of that pension deficit?

And given the CEO has a tendency not to big things up - suggests they might do even better!

Really nice update - as others note - hard to see the downside of the Spanish flood - I wonder if they are "booking" business interruption insurance as revenue / profit and that is keeping the numbers up (and hope they have been conservative in that) - or they have manged to restart really fast / switched production elsewhere.

5 mins on google. 286m shares in issue when Samsung made their offer plus 17m options outstanding (no time to find out how many would vest but 8m were described as exercisable and no doubt Remco would have been soft on Execs (they always are!) So call it 300m shares in issue and knock off 10% of the offer for costs and you get 14p per share at the low end (16p at the top). Vs buy back at 24p in the tender offer and SP above 16p from February 21 to June 24.