Member Info for idontmessabout

Thanks Kooba – it's hard to discern what is the 'true' revenue derived from on-going work vs what's been booked from the samsung settlement (and now LG).

"Two JDA customers signed up, with potential for further JDAs and product revenues - full year revenue expected to be c. £11.3m, in line with market expectations" – if my understanding is correct that number will include 3m deferred income from the Samsung settlement; which leaves ~8m in expected revenue from the existing JDA activity?

Flyinghigher – that's not how the "Shoei Litigation Conclusion" reads.

"Nanoco covenants not to sue Shoei, its customers, and suppliers for use of Nanoco's Quantum Dot ("QD") patents for the display field, ..." and "Shoei covenants not to sue Nanoco, its customers, and suppliers for use of Shoei's QD patents for the sensing field for all existing and new patents registered over the next three years..."

I take these two together to mean Shoei won't get in trouble for using Nanoco display patents, and Nanoco won't get in trouble for using Shoei's sensing patents.

The question is, what would Nanoco settle for? Surely with all that’s transpired it’s a “going for broke” situation.. they may as well see this all the way?

I’d agree, if it was a supply/licensing deal that would surely have been in the RNS. My like of thought is that the settlement with LG must be letting them off the hook, but without a license because they only bought the dots, they didn’t make them. If Shoei is in the wrong, then LG and others would have the right to take action? I think the timing has already been discussed but LG must have gone to Shoei and said “why are we being dragged into this” when Nanoco started litigation.

@Kooba perhaps that’s where this part of the LG settlement RNS comes in “Other terms and conditions are confidential.”

Wednesday, January 21. 2026

Joint Discovery Plan by Shoei Chemical Inc., Shoei Electronic Materials, Inc..(Kim, Michael)

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

ORDER granting45 Motion for Pro hac vice Appointed Daniel Rollins Pearson for Nanoco Technologies Ltd.,Daniel Rollins Pearson for Nanoco Technologies Ltd. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/20/2026. (swil)

Yes Nanonano... that felt like the binary bet at the time; we've seemingly replaced that with the Asian Chemical co.

I might be being naive but if Shoei were to win the declatory judgment I don't see why that would derail anything with the JDA or image-sensing developments. Since the Samsung debacle I think everyone has accepted that selling QDs into the display market was no longer a viable strategy.

Will Nanoco try and get the case moved to Texas? Given the patents went through PTAB that’s a step that can be skipped?

Perhaps this is a question of timing. Were the infringing products using qds that were produced using nanocos methods, but they’ve since moved on to non mcc or hit injection? Have Shoei patented that process and if so, when.

It seems like a high/risk move by Shoei if they weren’t confident of being cleared. The consequences for them otherwise would be greater than that of the impact on Nanoco if they’re found not to be infringing surely?

Thanks for sharing; I find it interesting that Shoei weren’t dragged into the case with LG given the alleged infringing dots came from them?

If it went in Shoei’s favour would have LG have grounds to take Nanoco to court? Or by agreeing a no fault settlement does that insulate Nanoco from that outcome?

Seems like a binary outcome based on whether they see Shoei’s methods as being close enough to Nanoco’s molecular compound cluster.

Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's answers to two fundamental questions:

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "molecular cluster compound," which the patents describe as a well-defined template for nanoparticle growth, be construed to cover the starting materials or reaction intermediates used in Shoei’s synthesis methods? The outcome of claim construction for this dispositive term will likely determine the case.

A key evidentiary question will be one of chemical mechanism: what is the actual process by which Shoei’s nanoparticles are synthesized? The court will need to examine factual evidence regarding Shoei’s proprietary methods to determine if they utilize a chemical entity that functions as the "molecular cluster compound" required by the asserted claims, or if they operate via a distinct, non-infringing pathway.

Ah, thanks for correcting me.

Okay, but didn’t Nanosys take Nanoco to court in 2009 over the patents for cadmium-free dots on sale in the US. Was that just kicking the can down the road and now we’re full circle?

The pantomime continues. Could it be that Nanoco were happy to roll over and take 5m from LG because LG said “it’s not us you should be looking at, we got our dots from Nanosys”? Are Apple now asking questions of Shoei asking “I hope you haven’t got us mixed up in all this?”

@ecclescake that's in an interesting take. I would question whether the Asian Chemical Co. would sign a new JDA for 3 years if they weren't given some assurances around what would happen in the event of the business being sold (given the CDX process is on-going).

I’d be inclined to agree. Something between 25 - 30p would be deemed acceptable at this juncture unless they’re factoring in things not known publicly (further JDA/ or sales activity).

Nigel would be set for retirement and, perhaps equally important to him, the company and his ideas live on with an increased likelihood of ultimate success. I’d have thought any sale would involve retaining Nigel through transition and beyond on a comfortable salary.

Thanks Kooba. Interesting to hear PV being mentioned; specifically the reference to engaging with the large players in this market and his view that this could be a big market for Nanoco.

I was about to comment that it would nice to see this return to 10p+ by the weekend. I don’t think it’ll be long before we’re back to 14-18p

On the subject of shareholders 'going for' an offer. We won't be getting a vote.