Member Info for idontmessabout

Would be interested to find out which two patents were sold off to Samsung as part of the settlement.

These are the US patent numbers listed on N’s website under CFQD:

US7,588,828; US7,803,423; US7,867,557; US7,985,446; US8,524,365; US9,234,130; US10,227,529;
US11,339,327

I’m sure there must be a filing on Docketbird as to the two which N were going to trial with.

The buys/sells aren’t very accurate on LSE, not on the free account at any rate.

This has been debated ad nauseam; you can't just take a figure quoted and take it at face value.

- Time value of money
- Settlement vs trial
- Lost earnings vs lost revenue
- License vs supply

We don't know what else was playing out behind the scenes; I've a hunch (as have others) that the true value of the settlement will come from Nanoco's position going forward. If the factory IS ramping up for production of CFQD then that won't be a coincidence. As others have said, would you as a business want to risk your supply chain by agreeing a supply deal with a company in the midst of a legal battle?

I remember commentary on the litigation case being the 'cherry on the cake'; I know that's no succour for those disappointed by the settlement but I still believe we need to wait until the dust has settled and N colour in the picture as to where we go from here.

“ We note that the level of enquiries regarding CFQDs has picked up since it has looked increasingly likely that Nanoco was going to win in its litigation case against Samsung, so much so that the company has begun to re-commission its CFQD dot facility in Runcorn to address demand for material for use in displays”

Sorry, lost formatting on my phone: https://www.***************************/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NanocoGroupplc_6_2_23_FINAL_BG.pdf

https://www.***************************/nanoco-group-latest-2023-research-from-turner-pope/4121104572“Shareholders meanwhile have also been reassured of the Board’s firm intention to distribute a “material return” of surplus capital. Taking on board the expected accounting impact of the Settlement (which is protected by existing carried forward tax losses in excess of £40m), balancing expected net cash against the Group’s likely wish to invest substantially in its technologies for creation of a self-sustaining organic business, TPI considers it may be realistic for the Board to recommend distribution of up to £45m (potentially in the form of special dividends this year and next and/or a share buy-back).”Not sure we’ve had anything that firm!?

Might be putting two and two together; but this paragraph gave me pause…

“We therefore remain vigilant to other potential infringement activity, as well as opportunities to pro-actively deliver new licence agreements. The confirmation of the validity of our IP is already encouraging more commercial interest in Nanoco as a supplier of leading edge nano-materials.”

Pro-actively delivering new license agreements sounds a lot like “we know of others who are infringing; they’re next”

So, will we hear anything further from BT on the matter, or is that it now until 28 March?

So who’s mopping up all the shares?

We now have a war chest, and validated IP to go after others (with out the need for further funding).

Commercial orders on the horizon, a significant cash run way and the QD market (finally) looking like it’s going to get going properly.

In the trading update it’s clear Nanoco are preparing to ramp up production with the hire of further staff at Runcorn.

Sorry, typing on phone - meant to put.

“ IP Sale agreement: This encapsulates the divestment of a number of non-core patents from Nanoco to Samsung, with Nanoco receiving a fully paid up, perpetual and global licence on the divested patents. Neither of the two patents due to be presented at trial were included in the sale.”

This bit interests me. To me it sounds like they’ve handed over 2 different parents (with a limited shelf-life) leaving the original patents (as validated by the PTAB) intact; free for Nanoco to capitalise (and pursue against others).

This but interests me. To me it sounds like they’ve handed over 2 different parents (with a limited shelf-life) leaving the original patents (as validated by the PTAB) intact; free for Nanoco to capitalise (and pursue against others).

Some have argued that the David and Goliath aspect of the case will mean that Nanoco don't have the sway/clout to negotiate effectively and that Samsung will walk all over them. Surely that's missing the point given that they've hired a firm like Mintz?

If 'saving face' was such a deal-breaker for S (throughout the organisational structure) they wouldn't put themselves in such a position in the first place by infringing others IP.

The fundamental problem we have is that Edison’s note, previous guidance, and the latest RNS all refer to different means of arriving at a settlement figure. They can’t be used together in any meaningful way because Nanoco/BT have never stated what a settlement would look like based on a one off ‘patent peace’, past and present, payment using lost earnings. Nor do we know whether or not it covers all TVs out there with Nanoco’s IP or just those immediately associated with Samsung.

Samsung and their lawyers must have set up a field camp next to the courthouse: https://www.reuters.com/legal/samsung-loses-bid-pause-caltech-patent-lawsuit-over-wireless-chips-2023-01-20/

Exactly SL; although the magical figure that got Samsung and Nanoco started negotiating around is still elusive.
The settlement sum is important; what might be more significant is the terms surrounding it (as postulated by others). The less S pays for a settlement, the less wiggle room they should have for using/supplying dots in their own products and other brand QDTVs going forward.

*Negotiations

For all the variables in play, both parties had a figure in mind. It's that figure which made N agree to to settle out of court. Negations are taking place around that initial figure. Whatever it is, we won't really know until the next RNS. I suspect we'll never really know the true breakdown of how the final figure was arrived at (if, that is, a binding agreement is reached).