Member Info for Intrusivethought

They have just slipped the figure in now.

'As noted previously'.... When were we previously notified of the sale of 118 patents?

To repeat Steak's query. And we are only informed of this now. Why not in the RNS announcing the final settlement, as it should have been? This was not a settlement. Proceeds were essentially from the sale of the patents. Sneaky sneaky.

Retained Special Adviser........... Edelman?.......... please God no. Wonder if he sold any shares on Jan 6th?

Nothing. Lawyers put out strong worded letters making all sorts of demands as a matter of routine. The ball is in thei shareholder group client's court. Initiate litigation proceedings and it's a whole different matter.

The FCA is hopeless. I wouldn't put any faith in them.

Such a statement should be backed with buying from LOAM? Why?

I think so too trouble. Btw, how does Hamoodi have knowledge of any previous offfers made by Samsung? Unless he is bullsh*tting and trying to cause more of a stir.

Can Hamoodi prove his claims of wrongdoing by the Board? If not then it's just a waste of time and resources, unfortunately. To be clear, I agree with his accusation of actions in favour of the preferred shareholders. But can it be proved? Very nuch doubt it.

So did Samsung make an offer to settle just before the trial started or did Nanoco blink at the last minute and approach Samsung?.... thus having to accept a value and terms less favourable than previously offered by Samsung? Or something else?

Settled on less favorable terms than had previously been offered by Samsung? Why do that? This is absolutely crucial to explain what transpired.

dismissed:

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F49

Give us a clue eh?

Now you do some work. Pleb.

Here is a clue..... cadmium free quantum dot nanoparticles. Not include InP?

Nanoco's cfqd patents do not cover InP compositions people. Read them yet?

Well done. Read them yet? Not difficult to find. Titles are a give away. You can do it.

Brilliant. So Nanoco don't have IP covering InP composition, but you've not had a look at their patents. Well done.

So you've not read them yet.

More than you. Clearly.