Member Info for Intrusivethought

FYI, recall that Nanoco was projected to generate £59.9m of revenue and an EBITDA of £21.1m by FY22, driven mainly by the nanomaterials (one material) for the US partner:

https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2019/08/nanoco-needhamgrowth-15jan19.pdf

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/pc-gaming-hdr-problem-a-way-out/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nanoco-joins-up-the-dots-for-its-patents-fight-with-samsung-v59bh3xsg

A very interesting read:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357194625_Infrared_Colloidal_Quantum_Dot_Image_Sensors

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3662041/why-apple-worries-about-photography-on-the-iphone.html

Also, frostbar, Nanoco are not seeking an award incorporating global revenues in the Texas court.

Relax. It wasn't a criticism Hawi. I welcome that you shared it. Just saying that such an article cannot possibly cover all the intricacies of the Law.

bonzo, see quote below taken directly from the article:

'In some circumstances, licensing fees that could otherwise have been earned and / or profits gained by the infringer are considered.'

The article is not extensive.

The profit Samsung have made from their SUHD/QLED brand TVs is not irrelevant if Nanoco can successfully make the argument that thier technology fundamentally drove the market demand for these TVs. If so, the sales value and/or profit will form part of the damages calculation.

Lost profit is the BASELINE for calculating damages i.e. the MINIMUM damages amount.

So, Settlement + ongoing licence fee + STM contract = £1.50 share price.

Absurd. Assuming the above, Nano will be the dominant player in a rapidly growing multibillion dollar industry.

I'm pretty sure it's H2 calendar year 2022... so 7 months remaining.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038

Whatever that is. Have not had time to examine.

If, in time, every VCSEL is coupled with a QD Sensor, then the market for said sensors will be very very large indeed.

I'm certainly not immune to them myself Bass. It's all good. Appreciate your contributions.

VCSELs are not a competitor product. They're in fact the laser component in the 3d sensor 'package'.

Sigh.

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=330008

Interesting article highlighting their apparent complete focus on QDs/OLED. Also alludes to Samsung Electronics' relationship with BOE and AUO.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent_owners=Nanoco+Technologies%2C+Ltd.

Petitioner has issued notice of appeal.