Member Info for JBongo

Or maybe nanoco don't intent to settle and this is a ruse, similar to putting the company up for sale a couple of years ago (I don't believe we ever intended to sell then, we just wanted to see if samsung would bite)...

Mad conspiracy? Probably.

Scarnhorst, that still doesn't give any credence to your claim that "That 22m turnover last year is not repeatable".
Jan - Jun 2022 gave 10m revenue, July gave 7m revenue, Aug-Dec gave (22-17=) 5m revenue. It's not like the revenue is in a steady decline over time as you seem to be insinuating. There are peaks throughout the year when more tests are sold (summer holiday anyone? Winter coughs and colds maybe?), which can and probably will happen again this year.

Given that '22 revenue was 30% higher than '21 revenue. It is entirely possible that the revenue can be repeated.

The trading update doesn't mention anything about July or specific months. It's entirely possible the revenue could stay high from covid in the coming year.

Agreed that the new products need to be brought out soon though. And hopefully on the shelves of multiple retailers/supermarkets.

Decent update. Very strong revenues and more cash in the back.

The most exciting sentence to me: "The Company is in the process of finalising launch plans in collaboration with partners"

Hopefully that means boots and Lloyds

Just had a look at the trustpilot reviews. At least there are a couple appearing now for the wellness tests, not just the covid tests. They don't look overly concerning to me.

The latest review is just written by someone who doesn't understand genetic testing (or that the blood-based food intolerance tests the reviewer seems to prefer to believe are widely viewed by the scientific community as bogus). On that point though, I think some of the marketing needs to point out why the genetic tests are superior to blood based tests.

The IP would remain Nanocos and the patents would still be valid. Samsung would just have paid to use them as part of the settlement (possibly with some exclusivity or other clauses built into the deal, possibly not)

I suppose simply wall street is a step up from dragons den FH. I was worried you were going to start getting your opinions from Noel Edmond's Multi-coloured swap shop next...

Anyway, another for the filter list. I don't mind listening to downsides or caution from rational, sensible investors, but I'm not interested in hysterical derampers who hold no shares here.

If you're using dragons den as your basis for investing and researching shares, then you really are screwed.

In the recent RNS, nano stated

"A settlement removes the risks of the litigation process, potential appeal processes of the trial and the ongoing appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, further litigation costs, and the time value of money."

Regarding the time value of money, they are obviously talking about the future (I.e. receiving a pound today is better than a pound next year). But surely the past value of money has to be taken into account in these negotiations as well. Inflation means that any £1 we would have received in 2017 (when QLED launched and we should have been recieving the royalty payments) would be worth about £1.20 now.

I think the higher 'additional profit' damages model is dead in the water now we haven't gone to trial. That was just to scare Samsung and potentially get a higher jury award imo.

Edison said: "For context, we have previously calculated that lost revenue in the US attributable to the patent infringement so far could be US$200–250m or more. This figure would increase if non-US sales and future shipments are included. However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues, with a further discount on the potential jury outcome reflecting uncertainties about risk and the time value of money, noting the full trial and appeal process could take years. Lawyers’ success-based fees will also be deducted from the settlement."

I took this to mean they were discussing different ways that a lost license model may be calculated - via lost license revenues or via lost license earnings. I have seen some posters on here talk as though that was a big difference, but it doesn't seem like it would be to me, hence my thought below on earnings/revenues.

Where would a gross margin like that come from though in this instance (a licensing of IP)? Surely the cost of sales is zero to us.

I get it if we were making the dots and costs of labour, materials, buildings etc costs 50% of the revenue we get in, but I dont think the plan was for us to make the dots. We were going to license via Dow.

Unless the comparison edison are making between revenue and profit is the money paid out by Samsung (I.e. revenue to Dow) v earnings (the amount of that revenue passed on to Nanoco)

One thing I've been wondering about regarding the lost revenue v lost earnings debate and which the settlement will be based on. Surely if nano were licensing the tech out (rather than manufacturing the dots in house for samsung), then the earnings and revenue for Nano would be about the same? How much does it cost nano to say to samsung "yes you can use our patented process, please pay us X per tv"?

Regarding the chemical company Screenlearner. I had a look into this in October. My post then was:

"It looks to be in Taiwan or Japan from the revenue breakdowns in the latest results. Possibly fujifilm or mitsubishi chemical in Japan. Couldn't find many from Taiwan that would be a good fit - formosa chemical maybe."

Thanks for sharing ginodog.
The contents of the reply aren't a massive surprise to those of us who can use our brains though (most people on here thankfully) :)

You don't really need to be reliably informed about patents. It's all public domain stuff. Just plug the patent numbers into
https://patents.google.com/ and it'll give you all the relevant info.

The patents from this case:

7,803,423 ("the '423 patent") expires 2028-01-25
7,588,828 ("the '828 patent") expires 2026-10-27
8,524,365 ("the '365 patent") expires 2025-04-27
7,867,557 ("the '557 patent") expires 2027-01-29
9,680,068 ("the '068 patent") expires 2035-06-22

I don't really see us entering the serious disease diagnostic area. Much more regulated. The wellness tests are just what they sound like really - minor things that can make you healthier and feel better.

The USP of the current wellness tests is the DNA aspect. Most companies are just doing blood tests for allergens or intollerances etc (to varying degrees of reliability). Obviously there are other DNA testing services out there like 23 and me, but they tend to be more expensive and less targeted. The MHC tests are packaged to look at 'heart health' etc, so will look at selected genes and interpret the meaning for you.

It would be great if boots or Lloyd started stocking them. Tbh I thought this would have happened already. Maybe they're waiting for when the 'other' mhc tests are unveiled...

Not really davand. If your test shows you have a genetic disposition to lactose allergy for example, you can stop taking lactose yourself, without the need for the NHS or private doctors. Wellness tests should take some of the strain off the NHS by allowing people to treat/look after minor things at home, leaving the NHS to deal with cancer/heart attacks etc.

Knew you'd have a stellar response GigaWUM.

The edison note states (capitals added): "IF the company RETAINS any of the final settlement money, this will likely be to de-risk the cash runway (currently until CY25) and allay going-concern fears".

Note that it says "RETAINS", not "RECIEVES". This note is not suggesting that nanoco will not recieve any money from the settlement. The definition of 'RETAIN' is "Continue to have (something)". The note is taking about whether Nano will keep the settlement money (or part of it) as cash in their bank (rather than investing it or paying it out as a dividend).

Note also that the above section of the note begins: "If". The definition of the word "If" as a conjunction is: "(introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that". Supposition in turn means: "A belief held without proof or certain knowledge". The above portion of the edison note is of very little use to investors as it is supposition.

The note does NOT say: "The company may not retain/recieve any of the final settlement money..." or "The company will likely not retain/recieve any of the final settlement money..." as much as some of the posters on here would have themselves/others believe.

Not to mention that the costs Nanoco have to pay to the funders and the taxman etc are percentages, making it mathematically impossible for the recieved portion of the settlement to be reduced to zero.

The most recent docketbird (6th Jan) states that:

"The Court ORDERS that all deadlines in the above-captioned case are STAYED for thirty (30) days, by which time appropriate dismissal papers must be filed with the court"

It reads to me like the court are just leaving the two companies to it.

Additionlly, the use of the word "must" makes it seem to me like there won't be an extension of the stay or an opportunity to go back to trial. Otherwise the judge would have used the word 'shall' as suggested in Nanos text of proposed order... I could just be reading too much into that though.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/ORDER-granting-282-Motion-to-Stay-Signed-by-District-Judge-Rodney-Gilstrap-on-01-06-2023/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00283