Member Info for JBongo

The ptab significantly de-risked the litigation, therefore making it more likely that we would end up with money. The market doesn't need to know the exact end figure to make a decision of whether to buy or sell. The share price was 28p before then, it went up to an average of around 35p in the weeks after that, so it very much did affect the market

"If there's any visibility at all the market will always get there first."

Like the ptab win that took the market a couple of days to twig on to?

FlyingHigh. Samsung will have the lions share of the QD TV market regardless of whether they pay Nano a royalty. It's not like if they payed us a load of money, they'd suddenly lose market share.

Would be nice if the settlement RNS was closely followed by an RNS from another company deciding to take on a license from us due to the certainty created by the settlement.

That doesn't mean that Nano won't be using the no of TV's sold to calculate their 'fair' number though. The negotiation is a two way thing, not just 'accept whatever number Samsung pluck out of their hat'.

I think we will probably get a top line number, but we won't know how much came from past/ future/US/ROW etc. When the RNS talks about the details being confidential, I think that's what it means

Now I'm no lawyer, but some minor changes to the RNS's would have made it a lot less likely to spook and confuse the markets IMO:

The first RNS should have been titled something like "Litigation update - term sheet agreed" or "Litigation update - Settlement talks started". As it is clear from the 2nd RNS that the settlement has not been agreed yet, as suggested by the first RNS title.

For the 2nd RNS, I would rewrite it as such (obviously some assumptions from me in rewriting it):

"In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders, the Board, having consulted with its advisers in the litigation, took into account the following considerations:

· The gross settlement value for past US infringement should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome.

· 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.

· Historical precedent shows that any final agreement is likely to be a one off payment, with no forward royalties, covering past and future global sales. This will cease all current and future patent litigation between the Parties in all jurisdictions (colloquially referred to as "patent peace").

The Company expects to issue a further update on the final agreement following the completion of the further negotiations between the Parties."

And yet you managed to be all three somehow...

Thanks Lobo. It seems to me Nano are on one hand saying: "The settlement will be at the lower end of the expectations that we've given you in the past"

Then on the other saying "we've never given you any expectations"

Confusing at the very least!

Hey lobo. Good to see you. We've missed your analysis in recent times.

What do you mean about the Brian email though? Not sure I've seen anything about an email.

I don't have a problem with a one off payment, as long as it takes into account past sales globally and a decent estimate at future sales.

Would we really trust samsung to stick to any royalty agreement they signed up to anyway?!

Seen a couple of comments about edisons note "if the company retains any of the final settlement money, this will likely de-risk the cash runway..."

I don't think this is Edison suggesting that Nano might be left with zilch after the funders fees etc are taken into account, more that this de-risking only applies if Nano keep some back as cash (as opposed to a special dividend or spending on new hires etc)

Dwstudios. x3 based on the fact that the US is only a third of the market... entirely rational and fact based thanks.

Bit disappointed with the RNS tbh. Reads like we've folded pretty easily. Fortunately though, it meant my limit order got filed at a much lower price than I'd expected today!

Hopefully they don't accept what would have been a lower jury award for the USA, for all the world... the lower award should be x3 at least

So botbot, presuming no-one is telling porkies, I make it that collectively we own 8,354,422 shares and approx 2.59% of the company. Still a ways to go before we get a seat on the board me thinks!

I'm with fidelity. I've put a limit order on for Monday in case the SP stays under 60p at opening. If it shoots up at opening, I'm happy with the shares I already have.

Just stick a limit order on Rr101

Well have to work out what % we collectively own when everyone has declared. Maybe we can get an LSE seat on the board haha :D

I distinctly remember when the share price hit 9p wondering about buying some more. I decider against it in the end. Kicking myself.

Nowhere near as many shares as some on here (about 36.5k), but I am only a few years into investing, so haven't the capital to buy large. Fortunately it is all in an Isa though, so tax free! My average is about 23p so not too bad.

Or a technique known as "throw as much s*** at the wall as you can and see what sticks".