Member Info for Kooba

“..currently has approx £15m in cash (after legals)”

I make it about £13m before latest legals and redundancy costs if you apply the net LG settlement and the cash burn guided, anyone else looked at the cash position seems to have some bearing on value and cash runway!

Guess we have the interims to end of jan in the next few weeks so might give so clarification on that, on what the agreement means and where we are with the 2nd Asian customer.

I wish losers that post dross did at least some thinking ..they might not be so wrong every time they post if they managed that. Some self awareness of just how poorly they interpret things would be a great start to their journey of self discovery and ownership of their many awful calls.

In the meantime lashing out at those that do read things correctly is a natural reaction from someone who keeps getting exposed as being clueless.

Smithy that was someone elses estimate on costs that i thought could be ball park..hope its nearer your figure.

But Nanoco must have known the costs before defending the no infringement motion and then launching its own infringement case and thought it worth pursuing , introducing Apple and aggressively accusing Shoei of failing to comply in discovery got the likes of TW all excited

One has to think rather than just costs something was introduced that changed the basis of the case for Nanoco to seemingly seek a quick exit for what is totally unclear has any value to the company.It seems a quick fold for a company committed to defending its very valuable IP.

If one is allowed to think independently then i would say that Shoei might have with its super dots worked around nanoco patents , so whether infringing in the past does not necessarily need Nanoco IP going forward and doubt nanoco needs Shoei sensor IP either ..but it ends hostilities and does indeed allow each party to try to progress in their focus fields. But this i strongly believe was not the outcome Nanoco thought they would get or wanted,

Yes i am merely speculating on the outcome as we have nothing to go on in terms of why we have taken this course of action.

12 jan

“Having taken legal advice and given Shoei's position in the global technology supply chain, the Board believes that it is in the best interests of shareholders to both defend the Shoei claims of non-infringement, and pursue counter claims for infringement.”

“ As a Board, we have been clear in our commitment to defending our IP to ensure a fair outcome for shareholders of Nanoco, and have the financial resources to do so.”

Something changed.

So sensors are not clear for Nanoco , Nanosys can step in and take that market too ..was your major win point busted.

And remind me how long Nanoco core platform technology patents are good for?

Oh i can ask AI..

Nanoco's core patents, which were validated in the Samsung litigation, have expiration dates starting from 2025 through 2028, with at least one key patent in the portfolio extending until 2035.

I’m not sensing our position will be stronger in 2029…but im also sensing on the back of this agreement our position was at all strong leaving this action either.

Terry i am merely speculating on something that i believe would have to be announced , a non compete …you are insisting there is still some royalty agreement in the background they wont tell shareholders about , that is quite a different matter. If you dont see that it confirms my strong beliefs in your competency.

Terry you are looking like an idiot right now persisting there is more than the vanilla agreement given.

You wanted to wait till we had the full announcement…well we have it and nothing you said would be there is ..that is a fact.

I have explained what needs to be disclosed…and you still say there is more. Want dont you get ?

Tell me what legal business language i do not get ? From where i am sitting it is you that is confused and all over the place in reading a simple communication and filling in gaps where there are none. Stick to facts you say..practice what you preach and stop making stuff up that suits your overly bullish position..it never EVER stacks up.

I guess what could be in the confidential terms at a push could be a non compete clause in respective markets…but again i think this would be disclosable as Nanoco is still officially seeking material revenues in display , so to remove that would be further strategic shift and potential revenue.

Shame the company has not deem it necessary to make a comment ..will Edison ? Maybe might shed some light.

Due for your question, here is my answer the three‑year term gives both sides time to:

· Scale their respective businesses without litigation.

· See how the sensing market develops.

· Gather real data on sales volumes, margins, and IP value.

· Negotiate a long‑term licence from a position of knowledge, not speculation.

Dont think i did ask ..why would i ask you anything apart from to rule something that might happen out.

It’s clear to me however just a personal view that is that this is not a great outcome for Nanoco…if it was they would have explained. The headlining silence tells me this is a face saving fold and their case was a flop.

To be honest though terry im really not here to answer your questions and school you..i did ask you why you thought there would be royalties asset sales and something else you kept jibbering about…and you never answer.

Think we know why now though…

Kooba

Since you're so certain, what do the confidential terms actually contain? I’m asking for a precise answer not a vague fudge.

And - what's your read on the three‑year limit? Too short? Too long? Just right? Do you even understand what it’s for?

I’ll wait.

Well Terry its time for school again i guess. What part of if they had signed a royalty agreement as part of the settlement that would have had a benefit to Nanocos future revenues that would have to be announced do you not get …its basic disclosure requirement.and for a company with virtually no revenues i guess analysts like you (ha) might have just spotted those revenues floating in due course and a few questions would be asked ask to why the company has not complied with its ongoing commitment to disclose price sensitive information . There is nothing extra on the terms provided that can be price sensitive.

You can yourself ask AI what confidential means so i dont have to explain why i do not have the full confidential terms but as with above anything that has an impact on the financial performance or value of the business could not be confidential. Level playing field and all that.

As to duration i think Ecclescake is probably right .

Terry..getting very sad now ..

‘,,it doesn’t mean there are no royalties’.…..oh yes it does.

Panto time.

This will also be exactly what terry was expecting and anyone who thought there was to be a royalty , asset sale and the like was an over optimistic numptie.

Well my expectations have not been met …whilst the agreement is as i expected and as they clearly guided , i really thought they might give some explanation of why this deal is in shareholder interests and what shareholder funds have been used in securing this agreement.

How are others taking this confirmation?

There is so much of the complete BS can only think he forgets all the Blx he posts …I don’t.

Bet Shoei are laughing at the clown too!

should we not look at this pile of horse **** from early dec to see who basis their “analysis” pmsl on facts ??

“the commercial reality for shoei is now dire, irrespective of the legal technicalities.

their investment in nanosys has been filleted by two external events:

1. the eu cadmium ban: this destroys the legacy, high-cadmium market that likely formed the core of the business they acquired. it forces a total, urgent pivot to cfqds—the very market where they have no legal certainty.

2. the lg settlement: this is catastrophic. their marquee customer has publicly paid $5m to the patent holder because of shoei's supply. this brands shoei's entire supply chain as legally toxic. no sensible manufacturer will now place an order without a court-guaranteed "freedom to operate."

shoei is trapped. they can't sell the old product (banned), and they can't sell the new product (feared).

compounding the crisis:

· time is the enemy: nanoco can contest jurisdiction, file motions, and appeal, dragging a "rocket docket" case out for years. shoei's business cannot survive a prolonged freeze.

· financial distress: if shoei borrowed to fund the nanosys acquisition, they now hold a rapidly depreciating asset with crumbling revenue, while facing legal bills and debt service, this could create an existential solvency crisis. who knows, it might even end with nanoco, or its cdx partner owning them, the bod have the relevant expertise in jalal to manage this.

their lawsuit isn't an aggressive move from strength; it's a desperate, funded plea for clarity from a company whose commercial viability has been potentoinally invalidated overnight. the question is no longer whether nanoco's patents are valid. it is how much, and how quickly, shoei will pay to survive a negotiation where nanoco controls the clock and the leverage.”

terry and ai what a dire combination…and he expects folks to think he has a clue!!

you don’t speak for the rest of anyone apart from your multiple usernames over the years.

you as always try to project your complete lack of knowledge onto others that have called this right over and over when you have got it wrong literally on every single count,

you make **** up and use very dubious ai questioning to support whatever bogus theory you scrape together after every time you are busted…the latest tripe over shoei being against the ropes is just more of the same nonsense you post from one bs theory to the next.

you are a total waste of time..

get a mirror read what you post about others and enjoy the reflection.

time for another username change ..or maybe that is ongoing.

once again…as always you know absolutely nothing about me and your judgement there is as flawed as just about everything else you post. utter ignorance.

chin chin witless

These clear to monetise business posts repeated by two completely separate posters is an unusual take…were we ever over the past several years not clear to monetise ..and if not why not ?? .

There is not confirmation that either company will stick in their respective lanes either ..this just all seems made up after a poor event without foundation.

Hoping for a royalty or licensing deal ( on the qt) also seems based on wishful thinking ping rather than evidence based.

I get accused of an agenda when I stick to the rns. Everything else is baseless puff as far as I can tell…where’s the agenda?

yes they go to umpteen trade fairs a year always have done.

it’s whether we get anything out of them bar social media snaps is the question.

strange thing is tw is always erring caution after the event and saying people were expecting too much ( mostly him) when i do before the event and am normally right being cautious and not over excited like a demented puppy …think my way wins.

my agenda …to understand communications and not make **** up…if i get surprised on the upside it will be a first with this counter.

Why would Shoei want to buy Nanoco anyway it seems they get to use our IP in this agreement….whether they need it or don’t they have use of it now for its relatively short remaining life i would think …why would they want the rest of the company i wonder.