Member Info for Kooba

And you have spent 4 years trying to disown previous multiple user names and being unrelentingly bullish whilst being totally ignorant of what is actually going on , then doing more u turns than Starmer when you get it wrong over and over again and accuse others of being over optimistic…you really couldn’t make it up. I have never come across someone who gets so much wrong and can’t see their utter ridiculous pomposity.

You must realise how wrong you get it surely it’s as plain as day.

Sammy carving out the patents on both sides that can be used without litigation threat and the exact market they can be used in i imagine could take some time these things will need specifying and agreeing.

Must say rather than have legal agreement to use each others IP we are told its an agreement to not file for infringement if they do.

If there was to be consideration in the form of royalty payments or sale of patents they would need to day that was a possibility at this stage saying no consideration for the material agreement rather rules anything worth anything out. I am managing my expectation and reading what they have actually said and am not imagining some big extras not considered material to emerge. Once/If it is agreed will be good to listen to the executive Chairmans explanation of what has transpired and the rational , oh and how much has been spent on this exercise that seems on the surface to leave us in a worse position than when we decided to defend the action dispite all our previous validation. What are the chances that the no one can produce CFQDs at scale narrative without infringing is not mentioned again?

Oh the irony!

Shoei started the action saying their IP did not infringe Nanocos , they have a clear message that Nanoco will not challenge the use of its IP , take from that what you will …Shoei have admitted nothing , so was there ever any infringement ? Are we infringing on their sensor patents??

Shoei can carry on using the IP (or not so ) in display to supply their many customers including Apple without there being any threat of an infringement claim to anyone in the chain.

How is this not a big win for Shoei they have admitted nothing and get what they wanted for free! At least Samsung paid something and still did not actually admit infringing.

There is no official licence but the owner of the IP saying they will not challenge use by Shoei or any of their customers is a licence …to print money i guess.

Yes, compensation for the use, licensing, or infringement of intellectual property (IP) can, and frequently does, take the form of royalties or an outright sale (assignment) of the IP.

www.hcrlaw.com

So no compensation means what exactly?

The term sheet details that no compensation will be payable by either party, and both parties will be responsible for their own costs incurred. Pursuant to the term sheet, among othe things, Nanoco covenants not to sue Shoei, its customers, and suppliers for use of Nanoco's Quantum Dot ("QD") patents for the display field, and Shoei covenants not to sue Nanoco, its customers, and suppliers for use of Shoei's QD patents for the sensing field. The parties have agreed in good faith to negotiate an agreement reflecting the term sheet as well as other deal terms. All other terms of the term sheet are confidential.

Do you know what a term sheet is and what Nanocos disclosure of price sensitive information obligations are?

A term sheet is a non-binding document outlining the material terms, conditions, and valuation of a proposed investment or business transaction.

You “ The confidential part of the term sheet matters. Royalties, patent sales, reciprocation mechanisms — all of that takes time to structure.”

You think such matters are non material and would have no financial impact on the company??

We appear to be giving away fat more than we are getting…in fact what we are getting is access to use Nanosys IP we had no idea we needed!! While giving them a free licence to use our display IP which they have been using for years for nothing but are paying our own legals for the privilege.

If this is what you were expecting and you think it’s great then you really didnt at any stage explain this …especially as being anything but a very disappointing outcome that leaves further pinned in the sensor field ..a field we are yet to gain any commercial traction.

I imagine Shoei are delighted and have got a big win.

You consistently post over optimistic narrative as if your thoughts regurgitated by AI are fact when they invariably are fiction.

Not acknowledging this and lashing out at others accusing them of being overly optimistic seems a fine example of gaslighting.

A better example was you predicting $1b from Samsung plus as nigwit and then accusing everyone else of doing so when you reinvented your user name but then were found out.

You are a lying clown who i hope people pay little heed to. Hope this helps.

You really should read back on your own posts Terry ..the most bullish poster who portrayed this as going to be a huge win for nanoco and was all part of some genius plan was you . You have misread everything ..again.

This is a large climbdown on the result you predicted.

So does this suggest we might be infringing Shoei patents in sensing ?? Since we havent made any commercial sales how does that add up? Meanwhile we allow Shoei full use of our patented IP in display for nothing.

Both sides pay own costs…not sure some reading of the case were anywhere close.

Once again disappointing it seems and likely takes other display litigation off the table.

Apple multi M sales etc etc difficult tom see how this is a win isnt it??

Stay of Shoei Litigation

Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other specific nanomaterials emanating from its technology platform, confirms that it has submitted a joint motion with Shoei Chemical Inc. and Shoei Electronic Materials, Inc. (collectively, "Shoei") to stay the ongoing litigation between Shoe and Nanoco following a binding term sheet being agreed between the parties.

The term sheet details that no compensation will be payable by either party, and both parties will be responsible for their own costs incurred. Pursuant to the term sheet, among othe things, Nanoco covenants not to sue Shoei, its customers, and suppliers for use of Nanoco's Quantum Dot ("QD") patents for the display field, and Shoei covenants not to sue Nanoco, its customers, and suppliers for use of Shoei's QD patents for the sensing field. The parties have agreed in good faith to negotiate an agreement reflecting the term sheet as well as other deal terms. All other terms of the term sheet are confidential.

True, official line in the report and accounts produced in Nov below . So they expect it to be extended…they have expected much in the past. One should not forget the prospects of JDA 1 and 2 both could give a roadmap to serious scale production within a year or two …whilst tempering enthusiasm due to serial disappointments in commercial endeavours !

In addition, in April 2025 we announced

a second JDA, also with a major Asian

customer. This one-year agreement is

targeting consumer applications but with

a different QD material and at a different

wavelength, allowing us to spread the

risks associated with such developments.

The initial results of this work are

encouraging, and we expect to extend

it during 2026, similar to the first JDA.

Dockets everywhere has Nanoco destroyed evidence!? …doubt it but just shows how either side can spin during disclosure and how one can chose and interpret what you want to to fit a narrative. Luckily there is a Judge that will listen to the arguments and interpret the legal position for us so going to wait for them to do so.

Without knowing the terms of the agreement between Shoei and LG it’s difficult to judge.

One could just make stuff up around warranties and such you have no knowledge of though I guess .

Or they were very comfortable that the process did not infringe !!

Since they were actually manufacturing the QDs for Nanosys for 2 years they were already part of the supply chain and had access to all the arguments brought in the Samsung case and went ahead.

Once again we have no idea on whether there were warranties, who by and what they contain.

Samsung settled infringement of Nanocos CFQDs patents Feb 2023 Nanoco said no one can make commercial scale CFQDs without infringing openly.

Shoei bought Nanosys Sept 2023 for undisclosed terms and warranties after they had manufactured for Nanosys since 2021.

Nanosys had openly said they were producing CFQDs for commercial use since 2015.

One would expect they would do significant DD into the patents and were fully aware of the process as they were proving the things at the time of acquisition even if they were not acquiring the legal entity just the assets.

Much in the way of warranties might be around the validity and ownership of the assets to be acquired rather than around infringement also most warranties are not open ended in so far as

Knowledge Qualifiers: Sellers often try to limit warranties to "the best of their knowledge" or "so far as the seller is aware," rather than providing absolute guarantees.

Disclosure Letter: Sellers will disclose any known issues against the warranties in a disclosure letter to protect themselves from claims.

Limitations on Liability: Asset purchase agreements typically include caps on liability (often up to the purchase price) and time limits for claims

So unless we know the terms it seems wrong to be talking of Shoei doing all this to seek redress and potential fraud. All wrong .

If is doing so much work here…

“If Nanosys directors gave warranties they knew were false, the distribution wasn't legitimate — it was proceeds of fraud. And under US law, individuals who participate in fraud can be held personally liable regardless of whether the corporate veil is pierced . The money didn't vanish. It went to people who may have known the truth.”

If you have a copy of said warranties then ..then we can move to if “they knew were false” ..then what next before any conclusions can be reached.

All a total red herring this idea. The fact that Shoei is categorically going to court saying they are not infringing any patents they feel there is a thorough legal position to defend that case hardly means they have been hoodwinked. At the time of the sale of assets there was indeed no know planned litigation and no one was questioning the right of Nanosys to carry on producing quantum dots , cadmium free of otherwise.

As to going after a likely liquidated business with no assets or the shareholders who may well have received a perfectly legitimate distribution good luck with that.

The Apple Joint venture and subsequent work with STM apparently for Apple was focused on using CFQDs in image sensors , it seems the alleged infringement by Shoei is all around displays as far as i can see so different end applications though based on same core. Might have been easier to prove they are not innocent if used for same underlying function. It wasn’t.

Nanoco’s patents for display and sensor applications are not entirely the same, although they share a foundational technology platform. Nanoco utilises its patented, cadmium-free quantum dot (CFQD®) production process for both, but tailors the technology for different functionalities: display (light emission/colour) and sensors (light absorption).