Member Info for Kooba

Is it certain that Nanoco can add Apple ?

Wouldn’t Shoei wait to see if their opposition is upheld?

I clearly stated the strategy post Samsung settlement not missing anything and not rewriting history to make out Nanoco did anything but get railroaded by multiple parties. We got less than $90m net from Samsung a fraction of what would have been achieved if they had better protected their IP , what exactly Nanosys have been up to is far from proved so rather early to be talking of harvesting anything yet. If this does not go Nanocos way what will be left ?

The defined company model given to shareholders post Samsung is very much as a commercial supplier of materials. Thats a fact.

They had a facility ready to supply mass market and a balance sheet with over £50m pre the distribution they made after careful consideration of the funds needed to get this business to cash flow breakeven ..they were to be a major supplier to ST micro to supply Apple. So they dont get bigger end customers.

Changing the narrative to fit the failure to attract commercial customers and make out it’s all been a clever game and falling into Nanocos hands with this litigation is pure folly. They wanted to sell the business…no interest. They wanted to drive for commercial orders not much new there after reportedly multiple potential jda partners across many existing and new fields. We are left with everything hanging on another litigation case and precious little else.

That was not the plan.

ST Micro worked with Nanoco for many years indirectly and directly when the balance sheet was weak they walked after Nanoco had settled with Samsung and the balance sheet was strong and not an issue for customers …i think the having a lie down was something mentioned after they said the balance sheet was no longer a problem. Yet still they walked as many had before also we have seen little promise traction on any commercial front in terms of supply…something we are told we have the recipes and products readily available and can manufacture in large scale. Nothing.

Most company's extoll the virtues of enhanced performance…strange then

https://www.engadget.com/computing/laptops/apple-secretly-included-quantum-dot-tech-in-the-m4-macbook-pros-display-173424130.html

You are correct they are moving away from QD technology in the next upgrade so will not have been used for very long.

Based on current supply chain reports and analyst forecasts as of February 2026, the first MacBook Pro with an OLED display is expected to launch in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2026

While OLED is the primary panel technology, hybrid OLED/Quantum Dot structures are a possibility in the broader industry, but reports currently emphasize "Tandem OLED" for Apple's high-end laptops to match the M4 iPad Pro

Well theres a list of end users who nanoco think might have used Nanosys/Shoei products that might have infringed.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Identify each end-user or customer (direct or indirect)' to whom You (or Your affiliates,

distributors, partners, or vendors, or customers) currently market, sell, supply, offer for sale, import for, have marketed, have sold, have offered for sale, have imported for, or have otherwise supplied,

1 Your answer should address at least the entities Nanosys lists as featuring the Accused Products, e.g., TCL, Hisense, Xiaomi, Sharp, Apple (MacBook Pro), Vizio, Sony, Sky, Skyworth, Pimax, Gigabyte, AOC, Thomson, Cooler Master, Harman, Vestel, Toshiba,

Vestel, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Roku,

Lenovo, Dell, Amazon, MSI, Panasonic, Phillips, Meta Quest, Acer, Asus, Samsung, LG, SmallHD, ViewSonic, FSI, Konka, and HP. See https://www.nanosys.com/product. Your answer should also address the entities Nanosys lists as foundry partners,

like 3M.

See

https://www.nanosys.com/global-foundry.

Maybe Nanosys have somewhat implicated themselves with their bragging??

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Shoei-Chemical-Inc-et-al-v-Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd/vaed-1:2025-cv-02135

106 exhibit A

Interesting though that although Shoei only acquired Nanosys inc assets in 2023 they were a manufacturing partner since 2020 so although they were not the legal entity selling materials they were producing potentially infringing materials under this agreement for Nanosys inc. hence

.SUPPLEMENTALOBJECTIONSTOINTERROGATORYNO.1:Shoeiwillprovideresponses(basedonnon-privilegedinformationinShoei’spossession, custody,orcontrol)forAccusedProductsmanufacturedbyShoeiChemicaland/orbySEMIthat are made, used, offered for sale, or sold in the United States, or imported into the United States, from January 9, 2020, to present.Shoei is not withholding responsive information based on whether a particular product is associated with Nanosys and not Shoei branding.

Https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Shoei-Chemical-Inc-et-al-v-Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd/vaed-1:2025-cv-02135

Containing some exhibits that provide context to discovery..including Shoei separating Nanosys products pre acquisition ..which seems reasonable as Nanoco are litigating against Shoei.

The idea that Shoei are hiding their customers is quite funny why would they list their customers or parties Nanoco think are their customers who are using materials that Nanoco alledge infringe front and centre…for a company that cites commercial sensitivity as a reason to disclose nothing and we dont even know who our own customers are its a bit rich.

Nanonano..i do know what a patent troll is hence

“..they very much are looking more like one as the years go by’

But it is true

They “generate revenue by asserting patents against alleged infringers rather than using the technology to manufacture products.”

But in Nanocos case they did develop the IP rather than buying from a third party and have at least tried to find a commercial market.

They also said they would never be a PAE (troll) when really with no commercial revenues after decades and the only real return on their IP coming from litigation they very much are looking more like one as the years go by….unfortunately though they retain the operational capacity despite this which eats up what’s left on the balance sheet at a reduced but meaningful rate.

That is not true the company more recently went to great lengths to say they were in the business of manufacturing and that was the target…why have a full scale manufacturing facility on site able to produce over £100m of material a years?

True if there was a huge mass scale end use they might have had to expand but again they explained they were able to supply mass market demand and were ready to do so.

Admittedly the model may have changed from earlier engagements but filling commercial orders was the more recent model.

Well they still had significant cash resources post distribution and still over the past few years have talked of multiple customer engagements that should lead to a number of JVAs some in new areas we have got one new one which is small money and we find out soon if that moves to a new stage.With STM it was again and pretty much the same underlying customer it seems trying to bag the elephant whilst managing to avoid building any recurring revenue streams. We have over focused on single major opportunities Samsung , Apple STM/Apple , Asian customer 1 (sony?)

Its not that big companies do not trust us to develop (read share) our technology and with a large scale production facility production ready ( at great expense) and with world leading quality product ( their claim) end users seem to avoid commercial supply from Nanoco ..nb Nanosys only became a subsid of SHOEI in 2023 ..before that they lived a hand to mouth funding existence much like Nanoco they still got sales from multiple major OEMs.

So again is it the product or the cost ?

In fact the previous ceo said quite the opposite after the Samsung settlement he said the company was now in a strong financial position with a state of the art production facility that could deliver mass market volumes at short notice and to compliment that facility we built a FAB, We were told the company was far better set than any time in its 20 year history to move to a sustainable commercial footing and that the balance sheet would no longer put off major customers.

Certainly appears that way Nanoco rns stating

“..Nanoco feel it is important to emphasise to investors that the move to add Apple as a co party does not increase the materiality or potential value of this claim. “

When investors have no guidance on the potential value of the claim rather difficult to know what the claim involved…introducing Apple one must presume as an end user of materials that Nanosys produces that Nanoco believes infringe does have an impact of the optics of the claim it strikes me. There were questions as to whether the Apple Mac Pro might contain LG displays that contained Nanosys CFQD materials so this is i believe signalling Nanoco thinks this is the case.

So whether the size of the claim is changed or not the important factor might well be going forward for LG and indeed Apple to source from a party that has a legitimate licence. The fact both these giants have worked with Nanoco in the past and know their products and IP again asks the question why does no one want to source material from Nanoco…quality or cost ? There surely has to be a reason why nobody moves to commercial scale with Nanoco though seemingly want the technology in their wares.

CDX was mandated to find a buyer at the right price they likely engaged with 10’s if not 100’s of potential buyers ..Shoei would have been high up that list , it was likely not their best idea but they ran it up the flagpole to see if there was interest sort of negligent if they had not approached Shoei. NB CDX just want to earn fees so it was likely an early stage chat and not a deep dive into the merits of Nanocos patent protected IP over Nanosys methods. Would anyone have expected Shoei to have said oh yes we do breach Nnanoco patents in such exploratory talks?

Becoming a very high stakes game…whilst the potential settlement of directly implicating Apple products raises the potential reward it also moves the case to a bigger stage with likely associated costs .

With the company currently trading at cash its surprising no one sees bidding for the company as a very interesting option to even at a $20m odd premium ..it would resolve dispute have clear validated technology to market and save likely same amount in legal fees whatever the outcome.

Was Apple aware of Nanocos patent protected technology when they sourced CFQDSs from another supplier? Rather awkward amount of evidence they sure did.

K Terry.

Good point on Japanese approach ..from our AI friends something relevant

AI Overview

Japanese businesses approach litigation with a strong preference for avoiding it, favouring mediation, negotiation, and "soft" dispute resolution to maintain harmony (wa) and long-term business relationships. When litigation is unavoidable, Japanese firms approach it with a focus on meticulous preparation, reliance on documented evidence rather than oral testimony, and a high likelihood of court-led settlement attempts.

Certainly some nibbles into the close…fingers crossed but expectation well managed.

I find it difficult to think Shoei would initiate action being very well aware of Nanocos previous litigation success and validation of their IP to fold at the first hurdle..Shoei lead lawyers Latham and Watkins represented LG they know the form and walked for a low agreement for LG . Presumably thought the fight was Shoei’s not theirs.

Punchy new go-to-market strategy with a cutting edge on-line approach to bring in multinational customers.

Delivery by leading logistics company EVRI i trust!