Member Info for Kooba

Oh so you didn’t jump in to try to belittle other posters ?

‘Ha, yes they are out in force. Kooba, 2G2D (aka ppe) destroying this thread like they did on ADVFN. Now it's not even worth reading that thread so they've come across for attention and posting utter drivel.”

Strikes me you are attacking me sunshine…so i thought would be interesting looking at you priors..and a rather sad state of affairs it is. Much pumping in the past…something your ilk throw around at others. Anyway judging from previous posts i think will stop engagement there..there really are better things to do.

PVX not as sad as leaving this up there from sept

“Yes, I think nigwit was banned from LSE forum and then from advfn... posting semi aggressive posts with pseudo legal knowledge..

Anyway, trial all set to go. Nano has probably the best case going against Samsung. Won all the pre-trial stuff hands down. The case will turn on the chemistry/science facts more than rhetorical arguments imo.

Minimum damages $15 per TV sold. Maximum the added value to the TVs ... up to $800 per TV is the additional value for a Qdot TV.

Dropping the red Qdot claim makes perfect sense as red Qdots can be synthsised using hot injection. Nanosys were doing this successfully prior to 2013. It was the explosive nuclearisation for green dots that was always the problem so better to focus on this claim and the required seeding process that Samsung blatantly stole imo..”

Weren't you the absolute bull..minimum $15 per set rising to what is that..$800 per set? Now you berate folks who want to question what happened and hold the board accountable.

Really?

Sorry it categorically says for one patent ..i ‘m pretty sure it is not me who is the fool.

Interesting use of the word drivel ..used by many with a similar view.

PVX 25th March

“Strange random figures here. On what basis is the sensor market valued at 5 million. How do you come to a valuation of 10 million for patents, when Samsung paid 85 million for a single patent.”

Can you talk us through that showing its not bunkum.

PVX What destroys threads is ignorant folk posting lies.

Remind me again how Nanoco sold one patent for $85m ..something you posted only a few months ago?

Sorry , where exactly does the company say that shareholders will be wiped out ..please show that quote.

NGR

You are telling other shareholders their investment will be wiped out if they vote to change the management…that is not fact or based in anyway on fact it is therefore not even a reasonable opinion to put forward. I am not that surprised at your blatant support for the board as that has been seen throughout but i am surprised at the level you have stooped to in putting forward a false narrative around changes based on some fantasy in your head. Shame really.

TD2D Thought today was the deadline for the Board's response to TM request for a EGM.

I believe it is ..today is 21 days from acknowledging receipt of requisition.

‘Nanoco notes that on 27 June 2023 it received a letter and accompanying notice from Aurora Nominees Limited and Securities Services Nominees Limited seeking, on behalf of holders of approximately 5.02% of the voting rights of the Company (together the "Requisitionists"), to requisition a general meeting ("GM") of the Company under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 (the "Requisition") .

304Directors' duty to call meetings required by members

(1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—

(a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and

(b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.

They have had time to consider the validity and to organise a general meeting.

They can if they want to be childish leave it till after hours tonight ..just to make a point of some sort..or they must explain why they have not called one. They risk court action if they failed to call a valid requisition with the time limits set out in the companies act. The ability to call a general meeting to put resolutions to shareholders if you own 5% of the shares is a major factor in shareholder rights in this country.

NGR

Well that contains no facts whatsoever..as said before opinions are fine if they have a basis in fact but just making stuff up seems to be rather poor showing.

You are parroting the company line again but like the company line the interpretation is broad and lacking any substantial in rebutting the allegations made.

I think folk attempting to discredit the requisitioning group should do better thats just making stuff up..thats not an argument that exactly what you accuse others of. Your assurances that any shareholder will gain nothing but a liquidation of their investment and a total wipe out is probably slanderous. Very poor show.

Seven out of Ten Patent Jury Trials Favor Plaintiffs

Nanostory would be interesting to see that figure of ones that had such comprehensive reviews of their patents pretrial..

The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in favour of Nanoco in all 47 claims in the five patents under review as part of the litigation against Samsung over the alleged wilful infringement of the group's intellectual property, it said.

"The strength of Nanoco's case has been amply demonstrated by the PTAB finding in favour of every single one of the 47 claims under the five patents,” said Nanoco chief executive Brian Tenner. “The question of the validity of our intellectual property has now been very clearly resolved in favour of Nanoco.”

"As a result, the trial can now focus on the issue of Samsung's alleged wilful infringement and the appropriate level of damages.”

So according to BT the trial was not about validity any more that was a given , it was about level of damages for the wilful infringement.

Such a strong case it appeared.

It would appear from many of the recent articles on anticipated production levels for pro vision being reduced that large parts of the supply chain are contracted and fully aware of their part and of the production demand. Since Nanoco are potentially a customer of a customer then they are further removed but its difficult to think any agreement with STM would not be shared with a long term development partner who we are lead to believe is vital to producing components for state of the art sensing products. To expect companies to remain fully ready to meet demand on short notice without any contract signed is really where the company got screwed last time when Apple was being bandied about ..years and years of product development focused on one customer leads to rather binary outcomes..none have previously been good.

NGR

“TG2D my answer is you lack the mental capacity to understand what’s going on.”

Poor form again..it rather makes you look like you don’t have anything but personal abuse..if you have a view and want to be taken seriously you might want to try a bit harder.

Troublesome..

Dr Christopher Richards first chairmans statement in the report and accounts for 2016 started .A transformational year…

Who needs new catchphrases ?

If trust and support in the board is reflected by the share price they could well be in trouble !!

Thanks Nanonano ..must as misheard , we have our own production facility with we own our production facility!

2018 on the cusp of commercial success leveraging up space..

“Nanoco’s original bespoke facility, created by SOG’s in-house technicians, covered 3,000 square feet of floor space. However as the company has expanded it required significantly more space to meet the demand for quantum dots from markets including Japan, China and the USA.”

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-makes-quantum-leap-at-the-heath-business-and-technical-park-with-new-nanomaterials-production-facility/

TG2D

Production Facilities - a leased property and scientific equipment that was moth balled and been brought back to use in expectation of orders yet to be agreed..We know the £2m cost that was RNS on 2019 and Apple wrote this value off.

I spent a bit of time trying to ascertain the ownership of the production facilities, sure the plant likely has value. But i couldn’t 100% work out if the facility was owned by nanoco or leased. I found a presentation piece where BT states they own the production facility. Does anyone know the exact position , i had assumed on that comment that the factory was owned by the company as it was purpose built i thought and might have all fallen under the apple let off of funds spent. Anyway I'm sure nothing will be sold under any change of management until there is a full and fair assessment of the organic potential. Anyone commenting that they have enough cash to keep burning for 20 years is not sending out the right messages!

Re PVX I think we all need to be careful of the facts we post otherwise our opinions might not be taken as seriously as perhaps they should.

“ How do you come to a valuation of 10 million for patents, when Samsung paid 85 million for a single patent.”

March 2023

Did i read Pickett had previously resigned and changed his mind and there was no share price reaction. The core technology is patented and the patent portfolio is shrinking rather than growing and seems very few new patents are being applied for in recent years. Many of the more recent ones were attributed to scientists now at QD Science around the corner who are addressing the same markets as Nanoco..not sure if it impacted on Nanoco’s commercialisation prospects them leaving ? But they seem to be getting attention https://quantumscis.com/ maybe one could get the band back together ?

I think a change at Chair is essential and would send a message that the shareholders, predominantly being retail seek better accountability , the Chair has been on the board since 2015 and served as Chair for most of that time ..shareholders have had a very rough ride over that period.Company communications and alignment by management with ALL shareholders needs to be addressed from the top .I think a change at CEO is also needed and is I believe a prerequisite for a rebuilding shareholder confidence.

Putting good money in at 37p to be told they will get 10-12p back ( with a funded pre commercialisation business) a year later and that is a successful result by a management who will take no criticism of the communications or the result they delivered I think is not really reading the room. Change is needed and no reason why that would impact commercialisation considerations. The R&D work , the patents and the production facilities belong to the company not the board! As mentioned previously if the materials we are close to getting full validation to be incorporated in an extremely high spec devise can be instantly replicated by other sources..it’s rather difficult to think why it’s taken years to get to the stage we are at with STM.

I’m pretty sure some shareholders backed changes in senior management will have no impact on the scale or timing of any orders..but it’s the main defence being used by the company to save their positions!

“Imagine us now winning the low amount but having no money and facing PTAB appeals and a trial appeal when interest rates are rising along with inflation and we as yet have no positive cash flow……”

Or you could imagine Nanoco winning on a high model with multiples for wilfulness and just hearing the court has awarded rolling royalty payment on top. The award will be rises as infringement continues.

The company can apply for a US injunction to stop importation of infringing products , they still have the Germany and China stick with short term injunctions likely..especially with US court victory under their belt.

We can all imagine what might have been from our various angles !!