Member Info for Kooba

NGR…that does deal with the point made..you said they couldn't open on the low case model pre trial as it would presumably alert Samsung and their highly paid lawyers..im saying that is nonsense as according to Nanoco the information was freely available ( well not free ) that is a major point in them saying what their low end guidance referred to in an rns on 9th.

I don’t believe for a moment that Nanocos argument that firewalled court submissions is where guidance comes from but i am 100% sure that Samsung were fully aware of all models and i am 100% all of Nanocos models were successfully defended in pre trial…we were not claiming the low model in court we were claiming the high model.

NGR

But they say all their models including the lowest one was freely available to all as publicly available although never referred to pre settlement just tucked away behind a firewall…the fact that the company in hindsight used this as a basis of what they say was their guidance in the second rns!

To think that Samsung lawyers would not have been all over the publicly available models in the submissions pre trial is ridiculous! They challenged the higher models in the pre trial conference and they were all upheld so Nanoco were going to court on their high model claim.

So lets assume that Samsung were aware of the court papers shall we and by directing sjhareholders in that direction as guidance pre trial rather than allowing their broker and marketing material to define what was expectation might have been more useful in managing expectation…but there was no reason on any available information to believe that a fair settlement would be based on the lowest model..none at all.

Maxi. I get you…doesn’t appear much was done to suit Nanoco to be honest.I certainly don’t see why we are waiting so long to get the second tranche. Not around Nanoco financial year end at all..but it’s not like Samsung can’t afford the payment up front.

But if as you suggest they are booking false disposals instead of what should be licence income to avoid tax is that a good look..hope it stands up with HMRC as they were in the books at nothing .If indeed that is the game , it could also give a false impression to the market of what the remaining core patents might be worth if you sell a number of the non core ones for $85m!

It might be that patents sold were worthless and the patent sale is just a cunning plan to avoid taxes , as is the reason why we are waiting until February for the company to get any meaningful cash in the bank. Maybe its not easy to explain to the owners of the business why exactly things were done in the way they were and what is the impact on the remaining IP when selling such a chunk of what were the near term commercialisation prospects …but i think they should have a go!

Absolutely right NGR my mistake meant against the patents against the 47 claims .guess the question reverts to have they sold any of the 5 patents ..they have confirmed they haven’t sold the two being presented at trial but not any of the others.

Nanonano..thanks i wasn’t expecting you to be able to explain non public information ! But there are some serious questions around what has been sold. Appreciate your responses.

It’s odd they specify neither of the 2 patents being presented at trial are included…i i wonder whether any of the other 47 PTAB validated ones were included..thought that was the basis of the core IP validation going forward. Will any such sale prevent the company from effectively challenging others if the suite of patents is not complete?

“IP Sale agreement: This encapsulates the divestment of a number of non-core patents from Nanoco to Samsung, with Nanoco receiving a fully paid up, perpetual and global licence on the divested patents. Neither of the two patents due to be presented at trial were included in the sale.

For clarity, Nanoco retains complete freedom to operate in all of its markets, territories, products and material types.

Nanoco will receive gross proceeds of $150 million (GBP125 million [1] ), $65m for the IP Licence agreement and $85m for the IP Sale agreement..”

Nanonano i understand that and the reduction to Oct 2022 was down to housekeeping i understand ..there further short term drop of over 130 patents is more likely to be the samsung ones…but down by over 25% which seems significant. Without knowing what has been transferred and originally we were told “a number “ of non core patents , the scale of the sale against total granted and applied patents is quite significant. It also would appear such a major asset sale would have required shareholder approval. I think the company needs to clarify around the sale part in much more detail and explain why the disposal didn’t qualify to require a vote.

Re patent portfolio last years report and accounts oct 2022

Large and defensible IP portfolio 503 patents granted or pending.

Current website

Nanoco is a leading developer and supplier of cadmium-free quantum dots and other nanomaterials. Nanoco has an extensive patent portfolio comprising over 370 patents and pending patents to protect Nanoco’s many innovations around quantum dots.

I thought the 503 was a whittled down portfolio concentrating on near term commercial opportunities.

There is a significant reduction in their stated granted and applied patent portfolio from pre to current, presumably the patents have had ownership transferred before we get the cash! Oh well I’m sure you can trust Samsung !

Nanonano i think your view very reasonable ..not sure if wilfulness would adjust your estimates as there appears a better case than most since there was collaborative evidence…i guess rather difficult to say they didn't realise they were infringing or that they came up with the solutions independently.

Anyway question is more on referring to $150m as the settlement on the infringing ..surely that is settled by the past and future global licence , which is attributed $65m so we are going very low per set on that basis. Might have been covered before and missed it but what are the thoughts on the accompanying patent sales which the company say are not part of the core technology in the infringement case ..just non core, but i note that the TH camp say at least one is core so needs more clarity from the company what exactly they have sold. It is impossible to blanket such things under confidentiality shareholders have a right to know what assets have been sold.

Anyway my point is do you believe the patent sale is really just a fabrication of value to get the overall settlement up and to avoid tax or that the patents have genuine material value to Samsung and why. Since its the lions share of the agreement little is focused on what exactly the settlement involves and what is strictly speaking relevant to the settlement of the actual court case.

Any ideas grateful.

I do not ignore any of that and had a clear idea of the risk profile ahead of the case. My judgement based predominantly on the communications for the company and what they might consider fair and reasonable that they set out in presentations.

I’m unclear why one can’t feel let down or misguided by the management taking $65m for all past and future global licence for technology that enables a competitive advantage to a multibillion mass market product.

Their pre and post settlement narrative is the flip..before it was all confidence and looking forward to court post it is all excuses why they didn't want to go to court, that many are parroting now. ..and the idea that they had to paint a big picture to their shareholders is a very dangerous one..one that might be admitting that the company allowed unreasonably optimistic estimates in their marketing material…all the bluster does not seem to have influenced what Samsung offered and what Nanoco took anyway ..but it might have influenced retail putting money up at 37p a year ago ..if they had known what the board had in mind as fair they wouldn't have touch the fundraise!

The point about appeals is being over egged…the size of award would have been rising as infringement continued ..but nanoco could have gone for an injunction on using tech in US the back of a court judgement , Nanoco had also started action in Germany and China which have an easy route to injunctions ..the company had some legal clout to make Samsung settle ..they would have had more clout post trial award than pre and also Samsungs poor reputation would have been further damaged from their treatment of small technology companies that they serially infringe.

On the point of appeals

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY&feature=shareb

At 45 mins , our Brian setting out how many appeals go to an exhausted state , it would likely not have been many years unless there was grounds for a full retrial which was highly unlikely.

Sure taking litigation action against a monster like Samsung is a big expensive and time consuming endeavour…but much of that work was done and paid for already..why fold on the eve of finally having a day in court that the company apparently were very confident and looking forward to?

Samsung Display has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of Defendants’ infringement of the '599 Patent' for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendants’ infringement is enjoined by this Court," the lawsuit says, referring to the 599 patent, which improves the image quality of a device.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/samsung-sues-chinese-rival-over-alleged-patent-violation-iphone-displays-2023-07-03/

We get your pain!

Intrusivethought..take care.

While i disagree with much on regulatory and corporate governance matters i do respect your knowledge of the industry and hope to get the benefit of your thoughts when hopefully there are positive developments around the commercialisation of the technology and the addressable markets going forward. While i see this as a cleansing period after much avoidable poor communications and indeed the result of the litigation itself. I think all shareholders will want to see this company finally start to find markets and move to commercial production supplying global markets and building a sustainable business model…which will then get reflected in a valuation of the company more commensurate with the potential of leveraging off the IP developed over decades than the current discount to pro forma cash in the business as we find ourselves now.

Nanonano

“ I'm wondering if they'll update the market upon news of validated materials, or if they'll wait until the end of year update statement.”

You should expect this to be announced without delay as it should be deemed price sensitive…it is a precondition to receiving any order and is in a timeline of expectation given by the company to be before the end of this month. If they are not going to achieve this material validation before the FY end they should also inform the market of such a change.

Think company has until Monday at the latest to call GM or say why not as well so there should be some news flow coming.

The technology was validated by the PTAB challenge as far as the company told us …

Nanoco chief executive, Brian Tenner, 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. 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.”

Pretty clear cut according to Brian.

According to Brian on a number of calls appeals were not too big a problem..99% of cases settled before appeals exhaustion many not long after award. In the meantime the award would increase with the increase in sales on infringing products during appeal.

Last point is Brian made it clear in presentations that the advanced organic sensor work did not overlap the display patents in the litigation case.

There seems a repeated idea that the roll over was to get additional business , no sign whatsoever or that it could delay commercial orders without it sorted….where else would STM and their underlying customer magic up a material elsewhere that has spent many years in development with Nanoco.

Much doesn’t add up and much the company has said post settlement is very different than the narrative pre settlement..just parroting their excuses verbatim doesn’t add new light. If the company rolled over under pressure from anyone..creditors , major holders , potential customers or advisors then it would be good to know why we took a deal that in previous guidance would not have touched fair and reasonable for the duration of the patents.

What we get per overall unit sale is really quite derisory against any comment over years of the Samsung litigation. Any answers anyone on the patents that form the majority of the settlement yet in no way featured in our litigation position or guidance up to the announcement they had sold major assets without any notice.

All rather bizarre.

A Jury trial award for historic infringement in USA to yr end 2021 and a Global all past and future use licence is also not the same thing at all. Using the Peel Hunt or Turner Pope or Edison ( all on the Nanoco payroll) models of $200-$300m you could add significantly to that US case number in trial by just adding on the 2022 infringement $100m , add more for global infringement , add more for wilfulness and add more for future royalty award. We got $65m for that global licence..no where near any accepted expectation in the market.

Why did the company not correct that expectation in over a year prior to the settlement if it was far too optimistic? The case only improved in terms of validation and all of Samsungs objections in pre trial were thrown out. The high end case was strong and the company were very confident they were going to court to establish the size of the award and wilfulness that was the story..what happened??

If the board actually answered the allegations with any detail rather than broad bluster and claims of selective interpretation then it might be easier to believe them. The board has treated their retail investors very badly in my view , it is easy to see why someone might deduce that the company was run for the benefit of connected parties ..the winners from the settlement appear to be such . The retail investors whilst holding 70%+ of the shares have seen the share halve from the fundraise they supported on a very bullish narrative just over a year ago.

TheCEO put in £5000 , loam and RG nothing and both were selling post the raise..the retail are used as a piggy bank but they don't get the rewards ..the management , RG , loam, ME all get success bonus’s ..the retail get unrealised losses. Who’s it being run for exactly?

I think you’ve used Rock the Caspah before , i’m not sure it gets funny by just repeating it…it really just gets more boring. Glad I could help.