Member Info for Kooba

Seems differentiated core technology between A and B, C according to our Brian so you would have to ask him ..there may not be direct links between the compounds in development since the first is not using core QD IP.. One can only go on what he says “no connection whatsoever” with our immediate prospects in getting an order in sensors.

But you say you will give the management until the end of the year to get sensor traction and the patent validation has enhanced the opportunity , yet the only chance of an order any time soon ( 12 months at last) appears with material group A which is totally unaffected by the validation in QD patents which iare prominently for display and has no bearing on sensors. Nice try..is that how it goes?

BT in the OCT 2022 presentation makes clear on the patents that have been validated..they have “no connection whatsoever” with Material set A , the nearest term sensing opportunity.. though material sets B and C are related to QD patents so could be relevant further down the line. So if the big thing according to some is the validation for the organic business it appears very remote. The opportunity around display where we have the validation has pretty much left the building.

Worth listening to Brian at 42 minutes 20 seconds ..unless i am misunderstanding the “no connection whatsoever “ remark i am not sure how our sensing technology has been validated in the legal process.

https://youtu.be/AwdE4xAf6xY

22/10/2022

During the year, we focused the Group's IP portfolio on to a CORE of 503 (2021: 559) patents and patent applications with the MOST PROMISING COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL.

Current website

Nanoco has an extensive patent portfolio comprising over 370 patents and pending patents to protect Nanoco’s many innovations around quantum dots.

So we are down 130 odd patents with the most promising commercial potential.

Definitely does need a bit more explaining around this key part of the settlement which seems totally separate to the legal case of infringement.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/products-applications/patents/

Hah..well i have no idea why you think you know that a GM will not be requisitioned..i rather think it will shortly. I suppose we will know in a week or so.

Lackofthought ..oh yes i will.

Think i will be voting soon enough.

I’m not sure why you are wasting your time backing the board at every opportunity when the shareprice clearly demonstrates that the market as a whole and the shareholders who have left the building are far form convinced that the settlement was in line with expectations the company allowed to permeate through paid research. The current valuation gives a negative enterprise value against Mr Tenners contention the company is in the best position it has been in for 20 years. I don’t think it is just me that is dissatisfied with where the company finds itself or the communications to the wider shareholders body.

NGR.Please demonstrate where i have ever mentioned any comments in the Telegraph as being a basis of forming an opinion. I never have , you move the goalposts so often you must be exhausted. As for royalty income please give me a breakdown of the costs against “income” so i can better understand your revenue and profit point. Obviously there would still be central costs but what are the net margins against cost of royalty/sales?

NGR

Remember revenue not income.

The broker notes are referring to lost royalty income per unit sale..Edison are repeating the same basis of calculation and hence conclusion of what should be a low end per unit payment . All of the guidance given must have come from the company unless you believe three separate pieces of research came to the same conservative $200-300m conclusion for historic lost royalties to end 2021.

What is the margin on royalty revenues?? Oh it is income!

Seems that the Brian Tenner fan club is!

That seems immaterial to the point of organic value and you saying that the company would have zero value…there is a genuine value to the balance of the business and then there is a perceived market value i guess…but anyway who bought for a litigation settlement and sold when it proved a damp squib ..suggest you ask Turcan and Giles..they were the first out the door…though in athletics terms that was a blatant false start and the stock had lost 25% of its value before the rest of the field even got to hear the starting gun.

NGR.. So you are saying the fully funded organic business and the patent portfolio that was indeed fully validated through the PTAB challenge is worthless. The only value was in the litigation ? And there was me reading similar posters to you saying that the litigation was merely the cherry on the cake.

Actually trouble it was the name of my bengal cat that my children named..not sure if i should ask them about. your ever so valuable contribution. Ffs

Yup.

Well that seems a strong argument by me! Got to be happy with that!

NGR oh i do look at words like ..up to. As that was just an estimate up to the end of 2021..CY 2022 would have been a far larger sum on their workings. Also that estimate was just for past US infringement without any wilfulness and without any court awarded future royalties that could be expected from a successful outcome….if we then look at global settlement then $300m would be the starting figure from their research i guess.

NGR ..all you do is interpret on a board biased way..thats it. To interpret that article as referring to revenue ..it doesnt say that and “ there was an expectation Samsung would need to pay up to $300mn. ” is really quite categoric that that is the expected damages.

On licensing and royalty agreements as these broker research and paid for promotional directors talk and edison ..what is the difference between a royalty revenue of $200-$300m and revenue exactly. A royalty would be a straight for payment for use of IP it would be the same a s profit as there would be no cost to royalty income apart from central costs. So loss of revenue is the loss to the company.

In May broker Peel Hunt estimated Nanoco would get at least $10 per TV Samsung sold; given it had sold 26mn TVs, there was an expectation Samsung would need to pay up to $300mn.

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2023/02/03/nanoco-reaches-disappointing-samsung-settlement/

Its on Directors Talk..

this nanoco sponsored piece if referencing turner pope research and mentions us sales to end 2021 of 25m. this is what the company were approving for publication. irrespective of views on turner pope nanoco board hired them on top of peel hunt ( their last research early 2022 pointing to $300m settlement as it goes)

but this is the narrative nanoco wanted out there.

https://*************.net/nanoco-group-what-can-we-expect-from-samsung%e2%80%99s-historical-us-infringement