Member Info for Kooba

What a low vote in general (less than 18%) which meant a couple of resolutions were not passed as they didnt meet the 75% of votes cast bar by a holder with 4.3%..difficult to work out who that is from the disclosures and major shareholder lists. Will still have Milkwood showing i believe with 8.2% economic interest, it could be the actual voting rights they have?

The turn just shows the levels of PI holders and many shareholders are somewhat switched off here pending developments.

That would be a long old trip for many to just hear the run of the mill votes and regurgitation of public statements. I’m sure all the directors are well aware they cannot discuss anything remotely price sensitive not in the public domain.

There was a virtual opportunity for those who couldn’t make it

“The Company understands and respects the importance of the AGM to shareholders and the Board greatly values the opportunity

to meet shareholders in person. However, we understand that this may not be possible or desirable for all who wish to attend;

therefore, the Company will offer shareholders the option to participate in the Meeting remotely via a conference call facility that

can be accessed from any computer with internet access or through a telephone (mobile or landline). If you wish to use this facility,

please register at https://brrmedia.news/NANO_AGM26. After verification of their identity, details of how to join the conference call

will be provided to each shareholder who has registered.”

If they win against Shoei/Nanosys do they go for Apple for using their wares? After all Apple probably know more about our “unique” CFQD abilities than anyone! Maybe third time lucky at getting money out of them ! A strong argument though that they sourced from LG ..and thats already settled?

A clue?

“Uptake of quantum dots in computer monitors and notebooks has surged in recent years, enlarging the potential monetisation opportunity for Nanoco, if infringing quantum dots have been used.”

Https://www.edisongroup.com/research/seeking-ip-damages-from-shoei/BM-2739/

Nanosys claims to have pioneered 100% cadmium free dots. From our AI friends.

Yes, Nanosys (now part of Shoei Chemical) manufactures cadmium-free quantum dots. Since 2015, they have been a primary provider of heavy metal-free technology, enabling the world’s first 100% cadmium-free quantum dot TVs and monitors.

They also celebrate the cadmium reduction legislation. In the blog post previously shared.

https://www.nanosys.com/blog-newsroom/europe-finally-ends-the-cadmium-qd-exemption

Where they point out that :

..heavy metal free materials with 0 ppm cadmium and 0 ppm lead are not only in commercial use but lead the market with over 70 percent share.

This clearly features Samsung but one would think the take they have in the blog they are also producing 100% cad free dots?

One should also look at the folks brought on board for Shoei by their legal representatives Latham & Watkins.

Some top and highly successful IP lawyers such as

https://www.lw.com/en/people/brett-sandford

Who represented LG

LG Electronics as lead counsel in a four-patent case filed by Nanoco Technologies. The case settled on favorable terms for LGE in the early stages (Nanoco Tech v. LGE Elecs. et al; E.D. Tex.)

AND

https://www.lw.com/en/people/richard-frenkel

Rick’s representative clients include Amazon, Meta, Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Mimecast, Amphenol, Extreme Networks, and Western Digital.

They are wheeled out on big cases …Shoei arent playing hear.

Yes it is a very unbalanced view again..and who exactly is falling into a trap is yet to be resolved.

Presuming Shoei and their lawyers have not game played outcomes with the decision to issue proceedings of non -infringement is really naive , if you or Shoei thought they would roll over and not take exactly the action they have clearly has not been paying attention.

They maybe are doing exactly what Shoei wants and in the meantime embroiling Nanocos management in an expensive and time consuming case and they can hardly separate the ongoing sales process from these actions as there is a significant value driver to resolve. Pretending this does not impact the timing of a resolution to the CDX process is again naive . This could in fact be an excuse to end the engagement pending outcome…wouldnt be the first time!

The rocket docket system in East Virginia should limit the costs as should the work already done in validating patents which should limit costs hence they are funding themselves ( or shareholders are!) but with action and appeals likely this might run most of this year and more. For LG i think the action was a nuisance they wanted to just get rid of for peanuts , i don't see Shoei rolling over having started the action so this could go all the way.

The other issue with a counterclaim is that Shoei has only owned the assets and IP since 2023 and that any historic infringement pre that date would rest with the legal owner of those assets at the time which was a holding company i would imagine that has been dissolved and any assets liquidated and cash returns made to backers…whilst unclear that might be why such transactions are executed in this manner so the buyer would not be liable to litigation for past infringement.So any counterclaim may be limited in quantum and the value rests more in validated production of CFQDs in the future.

Yes it is a very unbalanced view,,,and who exactly is falling into a trap is yet to be resolved.

The premise seems to be the company with $500m of sales are desperate and are entering in the action taken out of a last ditch attempt to validate their products that have sold far better than Nanocos and that they with their massive resources havent thought this through and have fallen into a self made trap that Nanoco have just sprung…possible.

However pleasing it is to see that Nanoco are defending their IP does it not beg the question why Nanoco post Samsung have not gone for Shoei /Nanosys if they think they have been serially infringing for years? Why wait to counter when Nanoco had the resources and Shoei has money.

Not sure it will be as simple as some make out and any judgement can presumably be appealed.

So whilst one should have some confidence in Nanocos ability to defend its position i dont think underestimating Shoei is a good idea…do we have to consider that the timing might be relevant to the expiry of some key patents?

The outcome for both companys is not binary as there has been competition in CFQDs for many years and the years of customisation and development with the end users shows that these are not commodity materials that you can simply switch suppliers. So in a rapidly growing market there will be room for a number of players. One also has to consider why with a clearer validated material we are told is class leading why so many end users avoid Nanoco with its string balance sheet and ready to go production facilities and even an on site FAB.

Why a company like LG who knows Nanoco well moved away to work and source CFQDs from Nanosys needs to be addressed , is it price or product that has been an issue…the same question could be asked of all the jvs over the years when Nanoco has failed to gain any commercial traction!

How this all leaves the sale process and strategic review is difficult to ascertain but assuming any buyer is not Shoei for now i guess it leaves things hanging depending an ouycome.

Wheeling out the Caldwell Cassidy & Curry crew many who would have worked on Samsung and LG settlements.

Costs going up but big stakes and hopefully fairly rapid progress in this setting.

Yes as an executive in relevant industries true but again the new Chair has no listed company experience i am aware of …operating under cover in private businesses without the regulatory necessity to keep a wide shareholder base correctly informed is a different operating environment for executives.

So whilst i think the Chair and CEO are well versed in business and are serious they might not have the same attitude towards shareholders in a publicly listed company. They might well be playing a blinder in the background with negotiations but without regular and reasonable updates the shareprice indicates some shareholders have left as have lost confidence in them delivering value.

I sense a higher competency level with the new CEO in negotiating and business nouse but still the whole execution of the strategic review has led to a period of stasis and is dragging. Dmitry has no previous UK listed experience and little senior listed experience altogether. The company has previously been inclined to use confidentiality for being less than straight in terms of the true picture in my view and it appears that continues..the whole sale process is very foggy , having had clear lines of being a very organised process it is now anyones guess whether there is any genuine chance of a sale as time drifts on.

The market clearly sees this as negative and is probably right.

As to defending this action and the commercial position of its key technology this clearly has a major bearing on the companies value and its much vaunted competitive advantage in CFQDs so whether they have a strong defendable argument is key for shareholders to understand.

One would hope

“…and it is hereby ORDERED that defendant file its response to the Complaint by close of business on Friday, January 9, 2026.”

Overlaps with

“The Group is evaluating next steps with legal counsel and will update shareholders when possible.”

Unless firewalled legal submissions are our only way of assessing the companies position , though we do own the company and should be correctly informed of the company’s position since it could be significantly price sensitive.

TCL makes 'SQD-miniLED' its 2026 flagship tech – not RGB LED

05 Jan 2026

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1767625960

Could well be another good reason why Nanosys/Shoei are keen to clear their wares?

TCL sources quantum dots from multiple suppliers, including Nanosys for earlier models and potentially others like Chinese firms for their cost-effective QD film solutions, though there's been recent controversy with Korean supplier Hansol Chemical alleging some TCL TVs lack true quantum dots, leading to regulatory complaints and tests showing inconsistent material presence. TCL uses various QD technologies, but specific current suppliers for all models aren't fully public due to market competition and ongoing scrutiny.

One thing is for sure in its history Nanoco has done far better in court in extracting value from its IP than they have at decades of trying to commercialise it.

Looking at the cash position they had £14m year end 31st July

They are burning about £400k a month so that gets you to £12m.

But they are to receive $5m from LG

So £3.7m gross they have already accounted for most of the costs but looks like $200k more to take off leaving a cash inflow of £3.5m from the settlement.

So although it’s unclear exactly when that money comes in the true cash position end of Dec is over £15m .

7.7p a share cash or almost 3 years of cash runway on existing overheads and revenues.

What needs padding out is the targeting of cashflow breakeven in 2027.

With the Shoei action one imagines that much of the work in bringing Samsung to a settlement is replayed.

Samsung exhausted challenges before settling and Nanoco got key IP validated in the process.

So while Shoei must think they can get a quick win with a rocket docket in East Virginia one hopes Nanoco are ready willing and able to defend their IP and have the financial wherewithal to do so.

How it leaves the sales process or Nanocos IP position post challenge is all unclear but its unlikely this is a drawn out affair and one should have confidence that Nanoco can hold its own. As far as i am aware though Nanoco has never publicly called out Nanosys for CFQD infringement because they have gone after the end users…but they must be well aware of Nanosys products and how they produce them so lets see if their nobody can produce CFQDs in scale without infringing Nanoco patents has legs.

There was much talk from certain circles how the Samsung litigation had held back the company in demonstrating its commercial value and that with a decent balance sheet and validated IP the sky was the limit ..so far they have demonstrated nothing.

I still think the Asian customer potential revenues are not being factored in but you can’t blame the market for treating cashflow breakeven guidance at any but wishful thinking on the back of previous track record.

The good news is that the market are pricing in very little in terms of that commercial progress and little for the outside chance of there being an acceptable offer.

The price reflects the lack of confidence the market has in the company’s strategic progress , the ability to deliver a sale of the business or for delivering a sustainable organic business which is very understandable but hopefully too cautious.

Itoshima, Japan: Shoei Chemical completed construction of the "world's largest quantum dot factory" in Itoshima, with commercial production beginning in the spring of 2023. Nanosys' quantum dot materials are now manufactured at this high-volume facility.

So although a private entity with less information available they are a significant company ..

https://www.shoeichem.co.jp/global/profile/index.html