Member Info for Kooba

Certainly better than

In U.S. federal patent litigation, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such cases, the timeline to reach trial in California's federal district courts can vary significantly, but generally takes two to four years or more from the initial complaint to trial.

May be quicker than other settings but still takes time to get to trial due to backlog ..though the actual jury hearing pretty quick. I am sure LG are well aware of this and the cash left on the balance sheet.

Ai

“Patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas typically takes around two years to reach a trial, which is considered a "rocket docket" due to its fast pace and the presence of technically trained law clerks and patent-heavy divisions. The speed is a significant benefit for plaintiffs seeking a quick resolution, though some defendants may try to avoid the district to achieve a delay. “

I think what we now know is that LG are going to fight and have unsurprisingly good counsel …who will find challenges to draw this out and there is no quick settlement as some dreamed of. The costs will rack up ..so it’s an endurance test , but unfortunately the cost relative to potential reward might be rather different to the Samsung case…and we ( the shareholders) are now funding the adventure. That explains why they have not returned surplus cash as promised before the FY end.

I have said before any buyer of the business can cease litigation or follow it through ..it’s up to them if they own technologies , no reason if someone wants the “opportunity” that this case prevents any offer.

The timing of initiating the litigation when in the middle of a sales process is rather unusual in my thinking and it remains somewhat unclear as to the motivation at this time. If it was to try to force LG into bidding or a quick settlement , I think that might have been rather off beam. Nanoco appears to have little leverage …as normal.

LG themselves using E. Texas as a suitable venue on recent action.

Cannot see there is any reason to move to California ..their head office is in New Jersey.

June 2025

LG Display, a global leader in display panel manufacturing, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States against Chinese firm Tianma Microelectronics to protect its intellectual property, according to industry sources Monday.

According to the sources, the Korean company filed the suit Friday (U.S. time) with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, accusing the Chinese company of infringing on seven of its patents.

Patent infringement is the unauthorized use of the time, capital and talent invested in developing proprietary technologies," an LG Display official said. "We intend to respond decisively through legal action."

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20250616/lg-display-files-patent-suit-in-us-against-chinas-tianma-microelectronics

Nice they understand the nature of the offence!

InnoQD

Strategic Partnerships:

The company collaborates with key players in the display industry, such as LG Display, which has invested in InnoQD to gain access to its advanced QD film technology.

In summary, InnoQD's products are specialized quantum dot materials and films created to solve the challenge of quantum dot instability, making them suitable for integration into high-performance displays and other innovative products.

Half the funding has come from LG..who knows if their other shareholders are connected? Think Hansol were connected parties to Samsung.

Only 22 staff and likely too small to go for directly. Seems the S. Korean way is to set up “separate” side bets using technology they trial from innovators …at arms length!!

So difficult trusting any of these Far Eastern mega companies ..but you clearly need better protections in place than Nanoco had. Samsung and maybe LG were given the know how behind the patents and ran with it. Samsung had to cough but likely far less over the time they used the technology and the advantage it gave than had they agreed a licence or bought product from the inventors directly.

No surprise if LG fight all the way.. they have seen what Samsung paid per unit as a basis of risk and probably realise the ownership or cash position of Nanoco may well change dramatically before any court appearance.

I suppose the alledged historic infringement on the QNED series is the case built on technical evidence and historic sales over several years…but the bring them to the table for a licence is the implicit threat over other displays such as the MacBook if that is LG produced and does contain CFQDs as suspected and is currently being produced..not sure Apple who know our products well would want a problem with display supply. The historic numbers of QD TV’s maybe a bit of a side issue to show the company means business?

“Nothing in M & A seems fixed to me”

Most things in M&A with listed companies are fixed ..called the takeover code.

Changes made more recently allow the process that Nanoco is attempting in selling all the assets of the business without such guidance, not even using the advantages of a formal sale process which does have timeline restrictions. Also without the legal need to get shareholder approval.Keeping shareholders completely in the dark for an unlimited period and able to sell all the assets at a level without shareholder consent.

It’s not ideal.

The company did say to me they did not envisage selling technologies without shareholder approval but they also said they would distribute more cash before the end of July. So who knows the new management might have just changed their minds on what was previous said and just announce a sale done and dusted.

Approval would obviously take time and might not get approved if the level was deemed unacceptable by shareholders …so why ask the pesky shareholders?

Yes it is possible Edison don't know what they are talking about when they say further broadening of the JDA base would support negotiations.

Edison have said a lot over the years..most of it just fed by the company and diversion!

If it is a financial buyer ie PE then getting more speculative JDA deals in might be a small positive as would offset the burn.

If it is a trade buyer seeking to capture exclusivity or just access to what remains of the IP then it might even be a negative signing commitments to further JDAs in my view.

Interesting the series of events and the long record of collaboration between Nanoco and LG up to 2017..leading to no licence.

Clearly the action is on the historic sale of QNED TV’s from 2021..to 2024?

“Specific QNED sales figures for the US market are not publicly available, but LG is the main manufacturer of QNED TVs, and they are sold through retailers like LG Electronics. QNED models are a significant part of LG's lineup, sitting alongside their OLED models, and are known for their brightness and color performance, though the technology in them is evolving, with some 2025 models not including quantum-dot color. “

So rather difficult to know the quantum of claim but makes sense of the wilfulness in allegation on the collaboration and shared knowledge. Seems Nanoco were very fast and loose with sharing back then!

For a sale to occur before the end of this calendar year terms would need to be agreed by the end of the calendar 3Q as they set out pretty clearly in the April presentation. One imagines if there was competitive interest then Nanoco could call the shots in terms of those interested getting there indications in by end of June , a timeline the CEO set and we would be in very advanced talks with the finalist(s) as i type. Finalist one presumes that had entered IOIs at a potential level that would be acceptable and deliverable.

I doubt getting further JDAs is a factor..if so they have got one in 11 months what were they expecting before a sale when they started the process?

I doubt the LG litigation is a factor a new owner could either cease action or pursue action ..up to them.

The action is in Nanoco Technologies name so goes with the subsidiary that is for sale.

If folks think that either of these things needs sorting before any sale can take place then there could be a rather long wait and it means the sale process has been a major distraction and a waste of time and money.

FSP started in Nov 2019

In Dec 2019

The Company has now confirmed that it has engaged with multiple interested parties as part of the formal sale process.

Was there not another overriding reasons for ending the sale process then ?The world went into lockdown.

“Nanoco ended its formal sale process in May 2020 because the economic environment, severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, made it unlikely that the process would yield an attractive outcome.”

Multiple interested parties ..isn’t there always.

Maxi

“Kooba they were clearly trying to say as little as possible on the subject as they could, presumably in order not to jeopardize it.”

It is always possible they said little because there is little to say! Many automatically presume some good underlying reason when the company release little detail or go quiet ..i have no idea why! It could be that things aren’t progressing as they hoped but there is still a chance that someone puts in an acceptable offer. But it doesn’t feel to me that we are close to anything from the comms and the price action.

It’s a personal view ..others don’t have to accept it , like I don’t have to accept that the company are clearly trying to say as little as possible for positive reasons.

But hey that’s a difference of opinion from interpreting the same situation..no harm in that.

What a pathetic individual you are..

Just because you make mistakes and get everything wrong you can’t accept an alternative opinion.

You are useless.

Use your ai…its often wrong but is not so offensive and dumb.

No one is talking weeks..CDX has had the mandate for 11 months. The stretched timetable drawn out from the ideas set end of last year were given by Dmitry i sensed the confidence far higher in April presentation than the last update which was very short considering we are meant to be at the end of the process with an offer agreed in the next month.

Impatience would have been the best investment strategy with Nanoco…they have have decades and have gone from dead end to dead end as the enterprise value has plummeted.

When they go quite near key delivery points it is always bad news…if they were in advanced talks with a small number of “finalists” where they said they would be ..why not tell shareholders? There is no reason not to…..apart from they are not advanced and still getting the run around.

My personal view if there was a decent deal put forward then it would have come long ago and be concluded by now. The company themselves said that if the right deal came they could move very quickly to get it done. Also if there was a keen buyer why would they not have made the first move if there was a chance of a competitive offer. I think once again we are being strung along showing all our wares to interested parties and are holding out for the remote chance that someone puts us out of our misery with an acceptable offer.

Would like to think that it is Nanoco that are playing a shrewd game playing rivals bidders off against each other to achieve a great result…but i dont.

There seems plenty of overly optimistic posts so really just trying to question and create balance. Historically being overly optimistic on this counter has not been rewarded. I have held on the basis that there could just be a good outcome but what is the worse that can happen when you have no enterprise value. Quite often it is the worse that has happened ..as with commercial ambitions and positive cashflow that went down the toilet we now are almost a year into trying to sell the company and the cash position creating that value buffer continues diminishing .

So what’s the worse that can happen now? Asian customer walks in Oct but everything Nanoco did was just fine and dandy and no one wants to put in a realistic ( whatever that may be ) offer..oh and LG says see you in court in a few years time.

So i can dial up pessimistic or just keep to realistic in the circumstances.

I just am not keen on overly optimistic takes excusing any situation and making up bits to suit a view which is held more through hope than fact based expectation ..just me i guess. If folk just want an optimistic echo chamber then they can turn me off..up to them

On LG do we think they will announce the response ..it could be deemed price sensitive but unless there is actually a settlement it’s just part of ongoing litigation process isn't it ? The response may be submitted on this site…but maybe they can say it was public information on a fire-walled US legal site?

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00431/237495

Re Pickett…the big existential threat a couple of years ago to win a GM …critical he was.

“…if successful, would result in the departure of key employees who are critical to Nanoco’s future success, including, but not limited to, Dr Nigel Pickett, Nanoco’s chief technology officer, co-founder and named inventor on many of the company’s core patents.”

It seems one can only make off the cuff bullish posts around the outcome of the strategic review despite an increasing backdrop that doesn't really support that outcome..however much one might hope.

The process is getting increasing protracted..the idea of being able to run a dual process of selling a business whilst progressing commercial opportunities is fraught with issues. The company said the reason why they miss opportunities is because they are too small and the only solution was to be in better ownership. How they can develop relationships and get commitment from partners when nobody knows who will be owning the business in a few months must be a challenge!

Uncertainty like this is bad for business and bad for trying to retain talent.

Noting the key figure in terms of value Mr Picket is exiting..described in Nov 24 presentation as a “rockstar” he is now off and that doesn't seem to negate the know how views being put forward. Surely him leaving is a big loss to the company…thats what we were always told??

It is now 11 months since CDX were appointed with the promise that the process would be at pace ..or demitry saying it was well engaged and delivery in relative short order nov 2024.

We were given timelines earlier this year which said we would be in advanced discussions since end of June and be delivering a deal by the end of Sept.

All we have is

“We continue to assess strategic options for the Group's operating business with a number of interested parties.”

To me that is not advancing at the the pace they want or expected..maybe my glass half empty…but with Nanoco the glass always end up half empty as far as i can tell.

The company and Dmitry did not put forward a positive scenario of going it alone…hence the decision to sell . See Nov 2024 presentation again.

So whilst we can dream of their being separate buyers of the facility ..(why would anyone want to be manufacturing here..where is demand??) and the IP or secrets as we now call them i cant see that happening. I can see an IP sale on its own and a wind up of operations if the price was right.

But back to price…we know what the patent portfolio was valued at historically …with one adoptor fully paid up and no other recurring revenues from the IP it seems a high price and will fall as the patents expire..as they have done since the valuation.

So whilst it’s lovely pulling big numbers out of thin air i think a more pragmatic view is sensible in the circumstances.

As always love to be proved wrong and they sell for $100m ..just cant see it at all.