Member Info for Kooba

Might look at this crew again..ex Nanoco people who feature on many of our patents.

Not sure they forgot all the secrets and know how when they left ( made redundant i believe in cost cuts) ..showing that relying on such IP value rests with the individuals to a large extent. Unless Nanoco have developed a MIB memory wipe when people leave , they take that knowledge with them. See more value in patent portfolio any day…and again believe the secret know how is a back stop because the patents are expiring rather than by choice.

https://quantumscis.com/

Maybe because their core IP is expiring over the next few years…the secrets and know how are suddenly more important once these key patents expire??

The ownership of patents rests with the company.

Trade secrets and know how might rest in the heads of employees if would be virtually impossible to protect.

Let’s hope the ex cto doesnt let anything on in a new role…

Some moat!

Apologies..

due to the lapse of 13 patents during the year.

As this was an accounting note..these patents would have been seen as significant to the Samsung licence.

Most of the core patents will have expired by end 2028.

The only reason Nanoco has got any income for its decades of research is because they at least had robust patents protecting their IP ..thinking they have moved away from that approach an relying on nda’s preventing parties from using their ideas when $Millions could be involved seems a stretch. Also one images if there is significant value in the secrets and know how then potential buyers would want to know what they are buying.

Someone stated they had 550 patents..i think that is rather out of date in fell to 350 after IP sale and will have contracted further as patents expire ( believe they said 25 this year)

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/patents/

Also shows their geographic spread.

Ai

“The critical question about the scope of the Samsung license is also well-made. While the legal language is broad, the commercial intent was likely display-focused. Nanoco's future truly lies in applying its expertise in other high-margin fields like sensors and bio-imaging, where the IP landscape may be entirely open.”

Only days ago said the licence was across all Nanoco IP across all sectors of Samsung activities…it’s BS…says whatever the poor interrogation wants to hear.

As to patents Smithy is correct but the company due to finances moves away from soeculative academic endeavours that might produce such activity. They were though engaged in doing R&d work for large companies over recent years. Unclear to me when you are being paid to develop products for paying customers who might own the resulting IP.

There was some indication that Nanoco might use the phase one products developed but they were not protected by core IP anyway.

People don’t seem to like others questioning the position the company finds itself in or the protracted and secretive process in selling all the operations and IP. This company I don’t believe has ever really surprised on the upside so being overly positive and making narratives up of there being a happy ending I don’t really like because they are very likely wrong and are not supported by any evidence.

I do hope the super bulls are right and we all get a smashing exit in the next few months but I will not be holding my breath.

Who new AI could be so useless in the wrong hands!

No apology intended.

“I'm still waiting for the car paint jda Dimitri. Merc is interested”

My mistake!!

Thanks for posting the link to the Nanoco presentation Nanonano..on the basis of information therein and otherwise disclosed including the very rns that was linked do you think it fair to say the terry/ai post saying

“…they paid for global, perpetual freedom to operate across their entire business, forever, against Nanoco's entire IP portfolio.”

Is reasonable thing to post?

There was clearly underlying cfqd patents included but also completely separate IP enabling other applications that were not included in the settlement. I cannot see reference anywhere to the settlement ever encompassing Nanocos entire IP portfolio.

So personally think this is quite wrong.

Once again though with the good old confidentiality it is blurred in places as to what was included which i believe makes a difference to the underlying value of their IP and clearer guidance should have been provided in the interests of transparency. Shareholders need sufficient information to make a reasoned valuation judgement.

I imagine that many parties inside and outside of the company are fully aware of what is included and can be done with our key assets ..but the owners of the company are not.

Pv ..why lol. I have been talking about pv for years about improving efficiency in the commodity world that is solar specifically on small scale applications..we will now get overtaken no doubt.

But I will go off a dream that it is Nanoco that have helped delivere Mercedes pv paint whilst knowing it had nothing to do with them and was developed in house. lol

Still makes no sense why buying Nanoco if they had access to all the IP for any use is more attractive than if they can just use it for display and the buyer retains exclusive rights to all other applications.

A downer you say , I have been for a while and have been right for a while…puffers come and invariably go ..disappointed.

Thats life in Nanoco ..manage your expectations and read the signs..don’t ignore them and make excuses why things haven’t happened on time. Most of all don’t make up wonderful outcomes out of thin air ignoring a share price which tells you completely the opposite.

Smithy why would a competitor think Nanoco more valuable with Samsung having free rein in all potential applications rather than restricted to display ..I don’t get it.surely the value of having control and exclusivity of the IP across photovoltaic and sensor applications is worth far more ?

Ecclescake..Samsungs licence is not exclusive..it is the extent of what the licence covers that is in question.

And i would say that if the licence just covers display as we were informed it makes a big difference to any potential buyer rather than Samsung having free reign to use the technology in every area of their activity. We were meant to be focusing efforts into SWIR use of QD’s if Samsung a major and growing player in sensors can use our technology in that field all for the licence it paid of $65m..then having such a player across all potential use areas rather makes the purchase of the IP have less value. Just my opinion..I'm sure if you push AI it will says no its great..

“Why this isn't the negative you might think, and actually underscores the settlement's value:”

Nonsense.

Did your AI know of the historic collaboration between Nanoco and Merck ?

Nanoco signed a non-exclusive worldwide material supply and licensing agreement with Merck KGaA in August 2016, allowing Merck to market Nanoco's cadmium-free quantum dots to its display industry customers. This agreement enabled Merck to meet growing demand for safer, high-performance materials in displays and included provisions for Merck to eventually establish its own production facility.

So what IP around CFQD’s is Merck selling to Samsung if they needed Nanoco for CFQDs supply?

If interrogated in certain ways the AI just likes to agree with the questioner and gives them false confirmation in their particular view…it basically just leaves you with dumb and dumber.

The failure of dicks that use one AI source as their only reference point is that they are over reliant on that source and do no checking. They rely entirely on an artificial intelligence to do their homework as they have insufficient cognitive ability themselves to come to a conclusion. It makes them think they are bright but it confirms quite the opposite.

AI Overview

Samsung has an existing intellectual property (IP) license with Nanoco for the use of its cadmium-free quantum dot (CFQD®) technology in Samsung displays, a settlement reached in February 2023 that concluded a patent dispute and resulted in a $150 million cash payment to Nanoco. This license grants Samsung access to Nanoco's unique CFQD® technology, which is essential for manufacturing bright, environmentally friendly quantum dot televisions.”

The ceo clearly stated the licence was for display only …your great friend Brian..you calling him a liar??

Do some real research you obnoxious twat.

Product line

noun

1

: all goods made by a manufacturing firm

AI

“The license grant secured freedom of operation for Samsung's entire product line against Nanoco's entire global IP portfolio, past and future, for the life of the patents.”

Is this true? We were told it was just for Samsung display products. This means that also they can use Nanocos entire global IP portfolio in their sensors and any other application they choose to use in in..photovoltaic ..medical..lighting.

Seems the Samsung juggernaut pushes on hovering up patents and licences…

Unclear what exactly they are buying enabling CFQDs and what price they are paying. They have licence fully paid in in perpetuity for our patents and maybe took some useful ones in the 118 they purchased.

https://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=5398

Makes it increasingly difficult to know the value of what the company has as our patents start to end.

Hopefully something there that somebody wants and cant wait for the patent to expire.