Member Info for Kooba

All very interesting i guess.

On the Samsung settlement and licence i queried whether it was just display..which would encompass Samsung display which supplies other electronics manufacturers ..and it looks like the machine say yes they can..it seems.

On the use outside of display particularly as to use in SWIR sensors the response i got was

Hi XXXX,

Hope you’re well, and apologies for the delay in responding to your query. I don’t recall Nanoco ever revealing any details around the Samsung agreements. Both companies are subject to strict confidentiality clauses relating to what is contained in those agreements. Apologies I couldn’t help further.

So whilst i originally understood it to be just display applications there is no certainty around the comms at the time and no certainty from the company directly.

AI is truly wonderful but unfortunately can pick up corporate spin as fact…as we know from Nanoco’s past much of their spin does not land.

Interesting on the valuation modelling which makes sense from a distance..unfortunately as with most assets though it is worth what someone is prepared to pay.

Most interesting though!

I thought samsung had a licence to use in display? Why would they need a further licence to produce displays used in Apple products?

https://www.samsungdisplay.com/eng/tech/quantum-dot.jsp#:~:text=The%20Samsung%20QD%2DOLED%20is,light%20among%20currently%20existing%20displays.

It would be a blow having spent so much time trying to get into the Apple supply chain with our technology but if you give someone like Samsung a cheap deal that removes your competitive advantage in global markets ..them’s the breaks.

I did contact the company some time ago to enquire whether the Samsung licence also covered the use of the mass product of CFQDs for use in technology outside of display…such as Samsung being able to use in SWIR sensor applications as I understood it was just display to be the case. They would not comment on the extent of the licence…which i guess means they can do whatever they like with it.

It doesnt make it easy working out what the business may be worth to other parties with no clarification on what one of the biggest electronics companies can do with your patents.

Maybe the new qd oled will be clean as a whistle…fully licensed?

A new MacBook Pro with an OLED display, potentially manufactured by Samsung, is rumored to be released in 2026, as part of a significant redesign. This redesign is also expected to include a slimmer chassis and potentially the next generation of Apple Silicon chips (M6 series). The move to OLED is anticipated to bring improvements in brightness and color vibrancy. Samsung is already a key supplier of displays for Apple devices, including the iPad Pro

Smithy was told by the company the benchmark for starting litigation was predominantly based on the level of actual infringement in the market so any claim can be quantifiable. That had a target that they thought was infringing a couple of years ago and my understanding was that that target had now gone over that benchmark in terms of making it a viable claim in terms of past infringement.

The Apple Mac may or may not contain infringing products but proving that and gaining an injunction on an apple product in the US…good luck with that.

Nanonano.. “they go after the large end product maker that knowingly uses an infringing product.’

Knowingly is tougher to prove with some end users..Samsung was a slam dunk. ..and do they go after the display manufacturer or the end product manufacturer in the case of something like MaC Book ?/

I think LG TV’s were infringing ..but maybe now are not…but the prior infringement worth pursuing…but i imagine somewhat marginal..it could of course just be a shot across the bows knowing that Apple might be using infringing LG displays and to get LG to take a licence or switch to nanoco supply now rather than risk what could be a further and ongoing issue.

Errors

Nanoco Group PLC (NANO) currently has a negative shareholder equity of £-18.6 million, according to their most recent balance sheet.

Samsung paid $150m not $130m but most of that was for 118 patent assets sold not the licence.

“Nanoco will receive gross proceeds of $150 million (£125 million[1]), $65m for the IP Licence agreement and $85m for the IP Sale agreement”

So the licence not $130m but $65m.

Of the $150m settlement Nanoco ended up with less than $90m just over £70m in total and that was whittled down further ..they only paid out £33m to shareholders ( the minimum promised) now they have only about £15m left.

Idiots are the ones who cant get facts right.

Why do YOU write this idiotic dribble?

Can all be rather dull as its often picking through the companys own spin and regurgitating ..the truth of the matter is Nanosys has been far more successful in finding and supplying product to a wide range of customers over many years and is now in better financial ownership and continues to operate and is an important player in the industry.

“Nanosys customers include major consumer electronics brands like Samsung, LG, Sony, VIZIO, TCL, Hisense, Acer, and ASUS. These companies utilize Nanosys' quantum dot technology in their display products, particularly in televisions, laptops, and other electronic devices. Nanosys also has partnerships with other companies like 3M and Bready for manufacturing and licensing of their technology. “

Nanoco has had one tiny commercial type order being part of a development agreement which ended up being a one off..so there is no list of customers after decades.

If Nanosys has been serially infringing making mass market CFQD’S as i suspect that is your motivation behind these AI posts why does Nanoco just go after them now they are owned by a larger company worth pursuing?

The claim that only Nanoco can mass produce CFQDs has been made over and over yet aside from Samsung and their exclusive agreement with Hansol that followed from a JDA that claim has not been tested across the industry. Whilst understanding that going for the end user might have legal merit if they believe there claim holds up and Nanosys are supplying a larger number of companys using QDs that might infringe and there are many products out there incorporating Nanosys dots why not go for the supplier which might force a wide range of end users to switch to Nanoco supply?

LG litigation looks rather lame at the moment with the company claiming their latest range does not in fact contain any QDs ( so what products are they going to seek injunction against?) The past usage has been very limited so it looks more gaming than having any real prospect of a quick win.

AI Overview

Ai overview

Yes, Nanosys has a large and robust portfolio of patents related to quantum dot technology, including those covering mass production methods. They have been actively developing and licensing their quantum dot technology for various applications, particularly in displays.

Think Nanoco have a direct relationship with Emberion and have already supplied r&d samples direct ..unclear why STM involved.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/introducing-swir-sensing-applications/

Nanosys and QD solutions were private companies and both were taken over by much larger companies we do not no terms exactly ..they didn’t go bust.

We have tried and failed to sell up once and we are trying again..not sure them being independent is through choice they seem keen on going the way of the others…as soon as they can.

Good spot ..small company but obviously delivering and getting financial backing.

Did they raise enough to buy a bombed out QD company's assets?

here we go with the go see a shrink ****…are you the most obvious, boring unintelligent poster ever.

you know you get it all wrong and shout at others who get it right more often than not.

who needs to score points against you ..no bloody challenge.

Get comeback…Terry

Still waiting for an explanation of how nothing price sensitive happened in the last 52 weeks as you put forward.

Missing the fact that STM walked away from everything at the end of August prompting a 40% drop …up till then you consistently said it was just a delay and those that read far more into it were all wrong.

Wrong ,wrong , wrong …every single time ain’t you Terry.

The thing is if you were running the show you would have settled Samsung for a pat on the head and a bag of sweets.

He was sacked..dressed up as a walk. Was not his decision. Only have to look at misleading interview a month before the STM rug pull…he was very confident and enjoying the role with money in the bank..unaware it seems of the real situation in the background. His position was unTENNERable.

Making the same mistake twice knowing the same underlying customer and the risk of getting screwed again but not being honest with shareholders ….thats why he was booted out.

He then went to to mislead shareholders on the STM work which we now know but they must have known all along was focused on the same underlying customer that had previously walked leaving them high and dry again.so keen to bag the elephant having got trampled the first time that everything was focused on the one underlying potential customer again..failing to manage to secure other revenues that might have protected the balance sheet and gain some commercial traction.

Find such a strong case with validated patents where the infringement involves the defined product improvement (in using QD’s ) in pricing and the scale of sales…into the many Billions. Add to that the obvious willfulness of infringement..they wanted to use the QD’s but DuPont asked too much they said so sought a licence which again they did not buy. So just went ahead and infringed anyway. Bang to rights.

If Samsung thought they had a chance in court they would not have settled for what they did…saving them significant money.

Your love for Tenner is weird and misplaced.

He folded with the best hand ever.

Just like to be accurate..and the no bad news since 20p..go on spin that with the 30th August statement.

Also back then the company was still buying shares back aggressively which supported the price .

The good news in the last 52 weeks obviously was that twat Tenner getting booted out…still seeking a new role it seems . Though I remember you saying he was likely headhunted for a good role and he had left to take that upJust bllx everything you say Terry. You claim others just guess fair do’s but often get it right…unlike your guesses that a serially crap.

As to no bad news in the last 52 weeks

30 August 2024

“Following further dialogue with the European customer, the Group now no longer expects to receive further orders for its first generation sensing materials. In addition, the European customer has served notice on the Group's two year Joint Development Agreement for second generation sensing materials that was previously announced in January 2024.”

No bad news since the 52 week 20p high was recorded…shame there is no edit facility because that is wrong on all counts…as usual.

The 52 week mean is well below current price i venture…but lets not rely on facts.