Member Info for Kooba

“..let's say bids circa 100m ..”

Or they walk !?

Why ? You can probably buy the whole shooting match with £15m cash in it for 25p a share…£35m net

Think those £100m levels are not realistic at all…and very much doubt that everything hinges on what the CTO gets out of it!

The company has made it clear it thinks a change of ownership is vital going forward and that it would be difficult to raise more money as a listed entity and they still have no commercial revenues. It may not be a fire sale but they are not holding a strong hand. They of course are not going to say they are very keen to sell they are not idiots…but is by their own admission the best thing for shareholders and the company is to sell the operations.

Since the stated strategy of the board at the time of the director share purchases was to find a buyer for all the operating assets and the IP and the ceo has consistently said he believes they will achieve that aim…i would have to say that the purchases were made primarily on that outcome. Sure they say there is a good commercial backdrop…who wouldn't if you are trying to sell something…but there is clearly a more coordinated and multi pronged approach to achieving commercial traction than previous over focused efforts.

As to funding i think if the sale process is unsuccessful then raising more funds would be problematic unless there is a sea change in commercial sales prospects. However the company are expecting further JDA ( in multiple talks) this year which would offset cash burn…with the prospect of commercial revenues seemingly no that far off ( again!) . I don't see a quick settlement with LG , I’m not sure there is much leverage ..but fingers crossed that again could boost the cash position.

If they stay independent and they want to raise cash for all the right reasons…major commercial orders and it is for re-commissioning and building up capacity and for working capital as sales grow..i doubt they would have a problem raising additional capital and likely at a large premium to current levels if that were the case.

Hopefully a clearer picture and a far higher share price before the year end ..here’s hoping.

Latest . Today on SWIR sensing..

Recent one on display markets.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/

I rather think that he is very restricted on what he can say on an ongoing sales process..but has given some guidance on when the number of engaged parties are expected to put forward indications of interest..the most attractive and deliverable will then move on to the next stage of more expanse due diligence and how a transaction might be structured culminating in a transaction agreed and delivered by year end. I think he has been clear than potential investors ( read buyers) are both industry and PE. In fact i doubt PE unless they see it as a patent asset they can leverage off. PE are normally looking for cash flow or clear path to it…Nanoco is in a number of ways a bit of a start up still seeking markets for its wares.

It is easier to talk of the potential in the organic growth potential and since they want to sell the business as a going concern and not just a patent portfolio i am not at all surprised DS is selling the commercial potential as a platform technology as part of the process.

I think DS can not have been more confident in delivering an acceptable conclusion to the sale process.

Maybe we hear what we want to hear!

Yep I like the professionalism a grip on what he wants to achieve. Also interested in photovoltaics and have mentioned several times over the years and told it was now a commodity product and no money in it….if they can significantly improve yield though it’s a different matter especially in energy harvesting in limited space situations ..car roofs and the like.

I think he understands the opportunity and is realistic …optimistic in thinking an accepted deal can be delivered…see if he can.

Https://www.edisongroup.com/edison-tv/nanoco-group-nanoco-group-executive-interview/BM-1659/

You would have thought so ..though I would imagine much tear down work was done on the preceding years models which did have modest sales and contain CFQDs that were not supplied by Nanoco or a licence holder , one imagines.

Unclear if they have had a chance to look at the 2025 range prior to this initial action.

I sure we will find out at some point.

In the. Meantime from what the company has said indications of interest to be received CY Q2 as there are parties already in the data room…unclear when we will get a further update on that process.

Well from this article and confirmation from LG its possible that an injunction on current range of their QNED TV’s might not be an effective route in bringing them to the table…whilst it appears they were using in the past in relatively small unit sales ..they now claim to not be employing QDs this year.

“A LG Electronics spokesperson confirmed that the 2025 lineup QNED TVs don’t use quantum dot but has its own color reproduction technology called Dynamic QNED Color Solution applied.”

From January article..some time before Nanocos move.

https://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=5097#:~:text=A%20LG%20Electronics%20spokesperson%20confirmed,Dynamic%20QNED%20Color%20Solution%20applied.

Unless it is for use in other displays made by LG for other products.

Thank you for thoughts but you make it still seems to rest on an idle threat of being granted an injunction and just a means to get them to settle. Since they are not in direct competition in the end market doesn’t it seem that an injunction albeit even temporary is unlikely…guess LG might see that too.

Again the outcome on Samsung did not give them an injunction…why might it be different this time or is this an opening shot across the bows before litigation?

Terry .do shuuush I was asking someone else why after they posted that

Ref BT “Think he also said injunctions were rare in US unless a direct competitor (so not a TV co vs a chemical co).”

Indicating that it is the nature of the parties business in injunction cases rather than the patent validity that will determine whether an injunction would be granted.

LG Make TVs and displays ..Nanoco do not.

So again the question is ..not to you Terry ..what has changed for them to now seek an injunction in the USA? And why might it be worthwhile if it was a non starter before against Samsung apparently.

Not sure the point here …why are the new board seeking an injunction against lg then ?

Your points are indicating they would not get one?

Yes they explained previously that Germany and China were better jurisdictions to obtain injunctions and that would give leverage…so why go for a US injunction against LG now?

SmithyB I posted this before but there has been a significant change in seeking injuctions around patent infringement so some of the historic data might not reflect the current position.

It is more favourable now.

https://www.patentspostgrant.com/2025/03/did-injunctions-just-make-a-return-to-u-s-patent-litigation/

Nb your expectation on Samsung outcome under your NigWit name was $1b plus $100m annual royalties…as exposed before. I never made any prediction at all but did rely on company marketing for guidance which seemed sensible. So absolutely wrong there annd making stuff up…again.

It is you that puffed the settlement and got it all wrong …as now seem to be trying the same trick again.

I’m sure if the outcome is disappointing you will say you got it right and everyone else was stupid…it’s what you do…stupid.

I know one thing for certain you have been wrong in every prediction you have ever made bar none with this company.

It’s not about me it’s about you sunshine…you get nothing right.

Oh and Nanoco marketing says QD vision was $65m…not $70 ..but it’s all guesswork isn’t it.

Chin chin…maybe one day your lick will change and you will post something of worth..not holding my breath mind you.

…but Samsung paid Nanoco $130m already.

Did they ? I thought they paid $65m for a perpetual licence and $85m for 118 patents.

That totals $150m gross.

They got less than $90m net.

Surprised you haven’t extrapolated if 118 patents are worth $85m…the remaining 350 must be worth x.

Your level of dumb puff.

i know that your posts are unrealistically bullish and that you should really look at the facts of the current situation not roll out historic transactions and one off share prices to base your predictions on . calling people moronic because they have a more considered view just shows what a low life you are…proof was not needed but you can’t help proving yourself over and over again.

do some homework on the current position the company is in ..patent life etc to base your views on..you have said many times you have studied the entire patent portfolio so you should know it well , even in its reduced form.. also what was sold to samsung and what was it worth?

what do the terms of the samsung patent licence really cover and does it encompass the use of nanoco technology across sectors including sensors, not just display. i think that could be important in terms of value.

most of the deals you talk of were years ago and most were not successful for the buyer…the more recent deals such as for nanosys no terms were given but many on here saw it as a rescue deal…the very recent deals in the related sector was on semiconductor corporation (nasdaqgs:on) acquired swir vision systems inc. for approximately $20.5 million on july 2, 2024.

these transactions like the ones you highlight are not necessarily comparable to nanoco of course but being more recent the values should also be considered.

oh and grow the **** up.

do you ever read your own posts…i know they are crap ..but it might help when people respond to them.

after the worth £200m bllx

we had

“businesses like that would not find it difficult to pay hundreds of millions or even billions if they thought they'd benefit long term. think entities like: apple, samsung, dow, the major asian chemical company, akzo nobel, phillips, basf, 3m. anyway, it's a long list.”

no straw man or shrink required…you are talking **** terry because you know ****.

if a deal comes out at lower than £200m are you going to be disappointed …your expectation seems ridiculous for someone who claims everyone elses expectations are always far too high.

get a grip and stop being such a prat.

If i say so? I give you the link.

That was referencing your previous post and the 2-4 year timeframes.

On the presentation call the CEO said some patents expire this year and then over the next few years ..did mention the ones with longer lives linking back to the earlier key ones but unclear how the validation they went through might transfer on to longer patents.

If you say so….but I was looking more about the value to a bidder as it goes. And why are Nanoco not going after Shoei/Nanosys directly if you are convinced they are the supply chain infringer?

Previously there was the argument that Nanosys was not financially worth pursuing now owned by Shoei that is a different matter.

Be interesting to see how fast the injunction process takes ..temporary injunctions can be granted quite quickly depending on case and court time availability.

the idea that a major would pay through the nose just because they could afford too is very naive of how things work in the real world ..and is no basis to think how this works out.

samsung could have afforded to pay $bs for the benefits of cfqds to their tv sales…but no they stole it and refused to settle until dragged to court and didn’t even put a firm offer when they had the chance. then took the **** all over again with the settlement where they named their terms.

the view is just pie in the sky bs and is seeking to up everyone’s expectations based on bs.

witless at it again.

not much talk on the life of key validated patents.