Member Info for Kooba

“If that was the case why didn't Samsung make an offer in the past they could have picked the firm up for a mete $75m yet in the end reached a settlement of $150m?”

Whilst this is true with the great benefit of hindsight …the sale process was interrupted by the advent of covid and abandoned. This was indeed after Nanoco had started litigation against Samsung …but clearly before the challenges to the patents that Samsung made…I rather think they thought they could bat it off at the time or that Nanoco would not survive the litigation process. Either way i imagine they wish they had been able to agree terms with Nanoco back in 2019 ..but there are a fair few lawyers delighted they didnt!!

For those genuinely interested the patent position was pretty well explained in the latest presentation Q&As ..the connection between is that some of the patents that expire in the near term are protected by overlapping newer ones ..this is obviously the company's position but is the argument that the patent porfolio retains large value irrespective of the shorter date expirations.

https://youtu.be/8UFpGfe1FiU?si=PaY5FZrTjLPoY882

At 48.30 ..worth a listen.

By time that ever got settled i imagine a raft of key patents would be expiring on both sides…

Thought round one went with Nanosys?

“Nanosys has asked the court to declare that Nanoco and its American distributor, Sigma Aldrich, are infringing Nanosys’ patents. It also has asked the court to enter a permanent injunction barring Nanoco from selling its quantum dots in the United States, and it has asked for the court to award it triple damages due to alleged willful infringement.”

April 2009

“…In the settlement, Nanoco agreed to terminate its current U.S. business for its core-shell quantum dots. Those quantum dots were sold in the US by its U.S. distributor, Sigma-Aldrich under the name Lumidots. In the settlement, Nanoco did not admit that the asserted patents are either infringed or valid.”

July 2009

I guess the new CEOs wish to have much bigger financial backers is in such disruptive technology it’s better to be the bully than the bullied as Nanoco seem to been cast in the past.

Pretty sure if Nanoco had commercial orders for CFQDs that were being incorporated in Apple products they would have mentioned it !

Supply chains very difficult to get any transparency and wonder who has supplied LG for their products…not Samsung or Hansol I venture .

Are Nanosys involved I wonder..from 2022

https://nanosys.com/blog-archive/lg-invests-3-billion-in-qd-film-development

Is there a link to support that or is that an assumption.

Clearly if the displays are produced by Samsung display then the existing licence covers that use..it seems odd that Nanoco would be investigating the Apple displays if that were the case.

Interesting read around some changes in patent infringement in the US…might be a more favourable and swift outcome to any preliminary injunction.

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

Temporary injunctions can be granted within weeks if circumstances and court time allow.

I think these changes very much work in Nanocos favour and could prompt the alleged infringer To try to get an early settlement agreed.

Was just looking at the Apple Mac qd use ..they have never officially disclosed that quantum dot film is present which seems strange . But who is supplying the displays? Previously LG was the source of OLED displays but no clues who will be producing the new QD enabled ones.

https://www.channelnews.com.au/colour-my-world-apple-quietly-adds-quantum-dots-to-macbook-pro/

I guess timing right relative to new improved QNED range launch.

https://www.stuff.tv/review/lg-65qned93-review/

Whilst it seems that their past sales of qd enabled displays so far has not been huge ..the injunction route maybe be the driving force to get LG to agree a licence as they roll out improved products for 2025.

Nanoco proved the value and validity of its IP as part of the Samsung litigation process,” said Nanoco chairman Dr Jalal Bagherli. “At that time, we re-iterated our intent to aggressively pursue other potential infringers of our IP to ensure a fair outcome for shareholders of Nanoco.

“While there is potential for damages, litigation itself carries considerable inherent risk and the board must weigh the opportunity versus the cost. In this instance, we believe the potential return to be worth the costs of commencing litigation.

“Nanoco continues to remain open to finding a mutually acceptable commercial solution, but the action is appropriate to take at this time in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders, to defend one of our core assets.”

An LG spokesperson said: “As this case remains ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”

https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/manchester-spinout-nanoco-sues-lg/

Nanonano

It does beg the question why this happens so often. Samsung, Hisense, TCL, AUO Innosys, LG, Apple- all have worked with Nanoco to some extent

I did read that in terms of Samsung that they walked as Dow were asking too high a price for the product to make it affordable for them to use ( so they just got someone to copy it !) ..seems Dow were leading on many of the discussions and maybe it was their pricing that led to talks failing?

Terry is just a waster who craves attention ..adds nothing..knows nothing.

No one foresaw this announcement..really..my post a few days ago having watched the presentation..

Quite encouraged and have added..again.

Thought he dealt with questions well

My takes are that enforcement action on display IP not far off

That the next JDA is very short term and that more expected before the end of the year.

That the company must have a number of NDAs signed with potential buyers as they are in the data room.and that the company is indeed committed to sale..and are serious.

“LG don't need Nanoco's IP they got it for free they can simply chuck $5m to their legal team and say drag it out guys till Nanoco squark...simple legal cost economics..”

How do the economics look if Nanoco get an injunction on infringing products?

That was the whole point with Samsung..it cost them nothing to drag it out as they still had access to US market..an injunction could have cost them $bs in sales.

So this injunction route might get more focus out of the infringer.

What are LGs US sales of QLED TV’s?

i should stop s******* true!

i have a larger interest in the shares than ever..though not in cash terms!

having added twice recently..so i hope that now there appears several irons in the fire that the company gets more interest.

that second jda landing any day would help too…with 10 more in discussion.

who knows the shares might just start trending up for a change!

LG could of course bid for the whole listed company maybe get it for £30m -£40m and own all the IP and forget this legal case…seems a cheap option to me!

Odd the strategy of TH was to go after other infringers ..using injunctions i believe their expert on IP protection recommended , he was mystified why Nanoco had not gone that route against Samsung…

Is Nanoco turning into the patent troll they said they would never be?

The business is up for sale and we enter a new historic infringement case!

Pretty sure that was the TH game plan..though much quicker and i would guess more speculative in chasing infringers.

Nanoco accepted they had no expertise in patent infringement on the board at the time of the Samsung case …and they still don't .

Let’s hope for a swift and beneficial outcome for shareholders ..the fact it has gone this far though means that LG are unlikely to roll over in my view.

Feb 2025

TV industry:

QLED TVs – With 8.34 million units sold, Samsung commanded a 46.8% market share, further strengthening its leadership in this category. The global QLED market also saw significant growth, surpassing 10% of total TV sales for the first time.

Their market share has fallen as the market has expanded but still by far the biggest manufacturer.

As to going it alone…sure we had to pay the funders a big lump of the settlement…but they paid the costs..they weren’t specified but likely something like $15-20m.

Here we are going after a smaller target and i guess costs might be somewhat mitigated by past work but the result in or out of court will be commensurably less due to smaller prior sales one must guess.

Ddubya

https://caldwellcc.com/case/nanoco-technologies-ltd-v-samsung-electronics-co/

Caldwell Cassady & Curry helped UK-based Nanoco Technologies Ltd. secure a $150 million settlement in a patent infringement lawsuit against technology giant Samsung Electronics Co.

Different technologies…we are looking at QLED use with CFDs.

OLED and QLED are different display technologies with distinct advantages. OLEDs feature self-emitting pixels, allowing for perfect blacks and infinite contrast, while QLEDs use a backlight with quantum dots for enhanced brightness and wider color gamut.

Samsung are far larger in QLED displays.

Interesting the “wilful” nature of the claim but you go back 10 years and that might explain things more.

“DECEMBER 16, 2014

Nanoco Group plc (AIM: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other nanomaterials, today confirms that LG Electronics (“LG”) will be using Nanoco’s quantum dot technology in its 4K ULTRA HD TV lineup in 2015.

LG will unveil a new 4K ULTRA HD TV with quantum dot technology as a new component of its expanded television line up at the 2015 International CES® in Las Vegas that will be held between 6-9 January 2015.

Nanoco’s global licensing partner, The Dow Chemical Company has responsibility for manufacturing, marketing and selling quantum dots based on Nanoco’s cadmium-free quantum dot technology to the display industry.“

Quite what LG sales look like relative to Samsung is another matter ..Samsung has been and remains by far the market leader…so potential loss as result of infringement one would expect would be smaller claim.

I believe this has been the target since post Samsung breakdowns and that up until more recent times a legal claim was marginal in terms of risk reward ..they obviously now believe it is worth pursuing ..alone?!

I’m sure LG will be looking closely at Nanoco finances in determining how they respond.

But does this potentially make Nanoco more interesting to a buyer..including LG ?

But also maybe even Samsung ?

Be interesting to see market response ..