Member Info for Kooba

In 2023, over 25% of premium television sales were attributed to quantum dot displays. Leading companies like Samsung have heavily invested in QLED technology, contributing to this growth. As the market expands, advancements in manufacturing are expected to lower production costs, making quantum dot displays more accessible. Additionally, the introduction of cadmium-free quantum dots addresses environmental concerns, promoting sustainability.

https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2025/01/14/3009260/0/en/Quantum-Dot-Display-Market-to-Hit-USD-11-03-Billion-by-2032-Driven-by-Advancements-in-Color-Accuracy-and-Energy-Efficiency-SNS-Insider.html

Laughing stock.

Nanonano..you should just look at the cases if you are interested ..two went back to court with the same judge and were awarded higher awards than originally made mostly around future royalties.

But I can’t see Samsung have appealed…themofo case particularly interesting because like Nanoco they had been in talks for a licence then walked and used it anyway…familiar pattern. I imagine Judge Gilstrap knows Samsung and their modus operandi very well and seeks a retrial if the jury don’t settle high enough!

https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/samsung-hit-with-a-dollar192-million-fine-for-infringing-on-wireless-charging-patents

https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/05/08/g-communications-samsung-perils-half-committed-frand/id=176320/

As the last ceo stated only 1% of all patent litigation cases that proceed to trial end with a court enforced resolution after all appeals exhausted…he also pointed out that often cases are settled shortly after a court award and even during trial…i guess he was talking about the case relevant to Nanoco..but that was of course before they rolled over and settled.

The reality is that Samsung had already challenged just about all aspects of the case and the experts and evidence Nanoco put forward and failed on every count ..thats why there was a court date imminent..they had very little ammo left to appeal the case.

But it’s done without shareholder approval so cant go back.

A bad deal is a bad deal.

Havent really got the time to go through them all!!

United States

2019–2024

Samsung was sued in over 400 patent infringement cases in the US, which is about one lawsuit every 4.5 days.

But they didn't have a good year last year ..many brave enough to go to trial got good results and doubtful the scale of infringement was anything like the clear wilful infringement against Nanoco.

US patent litigation

Mojo Mobility

In September 2024, Samsung was ordered to pay $192 million to Mojo Mobility for infringing on five wireless charging patents. The jury found that Samsung's infringement was intentional, which could triple the award.

G+ Communications

In April 2024, G+ Communications won a $142 million jury verdict against Samsung for using patented technology in 5G.

Netlist

In July 2024, Netlist was awarded $303 million in damages against Samsung for patent infringement.

True , settlements are often reached immediately after an award or even during trial …and I am pretty sure a settlement would have been reached. Samsung had exhausted every block possible and little new was likely on appeal. Nanoco folded.

Lets not forget Nanoco had leverage as were taking action in other jurisdictions Germany and China that could have blocked Samsung products , also the court would have applied a rolling royalty which would mean the figure would continue to grow if Samsung buggered about in appeals ..with a trial going their way Nanoco could also have sought Samsung products breaching patent be blocked in US too.

If they had got a jury award of say $400m it would have been easy to raise good money to keep going or even insure against losing on appeal ..which is a thing!

All in all the big argument for settlement was that they could go on and do bigger and better things in sensors that would make the settlement amount less relevant…well that wasn’t the case at all as they are further from revenues two years later and looking to sell up.

Samsung with the revenues already clocked up and ongoing was an enormous case …Samsung played it very well.

Posted on other board but interesting that it indicates growing market in qd display technology…something Nanoco has sort of stirred away from into sensors where there is little adoption so far..thought many thought that qd in display could tail off but still seems key.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/quantum-dot-display-market-hit-130000234.html

“..but they still have a lot of valuable IP.”…so they say but that will only really be determined if someone wants to buy it or whether they can commercialise it and gain recurring royalty revenue streams or receive licence income ..something they have only managed through litigation with one party so far. And the licence given in the settlement was peanuts relative to the units sold incorporating the technology ..if that is a benchmark one should use then there is little to go for in any other display usage to date.

Didn’t think the qd vision terms were released…an unclear whether there was any cash or debt on the books…so its difficult to compare. I thought qd had also managed to produce some commercial revenues and had commercial agreements with samsung competitors ..so the reasons behind the deal at the time in 2016 might have been different to where the market is now.

I did see one reference to the transaction

“The deal has an estimated worth of $70 million. QD Vision (née Color IQ) is not a large company but it has helped Samsung implement quantum dot technology in its current LCD TVs.”

Maybe were better at convincing Samsung that they needed their technology rather than just stealing it !

Its just a level i suggest would prove attractive to many investors to end the sorry saga. I would prefer 30p ..yeah…or 40p or 50p or whatever some are in at higher up and say anything less is derisory ..i just adding some realism to the situation. We will indeed see if we get any serious interest at all.

The company has already banked the samsung money and time is running out on some of the key validated patents . What Samsung may have done in the past likely reflects a completely different industry position then..they also apparently offered $90m? For Nanoco when it put itself up for sale ..but that was years ago now and they now have what they wanted anyway.

The days of getting big money for qd companies seems in the past to me.

Here’s hoping though.

Why would that be derisory ?

We have no commercial turnover and are only currently working with one company to develop what might be a commercial product in a year or so ..we have given the biggest display company that uses qds a licence in a one off already banked settlement and some key patents run out in a few years anyway .Meanwhile the company is still burning cash at £5m a year.

I would love a £50m offer for the activities and IP reflecting the book value but that is 25p per share and you probably get another 8p with existing cash ..so total 33p..before costs of winding up and paying staff off..maybe 30p on a very good day when they eventually pay it all out.

A clean 20p cash offer would probably get support if there was no acceptable offer for the operations and IP …not everyone what’s another expensive spin of the dice and might settle for a 60% premium offer to market price..all imo.

The positive is that if the board should turn down an offer that shareholders might have accepted ( maybe at 20p level?) the bidder could always make an offer to the companys shareholders direct for the whole listed company..

But a great return if you just paid 14p like the new chair and ceo…even better for Milkwood who took LOAM out at 9p. Think these guys will all have a large influence on what transpires.

As said they could sell all the operations without recourse to their shareholders..a big reason why they have chosen to sell the operations and IP not the listed entity through a FSP??

The fact is they can conduct negotiations behind a veil and guarantee a transaction that might not be supported by shareholders in the process they are going down …good thing or bad thing?

The new ceo sees the current valuation as significantly undervaluing the company.

The valuation is £25m with high teens cash. They have the IP in the books at £46m..the market is valuing the IP and all other assets at £6/7m.

Difficult to see how they might accept a big discount to the assets and IP without it looking like that recent IP figure was very wrong…but can they get £40m? Would mean about 30p a share.

Appears pie in the sky and the market don’t seem to believe it judging by the price.

The director buys at 14p might better support that bullish scenario but may also be taking a far longer term view on prospects.

Limited downside but they will need some positive news to fall into place if they fail to find a buyer at a reasonable level over the next few months to avoid further slippage.

Seems a good upside downside play and I have more confidence in the new ceo and chair who have put decent money up at 14p..

He says with the process they are prepared to move fast if they generate strong interest from buyers…which he believes is the case..

So even if it is early interest ..he thought it was strong at the time of the results before he bought shares and got options. Expressions of strong interest does not mean there is any certainty and i’m sure they took advise…but he did guide to strong interest and that the process was running smoothly ..was well engaged and at a good pace.

If it progresses to multiple parties in the data room they should clarify the position as the chances of an acceptable offer at that stage gets much higher…one presumes nobody looking at offering anything but a level which values the business at a significant premium would get that far.

Sammy the ceo has already said he believes there is strong interest in the full year presentation ..before he invested a chunk of change ..so if there isnt ..he’s already put that out there to shareholders.

I just think shareholders deserve to be kept informed….shrouds of confidentiality have not served shareholders here well over the years and some transparency around the structured process and where we are is important.

See a paragraph from letter got garbled

However, due to the nature of Nanocos shareholder register , which is heavily dominated by individual retail investors , we remain vulnerable to one shareholder with 8%of the issued share capital commanding a disproportionately large share of the vote.

Letter received as a shareholder in the past few days .My holding is in a SIPP with Hargreaves but Nanoco write directly to the underlying holder…regather unusual and im unsure why HL give my details out as it goes.

Dear Shareholder,

I am writing to you as the Chair Designate of Nanoco Group pic. As you may be aware, our Annual General Meeting is taking place at The Heath Conference Centre, The Heath Business and Technical Park, Runcorn, WA7 4QX, on 21 January 2025 at 11.00 a.m.

Nanoco Group recently hosted a requisitioned General Meeting after our largest (c.8%) shareholder proposed to appoint two nominees to the Board of Directors. Thanks to the support of our Shareholders, these resolutions were not successful.

How ver, due so the rature Narrao is do rene dereister, with is oily dinsined shy in dual

commanding a disproportionately large share of the vote.

As a Board, it is our firm belief that the outcomes of our Shareholder meetings should be representative of all Shareholders, not just one with a disproportionately large influence.

The key to this is your vote.

If you are unsure how to vote your shares, please contact your broker. If you require further assistance, please get in touch with Nanoco - info@nanocotechnologies.com

The Board of Nanoco has a clear plan to maximise and deliver value for all Shareholders, developing our operating business while seeking to execute a transaction, and is clear in its conviction to return surplus cash to shareholders, having returned £33m of capital in 2024.

I would also note that both Glass Lewis & Co ("Glass Lewis") and Institutional Shareholder Services

("ISS"), the independent proxy voting advisors, have now published reports recommending that all shareholders in Nanoco Group vote for all resolutions proposed at the upcoming Annual General Meeting.

As the incoming Chair of Nanoco, I am incredibly excited about the future prospects of this business and the inherent value within it that we are confident we can deliver to shareholders. I look forward to meeting those shareholders who attend the AGM in person.

Kind regards,

Jalal Bagherli

Non-Executive Director and Chair Designate, Nanoco Group plc

So where is it in the highly structured process ?

If the company was waiting to get expressions of interest before dishing out lumpy awards im not to sure that is quite how it should be done.

Either way at the time of the results there was strong interest..before they bought shares and made those awards apparently so maybe they are happy to have that sensitive information internally guiding their activities in the shares…seems unusual approach!

An update that confirmed multi pole parties were interested and moving to DD phase would be significantly price sensitive i imagine especially if the figures you have guessed at being the ballpark are anything like.

If it was a formal sale process …which it is in all but name as they seek just to sell all the operations then one would expect updates on progress and transparency on the level of interest and timetable on how long the process will be undertaken…its all very price sensitive stuff and shareholders should be kept informed.

As to shareholder approval ..as they are merely selling all the operations and IP assets the company does not have to bother the shareholders , or owners of the company to get their approval ..they could commit to selling all the assets and let us know afterwards …they could put something to shareholders ..but why risk shareholders not agreeing? They still seem nervous of their leading shareholder by the looks of things!

“Work with CDX has commenced with a view to achieving the best possible financial outcome and to secure the long term future of the Group's IP and operations. The Board reasserts that whilst this process will be undertaken at pace, the Group's considerable financial resources mean that the trading business will continue to be supported to grow and not compromise its potential.”

3rd OCT process had already started at pace.

With the presentation update post results the new CEO in response to a question said “progress is smooth..well engaged and moving at pace” he also said that the company was prepared to move fast if there is strong interest ..which he believed was the case.

https://youtu.be/cKDBu0Qcg2k?si=E4lpYGgJbP2YhRBG 39 mins in.

Since the process is over 3 months in and it is a structured process i wonder when the company will provide an update on the progress of implementing the strategic review?

They said post breakdowns there was one infringer worth pursuing and when i spoke to the company a few months ago there appears to be one company they believe is infringing whose sales have now grown to a level to actively pursue.

The problem is , if it is hisense they will undoubtedly want to stretch things out as long as possible and go to court because they know the outcome last time with a much clearer wilful case ( post jv) and huge historic sales involved..a tiny per set settlement.why would anyone sign an up front meaningful license if the worse case is a low cost no fault settlement on terms you set out just before trial?

In the meantime delays on any revenues and uncertainty likely and rather questions the IP sale process..unless an IP troll gets interested i suppose who really goes after any infringer and gets blocks on products in major markets ..that might get more attention?