Member Info for Kooba

Page 8 of this Neonode comment does mention some large infringement outcomes as it goes…

Non of which are directly comparable. But Neonode could be an example of a company that stands its ground against the Samsungs and Apples of this world.

https://analisisdeinversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Analisis-Neon-v3-final.pdf

Ddubya.. “There are no directly comparable cases TerrorWit but I am sure you know that.”

Terry…” Yes I do know that Ddubya…”

But keeps asking the same stupid question over and over…not sure what that is a sign of exactly?? I wonder if 90% of shareholders know why?

Worth following this case for a number of reasons.

https://displaydaily.com/neonode-smartphones-slide-to-unlock-patent-lawsuit-against-samsung/

Small co taking on the big boys.

All went a bit wrong

https://www.tipranks.com/news/neonode-stock-loses-a-third-of-its-value-following-samsung-case

Latest news

https://gravesshaw.com/gs-secures-obtains-huge-federal-circuit-win-for-neonode-smartphone/

Further to go but small company in a big case taking it to Samsung?

On the Lombard holding they had 53.79m (16.5%) pre tender and 16.94m (8.5%) post tender ..selling 36.84m in the tender at 24p just short of 70% of their holding ..so subscribed the whole holding to achieve that.

So of the £30m returned to shareholders in the tender £8.8m or 30% went to Lombard ..so for having a 16.5% holding they played that well ! But i guess it was their preferred way of making a distribution so that helped.

Isorg were in sensors too and had large investment put in over the years before going into liquidation a few months ago.

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/nouvelle-aquitaine/haute-vienne/limoges/des-millions-d-euros-investis-et-une-liquidation-judiciaire-pour-isorg-entreprise-de-l-electronique-organique-made-in-france-2988590.html

“A company the size of Isorg was struggling to keep up with the pace and demands of customers of this magnitude.”

Lets hope lessons were learnt!

I guess you mean Sumitomo Chemical?

Could be all we know is that Sony are a big customer for their sensing materials.

Dieter May no longer holds executive positions in any company ..he was CEO of Isorg ( that had jv arrangements with Sumitomo chemical!) until Jan 2024 ..and remained a director until is was wound up a few months ago. His other roles are NEDs..so not sure what company you think he might want to merge with ..let alone thinking of the conflicts involved.

The reduction in shares outstanding does indeed concentrate interest in the organic business..but most of that retirement of equity was at almost twice the current price so no evidence that that has been value accretive yet! Though did provide a great liquidity event for the largest holder.

The change in shareholder structure just reaffirms the move more away from traditional institutions holding it seems to me and further into the hands of private investors.

Cable Car being the exception , who are a very modest sized hedge fund who have an activist track record.

Tony ..if you have answers to your questions maybe post them..might be useful.

I doubt it very much…sky glass gets poor reviews and has been available for a few years now , sales have been disappointing ..it’s not as if you need their tv to get the service..the small advantage was that it incorporated a sky box and they structured a finance package around a new set. But the picture quality was not good. The age of streaming has changed much it seems to me.

But can’t see TP Vision has a deal with Samsung display for the panels…hence why they are likely infringing. Where they get the CFQDs from who knows maybe Nanosys they seem to sell most QDs that end up in display products.

I have looked at the sky product some time ago and one must conclude it contains CFQDs..Nanoco had guided they thought a number of companies were infringing on their validated patents post settlement and they would pursue them ( much excitement of further licence income followed) ..unfortunately Nanoco did a wide review of all potential infringers ( they must have been looking at the market during litigation and knew who was doing what) and stripped many products down to see who they thought was infringing They then looked at whether it was worth pursuing any for initially a licence or if that didn’t work litigation.

I think they found few were infringing and that only one might be worth taking to court from memory. So from what was thought to be a further rich seam of income looks like a damp squib and they no longer mention that chasing infringers approach. Whether the infringer they found is one of the couple of display companies they have been talking too who knows..it seemed that was more around MicroLED than QLED products , but it could be someone looking for @ licence or even materials for ongoing display production.

Either way any infringement or licence would be a fraction of what Samsung paid as they are still so dominant in the market…and the published past and future licence of $65m. 7 years of past use and future use for life of the patents. When they have already made 40m TV’s using the technology. Per set ?

To think anything they post on a bulletin board is “important”...says a lot about where they are.

important

adjective

UK /ɪmˈpɔː.tənt/ US /ɪmˈpɔːr.tənt/

necessary or of great value:

Especially when it’s just repetitive, unnecessary and of no value just parroting the company line and adoring Mr Tenner, it is of no worth.

What business is Mr Tenner off to rescue ..do tell?

Whilst staying at Nanoco on full pay for an undisclosed timescale and then as a consultant?

Nb

Brian Tenner joined the board as COO and CFO in August 2018.

The share price was 35p then…he was there as a senior executive on the board for two years before having to rescue it! In the six years he has been on the board the shares are down by 60% the ftse all share is up by 11%. 71% relative underperformance in those 6 years.

evening troublesome seems someone is a bit rattled yet again ..parroting the same old nonsense …they’re really going to upset ngr with all the psychobabble ****e aren’t they. unfortunately they have no comprehension of securities markets that are quite important in understanding the goings on. but bless them they try ..but fall flat on their face every time ..but no matter how often they get things wrong they keep on batting on exactly the same comments over and over. just boring more than anything else.

seems they only have ever had one investment as this is the only share in all their id’s they ever mention. bit concentrated on a high risk tech play that hasn’t paid off..must be frustrating i guess. having a spread is the key..then when something goes wrong you don’t mess the bed.

good weekend..don’t let the midges bite.

And again…brilliant…is this actually meant to be parody or serious..it’s very hard to know, it’s so unhinged.

If its parody bravo..its very good.

It is now at a stage of being absolutely hilarious you being unaware of what you do…really enjoying it so keep up the good work. Brilliant stuff.

An absolute classic there Terry…a masterclass of having zero self awareness.

You are just a projecting machine fella.

Another huge self own.

NGR

..so we can discuss matters related to the company rather than repeated amateur psychoanalysis that's aimed to cause distress and to satisfying your appetites.”

Good to see you directly attacking Terry who is in whatever guise by far the most responsible for such “amateur psychoanalysis” bravo.

Oh and “. I never invested around the litigation, it came as a pleasant surprise to me. “

If they hadn’t litigated they would have failed some time ago as that was the only basis they could raise any funds over the past few years to keep the lights on ....so rather than having any foresight at all it appears you got very lucky that there is still any value at all. Like BT criticising investors that backed the company in its litigation efforts as being short term speculators who got over excited is really very disrespectful .. without that backing the company would likely have been just a litigation shell by time they got to court or they would have had to try to borrow money on appalling terms like the bonds leaving far less for any success to shareholders.

Respect.

NGR

“We’d be better served just respecting one another’s perspective rather than this constant bickering.”

Same post

“The losers are griping.”

“ The only people moaning are those who felt so much was taken from them…”

The continuing lack of awareness of what you post is remarkable.

The constant ignoring and appeasing of failure by the senior management even more so.

Those that are pleased with a near 70% underperformance of the company’s shares over the past 2 years and just cite themselves being long term are somewhat deluded at what has been taken and delivered. There thats me trying hard to be just as hard to be respectful.

“The losers are griping.”

How many winners are there in Nanoco ?? Are you winning??

Or are you just saying those that are not delighted by the delivery of shareholder value are losers or such like?

That that would explain your behaviour that is true. But glad you are starting to reflect more on your own behaviour…well done you.

Factor in global use and all future use to life of the patents and the then the 118 patents valued at $85m and the delay in getting half the settlement funds and then discount back your cost of money argument. I do not think it was a great deal at all and would prefer to have gone to jury trial. You will never know what could have been awarded for past infringement ..with likelihood of wilfulness and with a forward royalty award as there was ongoing infringement. We then had other geographic areas to pursue.

So you can think what you like but you will never know whether a correct decision was made..now that is a fact.

Apparently TH did engage local legal advice ahead of the trial ..a former Texas judge I believe and used that to form his investment opinion , someone very familiar with these cases and Texas law…i’m sure they didn’t rely on Edison to form their opinion but it was out there along with Peel Hunt and Turner Pope ( other effectively paid for research) all in the $200-$300m range of what a low end successful court award would look like…all came in at very similar levels despite all working independently of the company ..righto!