Member Info for Kooba

You need to separate facts from what goes on in your head Terry ..they are very different things son. I was saying that if anyone were to consider it , totally up to them, then they might want to wait to see 5ge outcome of the TH case. I have not suggested suing the company or its officers at any point myself. Try to keep up….or stfu.

Strikes me TH has an idea that going for Loam first was the way of going about things…and he undoubtedly took legal advice. If there is a successful outcome on that case it would then open other avenues as far as I can tell , though could well be settled before hearing…not the publicity Swiss Institutions really want ! But if it should be successful in court , how could that have been allowed to happen in terms of information sharing and wall crossing arrangements.

He seems to know what he is doing as LoAM have likely spent a fortune trying to get this thrown out and then appealing the committal ruling to no end. .I’m sure there is a plan. I think the company’s professional indemnity only covers so much though!

got to love experts who were massively wrong before events and claim to be the only ones who got it right after the event…several identities later and still not admitting what ids they were using before the settlement. just making **** up all the time ain’t ya sunshine.

I will ask a lawyer mate whether your £750m estimate and £100m royalty outcome was in the ballpark at any stage ..good idea. Why would I need a psychiatrist for …what are you suggesting there??

What do I need to discuss with a lawyer for then Terry?

Typical of you NigWit …a big lump of nothingness as usual.

Never knowingly managed to uphold any argument..ever.

Easy pickings.

At your expense ..you are just a clown who knows nothing. Easy wins.

£750m you say plus a £100m a year…wowser.

What I’d were you using when you correctly predicted the settlement level…obvious not this one ..I can go back and check like I did on NigWit and see if you were right.

Your post

“Tenner was quite clear from the outset they weren't going to provide a running commentary on the case. They didn't even state what they thought would be their chances of winning..”

We are not talking guarantees ..but there was an increasing bullish running commentary on their confidence in the case. Completely against what you posted.

“.. as a result, our confidence in this case has increased further.”

“ as a result, the trial can now focus on the issue of samsung’s alleged wilful infringement and the appropriate level of damages.“

“ a favourable trial outcome should then deliver a substantial inflection point for nanoco’s prospects and shareholder value.”

“I've never known such a collective dumbness before.”

I ve never known a bigger fake and liar before ..you are at another level . The real shame is no one believes your BS apart from you. ..and you can’t see what pathetic character you make.

And it isn't what I've been saying since I joined.

But you are NigWit you have admitted that so less of the third person…equally saying in this latest guise you got the settlement right isn’t exactly bright as you made this id up well after the event..being right in hindsight isn’t exactly a skill dumbo.

It is all I can find you posted in terms of estimates..you left the boards shortly afterwards didn’t you. There is zero evidence apart from this of what you actually thought ..you little ramper you.

may 2022 share price 38p before the fundraise.

brian tenner, chief executive officer of nanoco group plc, said:

“the strength of nanoco’s case has been amply demonstrated by the ptab finding in favour of every single one of the 47 claims under the five patents. the question of the validity of our intellectual property has now been very clearly resolved in favour of nanoco.

“as a result, the trial can now focus on the issue of samsung’s alleged wilful infringement and the appropriate level of damages.

“nanoco has overcome the first of two major hurdles in the litigation, the validity of our ip. as a result, our confidence in this case has increased further. while there is still much to be done, successfully overcoming this hurdle allows a straight run in to a trial later in 2022. a favourable trial outcome should then deliver a substantial inflection point for nanoco’s prospects and shareholder value.”

https://www.***************************/nanoco-groups-confidence-in-samsung-litigation-case-increases-further/4121065037

maybe you missed this kind of thing terry ..it’s all out there.

You thought £750m award and £100m a year royalty was realistic NigWit ..you posted it…I reposted to jog your memory as you often seem to completely forget what you post.

You really got carried away didn’t you.

That is a big $1b upfront payment you saw coming…where did you get those ideas from was it your extensive litigation experience or from the information from the company. ??

Either way that is higher than anyone I remember posting…maybe folks thought that you had a clue what you were talking about and believed you had a clue…that was a big mistake wasn’t it …and still is.

Even though i posted the exact figures on the settlement

“…an IP sales agreement worth $85m (£71m)”

Terry still cant get it right

“We don't even know why Samsung wanted to pay $80m for those patents. “

Zero eye for detail as you might expect from someone with their self professed experience.

£ or $ ..big numbers all mean nothing to terry they just post any old thing with no accuracy at all.

Really informative NGR so valuable a contribution as always.

Oct 2022 report and accounts just ahead of settlement

In the financial year, the Company entered the patent box regime retrospectively, which should provide an advantageous tax rate of 10% on revenues or litigation proceeds arising from the Group's IP portfolio.

Must be a reason to have jumped in at such a late stage.

Terry

“Ignorance is when you don't know something. Accusing someone of being ignorant is not therefore an insult, just an observation. If you feel insulted because you were called ignorant about things you don't understand (which, and we have to face it, is a large category) then that's a matter for you since I'm only responsible for the words I type. You choose how you feel about them.”

You are ignorant you know nothing and spout nonsense and have no realistic answers just on and on about finding cases that have no bearing on this specific case ..when presented with facts about why this case was significantly different in terms of proven benefit from infringement challenge and validation of patents and the very likely wilfulness as they accessed the IP through a structured JV and then just copied it means that there is no like case or the likelihood this would be a precedent.

Why don’t you show a case that involved all those factors and an underling infringement the scale of the infringement here..20m plus TV’s using our patented technology ..$20b plus sales ?

That settled for $65m past and all future licences and $85m of sales of patents that were from a scaled down patent portfolio. That Nanoco said had the best opportunity of near term value creation.

Since you have no idea why the patents were sold or the genuine value of those patents on has to believe the company surely that that was the correct value as that is what they told their shareholders. If the sale was just a ruse on Samsung or Nanoco’s part to mislead on the true scale of the licence infringement then that would appear to be compounding the position that some have that they were misled.

If 118 “non -core” but at least one core was portrayed as being worth $85m surely that would mean the other core patents would be worth more…unless you are suggesting that the structure was to use the patent box treatment of ip asset sales to avoid paying UK tax and that those patents had little value.

Which was it? Misleading shareholders to avoid tax?

Or selling valuable IP for the correct price as a separate transaction to settling the infringement..which means we got no benefit net of costs and “success” fees for the use of our validated patents?

It can’t be both.

* Feeks ..apologies spellcheck!

Feels.

The Hamoodi /LOAM/Nanoco case which has been deemed should be heard in court and has survived loam appeal could be seen as doing some real groundwork to define if there was any situation where there was not a level playfield between certain shareholders and the majority of others.although the case is against LOAM the allegations effectively mean that the executives of Nanoco allowed that shareholder to act with privileged information. Obviously the outcome of that case would be a key point in looking at any actions that might have disadvantaged other holders. At that point it would be appropriate to contact Mr Hamoodi about a wider action.

Camping?

I did notice a post was removed yesterday of the guy that sets the rules could that be connected? Mentioned mental health ..something i think we were told to avoid doing or would be reported. Who knows?

Can’t even get the currency right let alone anything else really poor.

“.. like as much as £150mn..”

Noting your litigation settlement was in £ as well £750m wasn’t it plus the £100m a year royalty..maybe you meant $ then ?