Member Info for Kooba

Ok 2GTD lets just disagree..I believe the IP porfolio holds good value above and beyond the very small enterprise value currently attributed to the value. But i accept your alternative opinion..the asset sale of 118 patents of what was a whittled down portfolio was somewhat shrouded. However if believed in context they sold 118 non core ( save one not so !) for $90m ..they retain a lot more and some are indeed shorter term but many have much longer lives. The individual importance of the remaining 370 patents you might have to ask Terry about as he has read the entire portfolio of patents apparently ..which is important and must therefore under easch individual one left.

On the buyback 2GTD i am not particularly happy with the timing and how it was conducted at all ..it doesn't add up that a broker given a mandate to execute just stops for many weeks..however i am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

It is very unusual in such broker agreements for the broker to just pull all activity ..especially when the price is going down..i can understand better if they thought they were chasing their own tail pushing the price up. I also think it highly inappropriate to have been so aggressive post tender at the wrong level paying over 23p ..that was ridiculous imo.

2GTD..we shall continue to disagree ..i believe the industry value would be a significant premium in the current environment as i could see competitive bids. It might be that the company again conducts an orderly process as attempted before that attracted a $90m bid (mostly enterprise value) i understand but this time any offer would have to be put to ordinary shareholders not a few larger ones. Which seems to be the case with the previous formal sale process.

Just a viewpoint.

No problem 2GTD ..we can disagree on the attractiveness of the business to a large industry buyer , but i set out why it might be attractive. Often in agreed deals the price can reflect securing specialist talent in the area as it is difficult building such teams ..unless of course they just want the IP ..but i think as with a number of the other sector acquisitions Nanoco has a solid functional base to continue core operations and even sizeable commercial production..which does set them apart.

The Nanosys deal was mostly around relocating production to a state of the art facility in Japan much of the r&d development stayed in the states.

We shall see but there as i have maintained upside..with my reflected thinking on gen 1 then although the delay is a setback it does not mean an end to hopes of meaningful gen 1 ..but could be at least 6 months maybe more behind whre they hoped to be i guess.

2GTD

I would disagree on the value of the companys IP and manufacturing facilities to a large semiconductor company. One can already see battle lines building with the majors and Nanoco could be a key asset to develop new applications..but also to try to block the competition..maybe that is greater value. Samsung yes does have the ability to use our core technology but not prevent others from accessing it through licensing ..if they owned it outright they have that ability. Also Samsung as an example is very keen to move into the sensor market and i don’t believe the sensor applications are included in licensing deal ( what stop them !) but buying Nanoco could leapfrog them and stymie STM AND Asian customer..there’s a bigger picture here.

The big question is can a small UK tech co move fast enough and have the negotiating clout to make a success in the industry or as with many other players it needs to be brought in house by a major. I think the next 12 months will provide an answer.

The company has £20m cash and burning £300/400k a month on current revenues..so whilst not a ideal situation and costs might need to be addressed if no gen 1 revenues start to build..it is not in anyway a terminal situation as they would still have funding to gen 2 traction ( again not certain ) and a likely far larger market potential. So i would like to see a more frugal approach until there is some real transparency around commercial adoption. Reducing the burn would also make it a more appealing take over target.

Through research i have come to the following conclusions…most observations i am giving the benefit of the doubt.

The buyback was halted at the sole discretion of Cavendish. I personally think therefore that the broker has not handled the mandate given at all well.

The company announced to the market without delay when they realised they would not meet market expectation. Still some concern over the guidance that additional sales would be in CY 2024 not FY2024 and that the guidance in the market did not actually include anything for GEN 1 sales anyway.

Gen 1 sales are not dead..but that an original underlying customer is not launching expected first use product , but that there are multiple end user trials ongoing which could result in commercial adoption. But no guarantees or visibility ..but multiple opportunities remain so not just relying on Gen 2.

I maintain my opinion on the change at the top.

The company is aware that it has been left in a difficult position and has now rebased its communications (evident in the trading update being far less gushing) I believe the new NEDs have been active in this change in messaging and the leadership.

The company is very aware it needs to have a more coordinated communications approach and will strive to address this with the results so i am expecting a fresh open ( as possible ) and realistic approach.

The company is very aware they have left themselves very exposed to a takeover.

Just some thoughts…have a good day.

This far more recent case from the profilfic and serial alledged infringer.

Samsung owes $142 mln in wireless patent case, jury says - https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/samsung-owes-142-mln-wireless-patent-case-jury-says-2024-04-17/

Nb that in itself is a larger clean settlement for licence infringement than Nanoco secured. They got only $60m for all past and future use..the majority of the settlement was an asset sale not part of the case.

I imagine Judge Gilstrap spends a large part of his time dealing with Samsungs alleged patent infringing.

“ According to United Patents, a San Jose-based patent information provider, Samsung was sued in over 404 patent infringement cases in the US for five years from 2019, meaning Samsung has been sued once in every 4.5 days.”

Nb

Since its launch in 2017, Samsung’s QLED TV lineup, including the latest Neo QLED models, has surpassed cumulative sales of 40 million units. In 2023 alone, the QLED lineup achieved sales of 8.31million units.

So on the £6m apportionment on 2023 sales nanoco get 72p a television sold relying on our technology.

Find a precedent where there was such a clear infringement of patented technology that was a key competitive advantage in multi $ billion sales. The case was demonstrably far larger than just about any other similar case. Litigation funders only pick the easy cases with the prospect of over ten times the likely cost of securing a successful outcome. They had a number of offers apparently.demonstrating the strength of the case.

The problem is since they folded just before they day in court we will never know quite what would have been achieved in court just for historic infringement in the US..leaving further upside to pursue global and future sales..without knowing that it is impossible to know what they could have achieved in a jury award. Maybe the £750m for historic US infringement you thought ..and securing the £100m a year licence you posted ??

This was no ordinary case in size and strength..evidenced by Samsung not wanting to face a jury.

£803k now left…still a number of weeks at current buyback levels.

Thanks and thanks to Morbox.

Had a quick go since they resumed up to yesterdays print and reckon there is now about £846k left to do.and have bought back about 11.77m shares in total..

Averaging about 18.3p.

So still something in the tank .

Was a quick go not on a spread sheet so happy if anyone has had a proper go disagrees!

That they had to open to the market that they were not going to meet forecasts and knew the price would fall when they did..the price has fallen and they are now meeting their commitment..I don’t read into it that they now know anything more than before the statement otherwise they would say rather than leave a big gaping trying to understand the impact as we are left with.

If they did suspend the buyback fro 8th May to end July because they knew that a bad update had to come out then that’s rather bad.

What other reason to suspend the buyback??

They had done £1.3m at an average of about 20.6p..that was value accretive apparently.

It was to be ongoing and independently managed ..the reason for that is it can continue irrespective of management becoming inside or going into a close period.

If it’s then stopped because they become aware of something it is not independent..and they should inform the market without delay of a change of circumstance not 6 weeks later.

The resumption of buyback at the now lower levels is just meeting the commitment stated with the trading update..so they are completing it now.

Not sure they have that much more to do now ?Anyone got the latest idea on what of the £3m is left??

Terry

“I'll leave you with the joyous news that the buy back continues and this confirms that the company doesn't think it's going to run out of money for the foreseeable future and therefore that it expects orders”

It means nothing of the sort..it means they are meeting there capital return commitment that was not conditional on receiving orders. Nothing to read into it at all ..if they knew orders were coming soon for gen 1 why not tell their shareholders ?

In terms of cash they can meet current cash burn for 3 years ..if they pulled the small buyback balance what message would that send on gen 1 and gen 2?

You don’t seem to be able to read things at all I’m afraid.

Chin chin

Although ill timed a week before the profits warning and taking into account that removal of clarity are there positives to take from this note and the interviews with the executives?

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/sensing-the-opportunity/33734/

The interviews appear to be from early April ..and i guess must be taken with the tone of the statement on 2nd July 2024…which don’t make them tie in too well.

Statements like a second order will prove the first was not a flash in the pan..could come back to haunt a bit !

Also the tone around the very large scale display company they were very positive on ..in the statement turned to

“The Group continues with some small-scale commercial engagements for customers interested in display materials, although no new anchor customer has been signed at this time.”

Which seems to rather downplay expectation there too.

Still some useful points of reference for trying to find some optimism i guess??

In the new world of policing of this board i note that the two parties warning others of their posts and how they would be reported have both had posts removed for breaking the rules in the past few days. I also note in a personal attack on another poster yesterday in just one post the terms bonkers, narcissistic , childish and toxic were all wheeled out…all of which are unnecessary personal attacks and an attempt at bullying ..again. If you can’t just ignore posts you don’t like use the block function..its what it is for presumably. Often apparently employed by such people in some sort of threat but never actually used as they respond to every post.

Perhaps some should attempt to practise what they preach ..if they have any willpower or self awareness in what they are actually posting…unfortunately they do not evidence either quality.

Dieter Mey was on the board of Isorg and was until recently CEO until Jan 2024.

The company's platform and sensors integrate printed photodiodes on different substrates to enable large-area image sensors for the smartphone and security markets and extended applications in medical X-ray imaging

It was a private Company

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

SEPT 18TH-20TH 2024.

https://eurodisplay2024.inviteo.fr/

Paper submissions are specifically welcome for any of the following topics:

Active-Matrix Devices

Applied Vision and Human Factors

Automotive Displays and HMI Technologies

Display Electronics, Manufacturing, Measurement, and Systems

Emerging Display Technologies and Applications

Emissive, MicroLED, OLED, and Quantum-Dot Technologies & Displays

Flexible Displays and E-Paper

Sensor Integration and Multifunctional Displays

Liquid Crystal Technologies

New for 2024:

High speed optical MicroLED communications

Life cycle analysis of display manufacturing

Written in May 2024. The Impact of Colloidal QD Science and Technology on the Display Industry..

Section on sensors..

“Sensors based on QD thin-film photodiode devices, which absorb light and generate photocurrent in response, hold value in the market because of their ability to extend the absorption wavelength region of silicon at a low cost. QD photodetector devices can be fabricated on 300-mm silicon complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) wafers using spin-coating to create image sensors that absorb light in the shortwave infrared (SWIR) region of the spectrum where silicon stops absorbing. Colloidal QD sensors also provide the ability to sense in the mid-wave infrared (MWIR) quite competitively, and hold promise in leveraging their ability to sense in multiple bands that extend from the UV all the way through the visible, near infrared (NIR), and into the short-wave infrared (SWIR) all with the same sensor. As the value proposition for SWIR imaging and light detection evolves, QD sensor technology is well positioned to enable the broad adoption of SWIR sensing in applications where low-cost and large volumes are required.

Current image sensor technology leverages the use of silicon (Si) CMOS to drive QD sensor pixels. This means that cost will be constrained by the size of a Si wafer used to make devices, which today is only 300 mm (maximum). This could increase in the future, but the real value of leveraging solution-processable colloidal QD technology to make sensors and other optoelectronic devices is by fabricating them on meters-squared areas. Accomplishing this may require a move from Si wafer-based CMOS to colloidal QD, organic electronics, or other large-area and low-cost thin-film electronic technologies on foil, plastic, or glass to drive sensor arrays. When fabricated over meters squared, the cost will dramatically decrease. Larger-area sensor arrays can be leveraged for future applications in displays and human-machine interfaces, where all sensing modalities can be built into a single sensor array using lens-less sensing with the help of AI to create images and to process useful data captured over a large area.“

Think we know the author

https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1483

Someone who leaves for a better opportunity..wants to just leave and get on with the new role not hang around like a bad smell and you forfeit your outstanding incentives.

If you are pushed and have nothing lined up ..

“The Board and Brian have agreed that he will stay in role until a successor has been appointed and provide a period of handover and consultation”

..hang around like a bad smell for many months sucking the last money out you can…and you leave on good leaver terms and keep some or all outstanding incentives.

It will take 3 months for a search process at least i reckon and then the period of consultation is undefined.seems the one thing that BT has negotiated well is his leaving terms.

I agree with Terry Liam should go too…the communication around financials has been dire and i think the company would be better served looking at both executive roles carefully to try to restore confidence.

Quite a big one since the VL53L8 was using Metalenz technology in optics.

What I posted was around the relevant device VL53L9.i thought?

As often the case any suggestion Nanoco materials are involved will be explain fully in hindsight by certain parties …if they are not.

We can but hope …as ever.

I read some of it sounds like there is a potential big product coming in TOF range…is there anything that links to our materials I missed?