Member Info for Kooba

Total projection again Terry always wheeled out when you are exposed as clueless.

You have no skills whatsoever Tel quite clearly so try to project your own shortcomings on others.

Pretty classic stuff.

Oh and yes they said no compensation and yes a future royalty agreement would be seen as compensation…do read and try to learn.

This is exceedingly dull Terry you are really not adding anything in trying to be abusive and just making yourself look even more of a tool.

It is clear to me who is coming up with emotional and illogical conclusions from the facts given.

Perhaps the results due shortly will put this to bed …at that point i’m sure there will be no admission of calling it wrong ..again…far from it they will move the narrative …again and claim they got it right …again.

Rinse and repeat.

Yes, in patent litigation, a future royalty (often termed an "ongoing royalty" or "post-trial royalty") is considered a form of compensation for the ongoing or future use of a patented invention by an infringer.

“The definitive agreement confirms that no compensation will be payable by either party, and both parties will be responsible for their own costs incurred.”

There is no way there is anything materially beneficial in the agreement that has not been disclosed.

A future royalty would be seen as a compensation payment if it was in the agreement …no compensation means no compensation.

If they were to have agreed anything that was material beyond the non litigation pact they would 100% have to make shareholders aware , i just dont understand why you anyone is convinced otherwise apart from it suits the narrative that this is a big fail for Nanoco.

Samsung was not a payment for past infringement as such it was for a future licensing agreement and asset sale that ended the action.

Any future licence payment , royalty or asset sale contained in the settlement agreement would have to be disclosed as it was with Samsung. There was confidential parts to that agreement that some speculated would result in large commercial orders…such speculation proved wrong then and will undoubtedly be proved wrong now. Just wishful thinking by those that cant accept the vanilla terms agreed.

Ha ha ha…quite unbelievable take by the Queen of bad takes.

Surely that whole idea would involve Nanoco having significant leverage …but they settled for some patent useage they don’t need double quick without any royalties that would have course need to be disclosed if there was a financial impact.

This all seems to dropped nicely for Shoei

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1774620000

Nanosys

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1768388916

Let’s see if the clear route for QD adoption in SWIR sensors works out as well.

Those three things seem perfectly right to me..it’s your answers demonstrating the header.

They have finite cash and would be highly unlikely to be able to raise more, currently now burning £300-400k a month.

The IP position is now the biggest competitors are commercially using our IP in the main field CFQDs are used in not sure there is anyone left to sue.

There is no evidence to suggest there is any royalty element in the Shoei agreement.The clear message of no compensation confirms it is highly unlikely as it would need the disclosure of price sensitive information.

The company has written off huge amounts of U.K. tax losses for r&d credits meaning they can’t be used to offset litigation gains. Most of any tax paid from litigation anyway was tax withheld at source of settlement and not able to be offset against losses . We paid local taxes on both Samsung and LG settlements totalling $5m .

So paying tax in these circumstances does not mean you are making profits .. no.

Interesting the speculation on who are Asian Customer 1 and 2 , I’ve always thought Sony being a strong contender for customer no1 but had not really considered that we would be back working with Samsung showing them how to use QDs in sensors , hopefully Hansol are happy with the prospect of Nanoco doing their homework again !

I’m sure Nanoco have learnt from past JDA experiences …you would certainly hope so !!

Whilst past history gives no comfort I think the current valuation is really discounting any chance that these 2 JDAs progress to pre commercial scale up and ultimately adoption to scale production for mass market devices and emerging as a sustainable growing business.

The share price though reflects the changing strategy and lack of clarity emerging from a sales process and litigation that has not met expectations. Hopefully the executive Chair will make a solid case for believing shareholder value now rests in an independent future!

Terry you forget what you say post to post…it’s quite extraordinary the barefaced twisting and lies.

They say you can’t negotiate with terrorwits…..I see why!

Maybe there are non compete in respective markets clauses but they are confidential…..along with the royalty arrangements of course.

That seems to be how it works when you want to make things up .

How Asian customer 2 might pan out if they move to next phase which the Nanoco management expect.

April 2025

“The target of the one-year programme is to optimise lead-free nanomaterials to be incorporated into global electronics applications. Once successful, the subsequent stage will involve scale up to industrial production levels during 2027.”

So this development agreement which we should hear if it progresses soon could contribute to that aim too.

I doubt there is much scope for delays.

We have heard breakeven targets before but ultimately the decision will be out of Nanocos hands , if one remembers they were highly confident on STM taking the company to cashflow break even , we got one tiny order then they walked.

So confidence can be misplaced as things change.

“This partnership, with a major electronics supply chain player, is expected to lead to production level orders by 2028 if successful, potentially opening high-volume markets in consumer electronics, automotive, industrial, and defence sectors.”

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/nanoco-group--nano/extension-of-joint-development-agreement-/9210435

It’s not official guidance as such and there is no official forecasts in the paid for marketing as far as I know.

The idea of cash flow breakeven emanates from the Chairman statement with the 2025 results something mentioned recently that has been picked up. Exert

“In efforts to realise the

inherent value, we have fully revamped

the group strategy and reoriented

Nanoco onto the path of commercial

growth during 2025. With the increased

commercial pipeline, the group is aiming

to achieve break-even and financial

sustainability in the calendar year 2027.”

Seems to be an aim IN CY 2027 not FOR CY 2027.

It’s useful that he thinks that can pan out but is backed by nothing in terms of detail on how that might be achieved but one must presume from Asian customer 1 , maybe 2 if that moves to the next development phase which we are due to hear about soon.

But breakeven would clearly involve a very meaningful increase in orders at some point in 2027 ( and that build up could be before the end of current CY) whilst still burning £4+ a year you would need a jump in revenues beyond that to achieve such cashflow.

We can but hope but until there is actually real orders supporting the aim…its really just an aim if everything goes totally to their perceived plan , not much has gone to plan in the past but maybe their luck changes.

If the market believed that such cashflow breakeven was to be achieved next year with that required order build up before a commercial launch I doubt the price would be where it is.

As it seems to be our sole source of future revenue now interesting to see latest comments.

https://mvpromedia.com/swirs-reality-check-why-cost-not-performance-will-decide-its-future/

If there were royalties which improved the financial position of the company they would have to be signalled and defined…

Nothing whatsoever is mentioned ..and this is a company with very low thresholds it has very little genuine revenue and has no ongoing recurring commercial revenues. It could not be confidential and hidden.

Anyone think if the company was pleased with the agreement and thought it was a win and fundamental in progressing their sensor work they might have actually said something positive in the rns . The silence is deafening as is the normal confirmation of the costs incurred when finalising action.

Whether we find out what really led to the settlement and as Tenner used to say “what it means” who knows but there will have to be some narrative with the interims in a few weeks . Meanwhile the shares are reflecting the excitement this has generated.

Who says the confidential terms are material? All other terms are confidential thats what they said …not material terms just the small print to the disclosed agreement is all that is likely. If they were material we would have to know if they impacted the business positively or negatively.

So not material…stick to facts.

It is you terry that is making things up that are not there …point to anything anywhere that says there is any royalty part to the agreement…and don’t say its there but confidential ffs.

Having posts remove because they hurt feelings…what a snowflake.

You cant hide from the truth .

So you are relying on the Chairs aims with the finals as clear guidance to breakeven CY 2027 with no evidence that is achievable .

Ever wondered why you get it so wrong blindly following the company hopes and dreams. ..that have never landed.

Hey here’s hoping this time is different !

You know nothing you hate facts and like fiction.

As to there being any royalty arrangement ..why do you insist there is one there is zero evidence…it’s all in your head which is a very unreliable environment from previous thoughts and observations.

The profits exchange is the funniest thing if they hadn’t surrendered their losses for tax credits they would not have paid any tax …therefore not profitable in your book , thanks for confirming that …the fact you don’t understand is very funny…but a bit sad too.