Member Info for LordWM

A few more as of just now. I've added.

Amen

You take out a licence (an agreement that you can do something) to be able to supply/make a product, then then pay royalties on actual sales/volumes.

Lobo, Hawi, Feeks and others, some great posts echoing some of my thoughts.
Funding
I believe BT has said that Nanoco lead any settlement negotiations. They must be in close contact with the funders and if there’s a reasonable offer, Nanoco would accept. It’s not reasonable to accept an offer that pay Mintz, gives the funders their return but leaves Nanoco with say £50m, no royalties and a limited display market opportunity that lets S sell to any OEM under a patent peace agreement. If this above happens, the number must be very significant. The TVs wouldn’t be on the shelf without Nanoco’s investment in innovation.
Hansol
I’m still interested in Hansol. They’re a totally separate company and are not a party in this action. S have influence because there’s some family ownership links, Hansol supply CFQDs to S and S allegedly transferred Ns know how to them. They’re close. If Hansol are also covered by any agreement, could they then supply CFQDs to anyone without a licence using their factory that’s bigger that Ns, effectively killing this product line for Nanoco? I still think, as part of a settlement, S could use influence to have H take out a licence and pay royalties to S for CFQD sales to S and others.
Will they settle?
Headline figures were likely agreed on Fri for the terms sheet. When the detail is discussed, if it turns out S want:
- settlement number that isn’t transformational for N (let’s say less that £200m after all legal/funding costs)
- S can use CFQDs at will in anything without royalties.
- Hansol are indemnified, can supply S and anyone with CFQDs without royalties
Will they go for this?
Sentiment on this board is that N will accept a low end offer that won’t drive the share price, and will try organically grow the business with commercial orders (something we know takes ages, has scope for let downs and they’ve never managed to do so far). But you have S selling displays to everyone, H selling CFQDs to everyone, doesn’t look good.
I think that unless the number is meaningful, or there’s royalties coming from H, that it will fall through and we’ll be back to court.

I can’t imagine why Nanoco would agree to write off future royalties, just as the largest display manufacturer is putting CFQDs in everything.
Hansol are definitely not a defendant in the current legal action.
If this were possible, it’s a great deal for everyone:-
- Samsung pay damages for everything they’ve done
- Samsung don’t admit fault
- Samsung have no ongoing liability to Nanoco
- Nanoco receive an amount in damages
- Nanoco receive royalties under a licence from Hansol
- Samsung pay slightly more for their CFQDs from Hansol due to Nanoco’s royalty payments
- Nanoco’s royalty income increases as volumes increase
- Hansol become a legit manufacturer, under licence from Nanoco, that can sell to other customers, increasing capacity of CFQD supply.

Unless the settlement with Samsung prohibits it, pursuing Hansol, who manufacture and sell CFQDs using Nanoco’s patented method, seems the next logical step?
It could be that a licence/royalty agreement with Hansol is ‘agreed’ as part of the Samsung no fault settlement.

Hansol is a separate company that used to be owned by Samsung, but no more. However they’re owned by a relative is the Samsung family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansol

I’m pretty sure Hansol aren’t named in the current action, could it be that Nanoco settle with Samsung, and they receive royalties from Hansol?

Thanks Hellojello.
But after settling with Samsung, is there any reason why Nanoco can’t take action against Hansol, for manufacturing and selling CFQDs without a licence. That way Samsung can continue buying from Hansol and not admit any fault, and Nanoco can earn royalties as volumes increase over time?

The royalties part really bothers me. If Samsung are free to buy them from Hansol, make and sell a range of products to other OEMs at will, it takes a huge chunk of business away from Nanoco.

If Samsung don’t actually manufacture and supply the CFQDs, will Hansol pay the royalties?
Samsung took Nanoco’s IP and allegedly transferred the know how to Hansol, so have a case to answer, which is what this settlement is about.
Will Hansol’s role in this be part of the settlement?
If Hansol pay a royalty for all future CFQDs they manufacture and sell, that solves the royalty problem. Samsung will pay a one off damages fee as stated in the RNS.
Thoughts?

Nanoco have beef with Samsung because they partnered, transferred know how and were then dropped. Is it possible that Samsung will correct this historical wrong with a settlement, but that Hansol will then pay royalties to Nanoco as the party who manufacture using Nanoco’s method?
Are Hansol named in this action and are they part of Samsung? Is it possible that, as part of this settlement, that Hansol will agree to take out a licence and pay royalties?
Surely if Hansol are not part of this settlement, there’s nothing to stop Nanoco taking an injunction against them, as they do directly compete with Nanoco (by supplying CFQDs using N’s patented method)?

I was hopeful that this would be a 10x share for me. Has anyone ever managed to make a 10x gain before in another stock?

My bad Nanonano, that's a little better:
$720m total, less worst case 50% = £$360m
= $1.12/share or £0.92/share
That would be nice (and surely worst case).

I'm as dissapointed as the next guy regarding any settlement without accelerating future royalties, but when you think about the worst case situation:
"should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations" (ie, not below the lower range).
"a one off payment, with no forward royalties, for the full and final settlement of all current and future patent litigation" (current and FUTURE)

Past Sales
The lowest I've seen anywhere is $8 per unit.
$8 x a conservative 40m historical unit sales globally = $320m

Future Sales
Assume 10m units annually for dismal 5 years @ $8 = $80m

Total £400m
Less worst case 50% in legal fees = $200m
= $0.62 or £0.51 per share (above where we are now)

It should be so much more. If $200m is the final net figure, I'd personally roll the dice and go to court for a chance to win the settlement we all deserve, even if that's late in 2024.

Samsung want to avoid ongoing royalties becuase they're using CFQDs increasingly, and in new products too.
Samsung also sell to other OEMs.
If they're agreeing a price now, to use limitless CFQDs in the future and sell to the rest of the market, with no ongoing royalty to Nanoco, then that butchers the whole CFQD market for Nanoco (who invented the production method).
The RNS suggest a low end number with no ongoing payments, I don't see how Nanoco can be fairly rewarded now for this.
Unless the number is much higher than everyone thinks, I'd rather take the risk of going to court and then gunning for injunctions elsewhere to get a fair licence/royalty agreement.
Sorry to be pessemistic.

There are some great positions here, congrats to you all. I think we all believe this is just the start and we’ll end on multiples of the current price, at some point.
I was excited but nervous on Thursday evening, I’m just excited now, hoping I have time to sell other holdings to add more tomorrow morning.

Thanks Morbox and others. I feel confident. I’m guessing 30 days is a standard timeframe and will actually be less.

It’s definitely a global settlement, no sense in Samsung doing a US only settlement, otherwise Nanoco would take the settlement money and use it to fund the injunction in Germany, China and elsewhere.
And how can it be a no fault settlement if there’s still legal action in other territories.
Definitely global, and big.

And even if we assume $10 per display for future sales, which will accelerate beyond 10m units annually as more widely adopted, that’s a $100m revenue stream, virtually all profit.
Add a modest 6x multiplier, our current market cap of less that £200m looks crazy.
I bought more are just over 60p on Friday.

Also, BTs words about a settlement keep ringing in my ears:
- fair value for IP
- must reflect the global nature of patents
- for the lifetime of the patents

In terms of negotiation, Nanoco make concessions for removal of risk of legal action. Samsung make concessions to avoid a potential higher damages model, potential willfulness multiplier, and bad PR (ie, a no fault settlement).
I feel that is Samsung didn’t feel optimistic about the case and wanted a no fault settlement, they would have paid fair value and possibly legal costs.
Am I too optimistic?

The media keeps using the possible $500m court action when speculating about the global settlement.
Do others think this figure was for US sales only (a third of global sales) and towards the top end of the damages scale?
Nanoco wouldn’t agree a settlement for the US only. Samsung are the same, they wouldn’t leave themselves open to further action in other regions and the uncertainty that brings.
So if we assume half the $500 as a pessimistic approximation, and multiply by 3 for the global settlement, we’re looking at $750m PLUS ongoing annual licence & royalty payments.
Thoughts?