Member Info for LordWM

I'd be interested in unit sales too. I've had a scout around but can't see much, if anyone has an more reliable/current figures I'd appreciate any links. I suspect it would take a paid for market intelligence report - I don't want them that much!

3/3
LITIGATION DAMAGES AWARD & SHARE PRICE (for US sales only)
Worst case £10/display, could be much higher (see below)
1.5x multiplier for willfullness
Assume 40% of award in legal fees
Award for future display sales (4m annually in the US but increasing rapidly https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1661491292)

Past Sales: 16m displays sold x £10 – 40% legal fees = £96m (£0.45 per share)
Plus future sales 4m annually x £10 and a 6x multiple as this is a revenue stream = £240m (£0.74 per share)
TOTAL for a low-end court win for US sales only (excluding ROW) = £1.19/share

APPEALS
Samsung will appeal, and could delay any court damages payout for 3-4 years in the US. But Nanoco have commenced legal action in Germany, a key market for Samsung, where an injunction preventing any product sales could be secured in H1 2024, which could be catastrophic for Samsung and the OEMs to whom it supplies infringing displays. In Oct 2022 Nanoco also commenced similar action in China.
Appeals discussion - 4min 33 secs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z-ELdRSPF8

GLOBAL SETTLEMENT & SHARE PRICE
Nanoco will only settle for fair value covering all past and future unit sales for the life of its patents - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z-ELdRSPF8
Assume 40m displays sold globally.
Worst case £10/display, could be much higher (see below).
Assume 30% of award in legal fees (lower % as a higher award)
Award for future display sales (10m annually globally)

For global settlement – 40m displays sold x £10 – 30% legal fees = £280m (£0.87 per share)
Plus future sales 10m x £10 and a 6x multiplier as this is a revenue stream = £600m (1.86 per share)
TOTAL for a low end global settlement = £2.73 per share

DAMAGES MODEL
BT – “We believe the damages model should reflect the total value enabled by our IP, i.e., the value of the entire TV because without the quantum dots enhancing the display, you do ask yourself why would anyone bother money on a TV that didn't have an improved display.”

If you assume £20 per display:
US Litigation win = £2.38 per share
Global Settlement = £5.46 per share

DYOR
Background info:
Meet the Investor Presentation & Q&A Oct 2022 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY

2/3
PTAB (process of challenging the validity of a patent)
Samsung initially challenged the validity of Nanoco’s patents.
May 2022 - Nanoco won at PTAB / Inter Parties Review (IPR) confirming their patents are valid. https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/xqo5ylr
Nanoco CEO Brian Tenner (BT) (April 22 – before PTAB Decision) “Because the PTAB would have settled validity, it does mean that during the trial, we will just have to focus on two arguments, infringements and damages. And given that the trial is only one week long and each side gets 12 hours to present its case, it's actually really useful that we will not also have to talk to the jury about validity and only focus on infringement and their damages.”

Texas TRIAL
The trial will be a one-week jury trial, with a verdict at the end of the week and a damages number (assuming success for Nanoco). Within a few months of the trial, the Judge will issue a written summary with potential damages multiplier (up to 3x) for wilful infringement of Nanoco’s patents).
The trial was postponed twice in Sept and Oct, and is now confirmed to commence on 6th Jan 2023.
So by 12th January we’ll have a verdict/damages number.

BT - “the trial also considers the question of willfulness because if Samsung are found knowingly or deliberately infringed our IP, then damages under U.S. law can increase by up to 3x but we would note that the typical decision around willfulness in Texas is typically around 1.5x multiple, so not a 3x multiple.”

DISPLAY UNITS SOLD BY SAMSUNG
16M in the US, 24M ROW to end of 2021. (actual figure much higher).
https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/growing-confidence/30787/
BT (April 22) - “We're also aware, based on press reports that Samsung are now selling their panels to other huge multinationals which all serve to increase the number of potentially infringing units that are out there in the market. And as I mentioned in a couple of slides earlier, the QD use cases are expanding to include telephones, tablets, phablets and advertising, public displays, etcetera.”

1/3
It’s likely that we’ll have some new eyes on this board as the 6th Jan trial date approaches, so I’ve updated a post I made a couple of months back (below). Apologies to the regulars who may have seen before.
For anyone new, this is an awesome board containing lots of research, thoughtful comment and respectful discussion, read on to learn about Nanoco’s huge potential.

BACKGROUND
- Quantum dots are becoming increasingly used/evaluated across a broad range of applications, particularly displays and sensors, both huge markets. We’re at very early days of adoption, the potential is colossal. QDs manufactured at scale contain harmful Cadmium, which is likely to be banned in consumer devices for safety and environmental reasons.
- Nanoco have a patented method of manufacturing Cadmium Free Quantum Dots (CFQDs) and maintain that it’s impossible to manufacture them at scale without using their patented method.
- Samsung approached Nanoco in 2006 to evaluate CFQDs in TV displays, asking for help creating CFQDs at industrial scale, something they’d tried and failed to do
- Nanoco collaborated with Samsung for 6-7 years, Nanoco created a partnership with Dow Chemical who built a factory in Korea to supply CFQDs (under licence from Nanoco) to Samsung’s display manufacturing business
- Nanoco were “pretty disappointed” when Samsung ended this collaboration and then launched a TV within a year using CFQDs, without taking out a licence for Nanoco’s technology or a supply agreement with them or one of their partners.
-Samsung appointed a third party to manufacture and supply CFQDs (Hansol- who had no history making CFQDs)
QD TV’s create an incredibly rich viewing experience, Samsung have made and sold millions of them globally. They also supply CFQD screens to other TV manufacturers. CFQD TVs have been so successful for Samsung that they’re building new manufacturing capacity and phasing out non-CFQD displays.
- After informal conversations which got nowhere, Nanoco started litigation in the US.
- Within the past few weeks, Nanoco have also commenced legal action in Germany and China

LEGAL STRATEGY AND FUNDING
Nanoco are a small company with limited funding. Samsung clearly did everything to delay any legal action to apply pressure.
Nanoco have appointed a no-win-no-fee legal partner to challenge Samsung. Nanoco’s legal partner researched the case for 12 months before committing, and have had privileged access to information during legal discovery, so have a better understanding of the strength of Nanoco’s case than anyone. They’re so confident that within the past few weeks, they’ve also agreed to commence and fund legal action in Germany and China.
If Samsung hadn’t infringed Nanoco’s patents, they would have explained how, to stop costly legal action.
Nanoco raised funding in June 2022 which gives a cash runway to 2025, even if they receive no commercial orders before then (commercial orders are imminent).

Very sexy RNS, good luck everyone.

Even a very low award ($5-£10) should be significant due to the number of units sold to date, displays sold to other OEMs and other use cases (eg gaming monitors).

Bit of a price spike just now, is anyone aware of anything?

More evidence of wider adoption, driven by Samsung.
After a win in Texas, it will all be about applying as much pressure as possible to bring them to the table.
The stakes are high for Samsung, we have to get to the point where they're forced to settle.
We should have a major re-rating with the court win, even though it may be a further 18 months (worst case) before a settlement, and huge payday for Nanoco and it's patient investors.
In the meantime, an announcement about a commercial sensor order that extends the cash runway beyond 2025/makes us cash positive, will do nicely.

It's a frustrating time because there's nothing new to talk about.
I listened to this again last week, which answered all of our loose end questions (I've added more since then) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY
We know the case is strong. We should all be rewarded to varying degrees when:
- A trial date is confirmed (any time from this afternoon to Feb)
- A win in court - likely (end Q1,23 at latest, posisbly as soon as Dec)
- The Germany court date approaches - End 2023/Q1 2024 I think
- A global settlement is reached - likely some time in 2023/H1,24

My expectations of the value that will be unlocked when a settlement happens keep rising. Samsung are committiing to making CFQDs mainstream in display units, and other OEMs are doing the same, by talking to Nanoco (as mentioned in the investor call) or by buying from Samsung. Plus the excellent contributors to this board keep sharing content/evidence of wider QD adoption in other use cases.
And all of this is seperate to commercial orders for applications in sensors.
I have a feeling this share will rocket at some point...
Good luck to everyone.

Managed to buy more at 33.5 today with a limit order, hoping for trial date news soon....

BT did cover, in the meet the investor call, instances where Samsung sell products containing Nanoco's IP to other OEMs. Nanoco would be paid a royalty by Samsung in these circumstances.
It appears that the age of the QD is arriving with more widespread adoption in different use cases. Samsung have been very vocal about environmental issues/use of CFQDs, so this will be great news for Nanoco and investors following a court win.
It's becoming clearer why Samsung are desperate to fight/hold out - they're accelerating use and supply of QDs, so commercially it's a huge. BT said 99% of cases settle at some point - it virtually never gets to the point where the US Supreme Court finally says 'right that's the end, now pay up'. I'm guessing Samsung have to reach the tipping point where there's no doubt that they can'w win, and holding out for longer will make it more punative. Hopefully this will be at some point after a win for Nanoco in Texas and before an injunction in Germany/China - so before Q1 2024 from memory.

BT said on the investor call that no one is able to manufacture CFQDs at scale without infringing Nanoco’s patents. Are Quantun Science claiming they can do this? If so does that mean they they and possibly Nanosys are next in the firing line after Samsung? But as Quantum Science and Nanosys compete directly with Nanoco (or by manufacturing and supplying CFQDs) injunctions could be a realistic remedy in all global jurisdictions, although agreeing royalty payments is more likely as Nanoco could never meet demand.
So many companies and analysts are talking about QD adoption and their many applications, if Nanoco can defend their tech and earn royalties the earnings opportunity is staggering.

That was great, I feel totally reassured about Nanoco's potential, including the strength of their IP, likelihood of success vs Samsung, the size of the collossal market opportunity and likelihood of imminent commercial orders. It feels like the age of mass adoption of QDs in sensors and displays is fast approaching.
Within a 3 - 6 months timeframe we should have a court win (pending appeals but another validation of Ns tech and patents, and possibly a settlement), commercial orders and a viable company.
Any new investors will learn everything they need to know by listening to that presentation and Q&A.
Good luck all, I'll be adding when the price dips like this.

I just listened to the analyst call, couple of things struck me:
1 - There seems to be good progress with a larger number of customers across display and sensing, which is great.
2 - As there appears to be little attempt to settle by Samsung, it could take longer than longer than I'd anticipated to bring this to a conclusion. N seem to be doing an amazing job applying pressure and managing finances and costs.

I've missed the deadline, but I wish I'd asked a couple of questions relating to infringement of Nanoco's IP and whether anyone else is able to manufacture CFQDs at industrial scale using other methods.

1 - Are you aware of any other CFQD manufacturers that are potentially infringing Nanoco's patented IP.
2 - Are you aware of anyone that is able to legitimately manufacture CFQD at scale using a method that doesn't infringe Nanoco's IP, and would compete with Nanoco.

If anyone knows the answers I'd appreciate it.

The results are the results, shouldn't be too surprising in itself, we know where we're likely to be. We may get minor updates on work packages which will be nice.
We'd know from dockets if the trial was scheduled, so don't suspect we'll hear anything concrete about that.
The elephants in the room everyone will be looking at are:
- is the level of confidence about litigation as high as before/has anything changed
- any update on commercial orders
There's a very very very outside chance of an announcement on a settlement or commercial order, but unlikely IMO.
I suspect we'll not get anything concrete from tomorrow, but will hopefully get a sense of their sentiment, which will hopefully be positive and reassuring.

I'd say unlikely Nanogeddon, with display sales through partners at £10 per display, it should be way more than £100m annually :)

BT said (I think on the April earnings call) that the court may make an award for future sales, otherwise further litigation would be needed. I'm guessing Nanoco will ask for this if sucessful, otherwise you have the problem Sammy88 highlighted.

I said below:
BACKGROUND
- Nanoco started working with Samsung in 2006
- Samsung asked for help creating CFQDs at industrial scale, couldn’t do it

Here’s a reminder of where it started…
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00185%2F2016

I believe the PTAB ruled pretty forcefully in Nanoco’s favour. An appeal would likely just be a delay, suspect they’re not worried about it.
Samsung are committed to CFQDs, switching manufacturing to phase out non QD displays. The number of units of various types they’re planning to sell is huge. They’ll be desperate to negotiate a low settlement so it’s expected that they’ll project that they’re happy to go to trial. But will they risk losing in court and what that does to their negotiating position?

The Texas trial is the big one because if N win, S’s costs start to accumulate, and it leaves a cloud (and growing liability) over everything in their display roadmap.
If N win I don’t see how they/we can’t win big, even at the low estimate that I highlighted.
The big question is - will we win!

Hi Troublesome, sorry but I have no idea, that's more of a legal question which isn't my area.
I'm making judgements about the strength of the case based on:
- History of events as told by BT (partnership in 2006 onwards)
- Investment, backing and risk taken from Nanoco's legal partner (IP legal experts), having reviewed and wargamed the evidence
- The fact that if Samsung hadn't infringed, they would have clearly explained to Nanoco how they manufactured CFQDs without infringing long ago, to kill the litigation and not incur all the cost defending the case
- Samsung trying (and failing) to challenge validity of Nanoco's patended process (that they presumably used, otherwise why challenge it)

It's been a long road, we just need to get to trial!

Fair point Nanogeddon, numbers are at resolution and there would be appeals first.
If Nanoco win and be awarded £10/display, it should ultimately end up with a global settlement of some sort, which may take some time, but Nanoco will apply pressure (in Germany initially) to make it months rather than years.
In the mean time there should be a significant SP adjustment placing it somewhere in between.
I suspect that commercial orders are being held until Nanoco proove that they can defend their patents, as this may affect price discussions, which makes the trial delay even more frustrating.
I may be wrong and we could get an announcement on Thursday!