Member Info for LordWM

Sorry forgot, and 40%of initial award going in legal costs (pessimistic)

If there’s a global settlement I make that a share price of £2.44 per share, based on:
-26m TVs sold globally up to end of 2021
- assume 5m TVs sold globally in 2022. from Jan to Sept
- £10 Sterling per unit (for simplicity)
- £10 per unit for future sales (assume 10m annually) on a X6 valuation.
- obs no wilful infringement multiplier if there’s a settlement.
Please comment/critique.

Gotcha, Turner Pope mis-stated then.

Samsung sold 2.5m qled TVs in Q1 2022
“ Samsung sold 2.5 million QLED TVs worldwide, or 76% of global QLED TV sales in the first quarter, which were up 23% on-year to 3.3 million units.”
https://amp.kedglobal.com/newsAmp/ked202205240016

So although sales were expected to slow they’re on track for 10m globally in 2022, and 26m globally before this.

Hi all,
Was just updating my excel model using latest figures.

The Turner Pope note said:
In terms of unit numbers involved, for example, these have been estimated by independent analytical and consultancy firm, Omdia, that recently suggested Samsung’s cumulative QLED-based sales over the past five years to end- 2021 reached c.26m, with 9.43m
premium units in 2021 alone.“
And also:
“ Assuming that Samsung’s US QD display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021”

So that’s 26m in the US, which is a third of global sales, so let’s round to 75m TV sales globally, up to the end of last year. Selling at a rate of approx 9m in the US and 27 total globally per annum?

Do I have this right, because the figures are astounding if so.

First rule of investing- don’t lose your money. It’s to be expected that people will take profit and de-risk. Doesn’t affect the investment case.

Deffo @Mattyboy

The FD on the earnings call said that as they’re a platform tech with very stable costs, any income will flow to the bottom line. It will be subject to tax but they have some historical losses they can offset.
I suspect they’ll want to keep a good chunk to invest in business development to commercialise, possibly keep some to start legal action against others who may have infringed their patents, but if they win against Samsung settlements are much more likely (I’m guessing). But I’d expect there to be a sizeable special dividend.
Don’t forget they could announce a commercial order at any time that will drive cash flow too.

A little profit taking, but mostly small scale buying so hopefully it will keep climbing. With a lot of PIs involved the stock probably isn’t that liquid, if institutional pros take an interest the price should rocket, but will likely need more concrete news for that to happen. Good luck all, years of research and patience hopefully about to pay off big time. What a great board this is.

Don’t really understand this, but it sounds awesome. Fingers crossed.

Sorry @Feeks, had a drink after work. It was @Hawi who shared the link to the attorney with the impressive barnet.

He has great hair @Feeks, #jealous.

Thanks Nano. They’re marketing new products which is what Nanoco said one of their ‘customers’ is doing featuring Nanoco’s tech, and are waiting for a commercial order. It’s been implied by pretty much everyone that the customer is ST Micro. Could this be another customer?

Are we saying that Quantum Science are creating products under licence from Nanoco? I think they have senior staff who are ex Nanoco, so have they developed another way to produce QDs that competes with Nanoco?

And for Samsung, if they settled they'd want a full and final settlement, globally, including arrangements for future display sales, their partners, customers and supply chain.

They wouldn't settle in the US only, because Nanoco would immedately apply for injunctions in Europe, damages in other territories, take action against any OEMs who'd received displays (which Samsung would have to defend) and anyone manufacturing QDs using their patented methods.

If there's a settlement it will be for past and future sales globally. I can't see the share price being less than £2.50, but probaly a lot more.

@Screenlearner - I posted this a few weeks back:

If we settle before Sept with a deal for global past sales and agreement for future sales which Nanoco have said they'd need to settle (assume 10m future sales annually which is low and a 6x multiple for future sales which is also low), with a modest £10 GBP per display sold (42m), with 40% of the total going in legel fees (unlikely to be this much), my model shows a share price of £2.64.

If we go to court and win for US sales only, with an award of £10 GBP per display sold (14m in teh US which is conservative) and a 1.5x wilful infringement multiplier, and no award for future US TV sales or anything past or future globally, and 40% going in legal fees, my model shows a share price of £0.68. This is absolute worst case (assuming Nanoco have a case which I suspect is likely bearing in mind the legel work that's gone in and the risk being taken by the legal partner). If this happened Samsung would then apeal so no immediate cash for Nanoco I suspect, but Nanoco would likely take action globally (injunctions in Europe which hurts Samsung) and also for future sales in the US, making a settlement even more likely.

The key is proving infringement, and Samsung appear to be trying to redefine some things so that they can say that infringement didn't happen.

Lawyers never promise a result because there's always uncertainty. Samsung's lawyers may well be telling them that they're not likely to win in court, but shaping as though they're going to go all the way will be part of S's negotiotion (giving the impression that they think they'll win). So if there's a settlement it's likely to be at the last minute.
They'll definitely be having Without Prejudice discussions around a settlement, 100%, and Samsung would have made derisory offers already. N & S will have been instructed by the Court to enter mediation to try to settle, and as the mediateion has been suspended they're too far apart at present. Samsung know that they can settle at any time, so it makes sense to start with unreasonable offers.

Samsung will only go to court if they:
1 - think there's a fairly decent chance they'll win
2 - aren't worried about a few £100m - £1bish and are prepared (if they lose) to appeal/delay and ultimately pay more later. They're so cash rich that they may be more concerned about making a statement (that if you want to go legal you better have deep pockets) than the money.

The stakes are potentially very large for Samsung, considering global TV sales to date, future TV sales, display sales to other OEMs and anyone in their supply chain they've engaged to infringe N's patents. They'll have to pay for all of that, if they lose.

The problem for us is that unless you're a nano materials scientist/patent lawyer and know how Samsung manufacture the TVs, we don't really know the actual facts.

But Nanoco spent years talking to Samsung and then taking their TV's to bits to understand what they did, before going down the legal route. If Samsung felt they hadn't infringed, they would have explained this to Nanoco (with evidence), just to draw a line under this.

Nanoco and their legal partners who bear the cost/risk of the legal action, are 'certain' that infringement happened...

‘Suspended’. So the door is open to continue mediation/settle out of court. I guess both parties are waiting for pre-court rulings to determine how good/bad their position looks.

Hi all, S applied to change dates due to a Korean public holiday, anyone know if a change happened and do we have firm dates for pre-trial conf and duty selection?

Someone has OCD, needs an even number. Probably also:
- Only has the TV remote volume on an even number
- Breathes in and out between lampposts when driving on the motorway.