Member Info for Nanonano

BT already stated that the amount would be declared in full. He said they couldn't retain this information even if they wished to.

Place your bets please on the Nanoco wheel of fortune, round and round she goes where it ends no one knows.

Samsung Display are completely owned by Samsung Electronics. So don't see how they can wriggle off the hook for damages on QD OLED sets. They'll be part of the license deal along with QLED sets IMO.

Does the 30 day period also take into account the weekend period, or is it mon-fri only?

"that discussion will need to be with Samsung Display who I remind everyone again are not a defending party in this court case."

Does that mean further legal action?

I have a gut feeling that it's probably the amount for future sales that is the area of hottest discussion, not least because Samsung are now selling generation two technology with lots more dots per set, and are probably angling for the same royalty per set as QLED sets. I'm going to wager they won't want to pay five times the royalty of a QLED set because they use five times the dots.

I wonder at times if the cancellation of the Apple contract was the use of lead sulphide in the infra red sensor? Apple don't like using lead at all, but may give a pass for a more niche application like a first gen AR/VR unit, perhaps selling a few million a year, but not for a iphone selling in hundreds of millions.

I'll wager the 'B' material currently in development with various OEM's is lead free, but not likely to be mainstream until 2025 at the earliest.

"What holds the greatest value from a settlement standpoint, past QD sales or future QD sales for screen technology given the life of the patents and the recent rapid growth in their use?"

Undoubtedly future, and both sides will know this. The first three or four years of QD sales were pretty small, as the sets occupied the +£2000 market, which is below 10% of set sales. Most people fork about £500 or less for a telly.

Also gen 2 screen tech with QD colour filters (QD OLED) has only commercialised in the last year, and they're still ironing out the production wrinkles. It's due to scale considerably in the next year or two from a few hundred thousand sets to a few million.

Hopefully this will be reflected in the settlement deal.

Until we know the final figure, I suggest you give the benefit of the doubt.

We don't know the size of the cherry yet.

For sensor materials the likelihood is that we are looking at back end of 2025 or later before it scales to any significant volume, because huge volume will not be in demand until lead free materials are available.

In addition Nanoco have a competitor, who are advertising a lead free alternative - Quantum Science Ltd.

Perish the thought that Samsung may also develop their own IR QD's with Hansol.

So bear that mind.

I agree with that outline BC.

Been a little over effective at taking some steam out of the share value.

I've been talking about, in fact the future royalties is the main item of concern for me in this settlement.

How much will it be, how will they fairly estimate it, how will second gen technologies (QD filters e.g. QD OLED) influence it?

It was Dow's CFQD facility that was mothballed once it became evident that Samsung had pulled the plug.

Nanoco made some investment in their Manchester facility to enable R&D facilities to be used as production, sufficient to produce a reasonable quantity of materials. I think this was to supply Wah Hong and Merck, but neither company seemed able to get any supply contracts.

With the facilities now consolidated at Runcorn, I'm not sure if the CFQD capability is still available, I think it might be, but there seems to be little demand at the present, so the focus is on infra red QD's, which the company refers to as novel nano materials rather than QD's for some reason.

It's never been fully explained why the Wah Hong and Merck partnerships failed to produce any significant business. Investors can speculate, some may say the material isn't up to snuff, others may think Samsung have used their influence to frustrate sales with other OEM's. It did seem strange that companies like AUO, and I believe also Innolux demoed displays at Touch Taiwan with Wah Hong's fine color film, but used Nanosys dots for their production models.

Nanoco have never volunteered an explanation. Merck ended their agreement with Nanoco in 2021, and now seem to be partnering with Quantum Science Ltd. Wah Hong AFAIK still has some connection with Nanoco, but no business to speak of, perhaps that could change in the near future?

Is that a joke?

Not at all.

Loam hold a position in the company, they're not a customer.

I think the supplier is most likely to be Applied Materials. they are based in Santa Clara, and have been doing a ton of work on QD enhanced microLED using UV microled backplane.

My understanding was that Mintz ere operating on a reduced fee, not no fee at all. I would have expected the funder to be covering the tab, then recompensed from any winnings or settlement.

AFAIK no further details of the arrangement have been made public. We dopn't know who the funder is, just that they are US based, specialists, and large.

The one issue remains the subject of future income. It's clear to see that the QD market is only just beginning to get going, and it's scaled significantly in the last couple of years as the cost of sets has dropped below £1000 to the price point where most consumers will be willing to cough up for a new telly.

One years sales presently adds up to more than the first three years of sales of QLED sets combined. QD OLED sets are adding a further dimension, and Samsung control the majority of the QD screen market.

Therefore if the company isn't going to receive any future revenue from Samsung for QLED/QD OLED sales post settlement, then it needs to be a decent amount, else investors are entitled to ask why the offer wasn't rejected (assuming it doesn't) and continue with the court case.

Should lighten up on the conspiracy theories, we don't know what the outcome is yet. BT always said the company is open to a settlement, when we see the final agreement, if that is unsatisfactory, then is the time to ask questions.