Member Info for Nanonano

If the standard line of defence remains the same for Samsung/Kirkland as it has to date, I can’t see this case being anything other than a total victory for Nanoco. Getting Samsung to cough up may be more challenging mind.

Who knows, boyo!

https://tinyurl.com/4vytafen

No idea, your guess would be as good as mine.

You may want to chance an email to Nanoco asking if they’re working with QS Ltd.

CTO, Head of IP and Product Director are all ex Nanoco.

Remains a complete enigma, Nanoco have not mentioned this company AFAIK, but they have a very capable team.

There are some who seem to be sure that a settlement is imminent, and that this is an easy multibagger before Christmas. I think there is a strong chance they may be disappointed. If it gets court and Nanoco win, then I believe it will require further action in Europe to apply enough pressure to get Samsung to cough up. In the meantime, any news of a STMicro contract could certainly underpin a meaningful increase in the share price.

I sincerely hope you’re correct, but we’ll see.

An agreed settlement is yet to materialise and may never materialise.

To date Mintz's arguments have been straightforward, in stark contrast with Samsung's team providing a lot of verbal diarrhoea in an attempt to confuse I believe.

Having said that, there's little doubt in my mind that Samsung will fight it out to the bitter end.

Seems a few are getting squeaky bums.

Relax, I'm sure Mintz and Nanoco have anticipated anything Samsung are likely to try and throw into the mix.

Quite a few were predicting a wipeout at the PTAB, and Nanoco absolutely owned it.

I fully expect Samsung to play it hard all the way. regardless of outcome. They probably consider it a price worth paying to discourage all the other small companies and patent trolls out there. If you're gonna have a go, then make sure you're hard enough.

Don't know about runaway jury, runaway imagination seems more appropriate with some on here.

I think there's more chance of a cornetto from old nick than the court case being influenced by Samsung's state of choice for a new manufacturing facility.

I read it as him being under 3% threshold where it has to be reported. From now on we won't know how much his holding is unless he crosses back over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZQlOxc0hPA

I think they're rather more than shell company, although they're cleaver with their use of terms to make themselves appear bigger than they really are. In terms of marketing at least Nanosys leave Nanoco in the dust, however is this an industry that needs marketing? Might look good in the media but will it fill an order book?

Samsung are probably using part of Nanosys invention in the creation of their QD TV's, therefore Nanosys can legally claim the TV's use their patented technology without being specific about which part.

It remains to be seen if they have been infringing on Nanoco's IP, at present they are wisely concentrating on frying some bigger fish.

H2 CY22 for visibility of production revue. So anytime between now and the new year for news on the contract.

Let’s also not forget potential license revenue from 10m+ QLED screens per year plus 1m QD OLED screens, roughly equivalent to four or five times QLED screens. So potential £/$250m per annum license fees for display?

Sure, but Samsung left it to last knockings before instituting IPR. Had they done it when legal proceedings first began, the PTAB would have returned a verdict in 2021 and the court action would have maintained its original timetable.

All indications are we have a good judge.

All of Samsungs tactics to delay have been rejected by Judge Gilstrap. The only one that partly worked was by delaying institution of IPR with the PTAB, which was beyond the courts control and it didn't go unnoticed. Hopefully such behaviour will influence any potential multiplier in damages should Samsung be found guilty at trial.

I've no idea what goes on at Nanosys. If they've been up to anything shady, I'm sure it'll come out eventually

They tried an ipo back in 2004 https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/nanosys-pulls-ipo/

Eight more weeks and we and the rest of the market get to find out what the courts think, assuming a deal isn't brokered in the interim.

Plus news could come anytime on the STMicro contract.