Member Info for Nanonano

Well like a thanksgiving turkey, let's hope Samsung get a good stuffing.

I don't know if many really looked at the Quantum Science Ltd website i posted on an earlier thread, but looking at their people, three of the head team are ex-Nanoco.

https://quantumscis.com/about/

Dr Cong-Duan Vo- Chief technology officer.Formerly of Nanoco Technologies Ltd with them for 8 years, last position- Product Chemistry Team Leader.

Dr Lesley Smith- Head of IP and Partnership. Formerly Head of IP and Project Management at Nanoco.

Dr Stuart Stubbs- Product Director. Formerly Head of Optoelectronics at Nanoco, was with the company over 10 years.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038

The larger figures being bandied about are not extreme IMO, just based on simple calculation of possible income from current sales figures.

If Samsung are shifting around ten million units a year , and the license for dots should be around $10(£10?) per unit, then it's not hard to envisage a company that should be valued considerably higher.

With sensor revenue, plus QD-OLED needing far greater amounts of dots and possibly doubling license revenue for display, then annual revenue of $/£2-300m.

Is that fanciful?

You guys are going to burn yourselves out with all this speculation. Got months yet until the trial, if it happens, which i think it will. Relax and go and feed the ducks.

It shows lead free on their products page, the Infiq-LF QD's 800-1600nm, which is the NIR-SWIR band. The lead materials extend further into 2400nm.

https://quantumscis.com/products-and-applications/

One thing I find compelling is that their materials state lead free.

AFAIK Nanoco's infrared materials contain lead.

Better money, more opportunities, chance to be the top man?

Who knows?

His linked in profile says freelance.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stuart-stubbs-54b4969b?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F

Dr Stuart Stubbs is part of the team and is ex-Nanoco as of 2021.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/press-releases/future-appears-bright-for-uk-s-quantum-science

https://quantumscis.com/

Yes, but the molecular seeding is most critical IMO.

They've turned that yield figure around very quickly.

https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-displays-managed-increase-its-qd-oled-production-yield-75

Most seem to be focusing on a payout for past lost fees, whereas I Iook at license fess going forward, which are I believe more valuable to company value.

My only real concern with Nanoco going forward, is that their key molecular seeding patent only has about three more years before it expires and Samsung will have succeeded in keeping them on the hook for close to the entiure patent period. Are their other patents good enough to keep them going as an ongoing entity, or will they subsequently be absorbed into a larger coporation?

Seems LOAM have released about 2.5m shares, accounts for the drop in share price over the last few days.

KAIST originally asked Samsung for around $10m for use of their finfet invention. There were other companies like Intel and Apple that were also infringing, but they quickly cut a deal out of court with KAIST. Only Samsung played it hard I believe.

I would hazard a guess that the undisclosed deal KAIST made with Samsung is perhaps why they're in dispute with their litigation funders.

That would be around £4 per unit license fee based on current annual figures of 10m sets per annum. Bit low?

It's only in the last year or two the price of Samsung's QLED has really started to drop, as the competition gets it's act together. Prior to that Samsung were charging a high premium for these sets, so they were making a LOT of profit on them.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to demonstrate that Samsung would not have got these sets to market had it not been for Nanoco's IP.

I'd be surprised if the Judge and Jury don't think the same, and I would think a 10% share of the profit plus extra for wilfulness would be fair, especially when you consider the affect on Nanoco as a company, plus the considerable effort and risk they have had to go to in order to get some remittance.

LCD prices have fallen through the floor this year. They had a reprieve over the pandemic, but have now crashed. This is why the Korean OEM's have been selling off their LCD fabs to China, becuase they cannot compete with their state subsidised labour rates, so it's cheaper to but them in from the Chinese rather than make them on home turf.

OLED has apparently been assigned a country critical tech by the Korean authorities- they are now subsidising it's production. No doubt TCL's recent entrance inti the area with their inkjet printed OLEDS developed in cooperation with JOLED technology has put the cat amongst the pigeons, as these have the capability to severely disrupt the market on cost alone.

Samsung have a sizeable stake in TCL, so they maybe considering buying in screens from them then adding the special QD sauce, rather than invest in more facilities to grow their own.

Like dieselgate for display.

No doubt a great deal of trade secrets were also conveyed in the seven year or so of working together, all under a non-disclosure agreement not honoured. Somewhat more difficult to prove, sadly.

I agree.

It's also understandable that the market remains sceptical of revenue, bearing in mind how many deals have come to little or nowt in the past. Samsung, Dow, LG, Wah Hong, Merck, AUO, Innolux, Apple.

Will STMicro be the company that breaks the blockade?

Although the share price has improved, it's still at historically low levels for this company, especially when you factor in the money that is now potentially on the table, which was never the case in the past.