Member Info for Nanonano

Are you factoring in recurring license fees for future sales? Around 10m lcd QLED, and around 1m QD OLED screens per annum, equivalent to around 4-5m LCD QLED screens, that would be around $250m per annum based on the $18 per unit figure quoted by Edison. Sensors would be on top assuming they make it to market.

So how do you figure a pound or two share price from such figures?

I'm hoping that the sensor contracts pan out as predicted, and that Nanoco have some cash in hand (or further support from their funder) to press the case in Europe and other jurisdictions where sales tend to be restricted or blocked on infringing products.

That is I believe most likely to concentrate minds at Samsung into brokering a settlement.

I think it will be higher than that, and considerably so if it gets to court.

Considerable harm has been done to Nanoco through Samsung's actions, and Nanoco may never realise it's full potential as a consequence. I'm sure we don't know the half of it when it comes to the strings that have been pulled to frustrate sales elsewhere in display.

I think it’s folly to think it will be limited to one product. It may initially start out that way, but will very quickly find other applications. I can’t imagine STMicro will give exclusivity to one company, unless that company has a hand in the development process and can also guarantee a certain amount of sales.

Any reasons given for his sale are speculative. We shall see I guess.

I guess it depends on if he's finished selling, or intends to decrease further or even close out his position.

I think power requirements, cost and resolution will be major actors which influence choice of tech, especially when it comes to wearable devices.

I think it'll start smaller (circa £5m) and quickly scale within say six months to a year. Ultimately I look to see a business that can sustain itself without loan notes or dilution.

The market seems as blind to the potential for the NIR/SWIR, as silicone is to those wavelengths without QD's. I can envisage these sensors being in pretty mu8ch every smart device within two to three years from now. Be it phone, watch, headset, car or any other device that requires interaction with the world around it.

Most of the pundits have said 2023 production for Apple's headset. That would align with Nanoco/STMicro timetable. Everything I've seen regrading the performance requirements for this tech suggests they will need sensors that are a major improvement on present tech, and I don't see any comparable technologies beyond QD enhanced CMOS that can deliver the performance at scale and within a reasonable cost envelope.

In addition the sensors are likely to have a broader range of applications once developers can get their hands on them.

There's been a lot of buzz about Apple AR/VR leading up to next weeks WWDC. However there's been specualtion of an announcement for the last couple of Apple's events, and pundits have been left disappointed.

i have a feeling it'll be September at the earliest before we hear anything public from Apple regarding AR/VR.

I'll be very happy if it's earlier, although we won't necessarily know what components are going inside until either a contract is inked or a device is out there to be dissected.

Not sure you'll get an instant response, but would probably expect a published response within a day or two.

Can't envisage Samsung gaining any extra stay on the trial date. The judge was none too impressed at delaying proceedings last time, with 47-0 verdict at the PTAB, there's little justification in delaying further regardless of any appeals.

Subscription only story, but you can get the gist from the first few lines.

Meta, Apple, Google, Qualcomm, Snap to name but a few are all pouring chunks of cash into this arena.

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20220526PD213.html

I’d hope that the board would wait until we have a bit of cash on hand, or at least until the share price recovers a bit if they’re thinking of a cash raise before pursuing any further legal action in other jurisdictions. If the sensor contracts go ahead as planned Nanoco should be comfortably solvent for the first time in its history.

Everyone who invested before the Apple contract got the axe took a hosing. Discounted cash raise in 2017 was only available to ii's, so most investors had bought in in the 30-40p+ area at best.

That's why most were really angry with ME, who had given a very positive update just a few weeks before he sold the majority of his holding and consequently dragged the price down from the mid to uppers 50p mark. I think that move may have cost him his job.

Since then I personally took the opportunity to average down, so am comfortably in profit at the current price.

It's assuming a lot to suggest BTB left on account of comments here,BTB posted on other share topics too.

I didn't hold much, if any value of BTB's opinion, as it was never backed up with any evidence, and swerved from extreme optimism to despairing pessimism. I find neither is useful.

As I understand it, Samsung can appeal on a point of law in the proceedings. They cannot add any new evidence, or merely complain that they don't like the result.

|No doubt they'll find some chink in the armour, if only to delay and frustrate a bit longer.

On the positive side, the legal proceedings will bring increased attention to Nanoco from the wider financial press, and the more wins they net the greater the chance of large future revenue, and fingers crossed the share price will respond accordingly as speculators looking for an easy profit start buying in.

If Samsung want any credibility with a defence of patent invalidity, then they would have instituted IPR when first challenged on infringement by Nanoco back in what 2017?

In addition they also would have patented the process for QD manufacture themselves to prevent anyone else using it unlicensed, but of course they couldn't, because they'd already pinched it from Nanoco.

Interesting to see in the media that the Apple headset is rumoured to have up to fourteen cameras in each unit.

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/20/apples-headset-said-to-feature-14-cameras-enabling-lifelike-avatars-jony-ive-has-remained-involved-with-design/

How many of those need to operate in the IR spectrum is not stated, but even if it was a modest percentage, it demonstrates why cheaper sensors in that band are required over very expensive InGaAs.