Member Info for Nanonano

Jonathan Steckel is director of advanced technology intelligence in imaging at STMicroelectronics.

"We don't know that Apple were satisfied with them."

Nanoco stated more than once that the US customer was very happy with their material and the services provided. The shift in strategy was due to a design change much higher up the chain and nothing to do with the quality of Nanoco's products.

Plus they'd hardly have gifted the company a facility if they;d found the product wanting.

If investors take notice of a berk that just posts opinion based on nothing more than gut instinct and is usually proved wrong, then you probably deserve to miss out.

They have dropped a lot in price now, but only significantly in the last year or two, and bear in mind that the QLED range extends into sets costing many thousands, and that will bring up the average cost.

IIRC the Judge had the needle over Samsung choosing to implement IPR with the PTAB several months after legal action had begun.

I don't think Samsung have any defence. With the PTAB ruling so unambiguously in Nanoco's favour, and so much evidence of them working closely with Nanoco over a protracted period of time, they're going to get an absolute flogging in court IMO. This could be a landmark case, because it's really difficult to find anything close to such brazen theft of IP.

IMO, with sensor revenuemaxed out at £100m and a proper license in place for display and any other technologies using Nanoco's process, annual income should be somewhere between £2-300m .

Based on an average 10-12 times earnings that would put the company value at around £2-3.6bn around £6.50-11.70 per share.

That information hasn't been disclosed, although some have suggested Burford Capital.

Seen this share in the 5-6p territory and held. Never sold a share to date.

Yes. Only Griffith# and LOAM are the single large II holders. All the others just broker smaller pi accounts.

Bah, the next four days will go fast.

Next week it is then. BT did say it was unlikely PTAB would report early, and they seem to be holding to that.

We'll get the official verdict in six working days or less. I can wait that long.

More likely that phosphors are very cheap compared with QD's, and considered good enough for the present spec.

After all Samsung stuck with Cad free despite the slight drop in performance compared with cadmium based dots. Doubtful the small percentage points are really noticeable in colour gamut to the end user anyway.

QD film also adds bulk and that is critical in mobile devices like phones and tablets where space is at a premium, and every spare micrometre is looked at for extra battery space..

I can envisage QD's playing more of a role in mobiles and tablets with QD-OLED and/or microLED applications, where QD's are spayed in using inkjets.

Pete Palomaki's commentary is often interesting, although I do wonder at his impartiality. He has strong links with Nanosys and former competitor QD Vision and tends to throw a fair bit of shade on Nanoco on the rare occasion they're mentioned. e.g. https://displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/quantum-dot-company-nanoco-takes-a-hit

I use this one, although there is sometimes a little delay of publication.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00186

As per the chart in the image I linked, STMicro past development and now at validation stage.

NIR (and SWIR) materials for other four customers still in development.

No idea really. Not enough information to go on in the release, but I suspect this isn't QD enhanced, as the NIR band material is still going through the validation stage, and ST micro are already making these sensors for evaluation/sampling . It's the SWIR material scaling up, as documented in the interims e.g.

https://postimg.cc/F1WmQ1K1

Not sure if this QD enhanced, but NIR band and a 2023 production window quoted.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/STMICROELECTRONICS-N-V-4710/news/STMicroelectronics-reveals-advanced-global-shutter-image-sensor-for-affordable-reliable-driver-moni-40284380/

IP shell has been stated several times, nothing new there. It's a worst case scenario, and it would be remiss of management not to have such a strategy in place.