Member Info for Nanonano

I believe a major issue, and one which has never really been talked about by the company is that they are repeatedly infringed by companies they have worked closely with. Why don’t they want to buy Nanoco dots? Nanoco have had the capacity to supply for years, yet companies have favoured competitors like Nanosys.

We’ve been told more than once that Nanoco produces the best cadmium free QD’s, so unless that’s bs the it isn’t quality, so it must be cost. Is the cost differential so high the companies regard running the risk of a legal dispute worthwhile?

5h1tshow

i think the technical term is a ****show.

It looks likely that Apple are going to be using mini LED tech in their upcoming studio displays, and they may incorporate QD mini LED screens in their cheaper laptop computers, who knows. It doesn't look like they're completely abandoning QD tech, but if they're ending it on macbook pro models that could significantly reduce the amount of demand from Apple at least as I understand they typically sell around 12m units a year.

Apple are reported to be switching over to OLED display on the Macbook Pro series, so the QD enhanced LCD may simply be an interim stage between conventional LCD and OLED.

Is it lack of public disclosure or lack of disclosure to the court?

The majority of the market for QD's to date has been amongst a handful of display OEM's, in particular Samsung who still retain a huge share of QD display market. Those that have chosen to use cadmium free QD's have infringed Nanoco IP, so any market for their product has been eliminated by those parties. We can speculate about why that has happened until the sun goes down, but it would simply be based on guesswork- we just don't have enough information to put together any reliable narrative. Even Nanoco themselves may not know the full reasons, but I suspect they know a lot more than investors do.

Sensor materials may yet provide a lucrative market, or perhaps the technology will end up being sidelined for an alternative, too early to say. That STMicro backed away was very concerning having had such a long partnership and gestation period with a product ready to go it seemed.

The company only began enlarging to cover supply when Dow took their foot off the gas, but even then volume was constrained. Capcity increased when Apple injected some capital to build a facility, but this was for sensing materials, not display.

Given the option I think Nanoco would still favour licensing a partner for manufacturing rather than make the stuff themselves, as they could then exclusively focus on R&D which is their speciality. However if it leads to a drain of IP and trade secrets to competitors, then keeping in house production is probably preferred, but naturally they need some customers to keep the wolf from the door.

A patent troll buys unloved patents with the express intention of suing anyone they believe may have infringed that IP without the intention of ever inventing anything of their own or producing anything.

I think you'll find Nanosys had a considerable greater injection of capital than Nanoco, and they still sought a buyer which is usually not the actions of a company making a tidy profit.

Nanoco never wanted to be a supplier, they wanted to license their IP to partners who had the resources to produce it in volume. They seemed to find that in Dow, but that ended badly. Something very dubious has gone on in the background which investors are unlikely to ever find out.

That was before the tender offer and STMicro dropping the ball.

“They don't want single‑source risk from a small company.”

So how are Nanoco ever going to achieve any supply deal for mass market sensor materials?

I believe a great deal of trade secrets were lost through the Dow partnership. Dow employees at the facility built to supply the Korean display OEM’s may well have been headhunted or simply bribed for their knowledge of Nanoco’s processes, and that knowledge may have then been passed onto Nanosys in exchange for their assistance in setting up production with Hansol. LG subsequently benefitting later on when they entered the fray with QNED display and QD laptop screens etc.

They probably took a punt on Nanoco running out of cash before they were in any position to challenge the likes of Samsung for infringement, and that would have been the case if fund raising had been unsuccessful and third party legal funding couldn’t be secured. With such they ended up paying a bit back to Nanoco, but far removed from what they should have received had these companies acted in good faith.

With Nanoco only able to supply a modest amount of materials from Runcorn, far away from where the displays are made I suspect Nanosys in partnership with Shoei were in a position to undercut Nanoco by some margin.

All speculation, but I suspect not far removed from what has taken place.

Either that or Nanosys genuinely have a proprietary process that is not infringing Nanoco IP. This case should decide who has the long nose.

Apples involvement with Nanoco was in relation to infrared QD’s. Aware they were also exploring they're use on microled displays, but that subsequently got dropped leaving AMS/Osram with a hefty write down.

Website filtered my tinyurl link for some reason

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Shoei-Chemical-Inc-et-al-v-Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd/vaed-1:2025-cv-02135

you can view some of the documents for free relating to the case at this link-

********************548wthwn

"The LG case concerned a specific, limited product line. It was never represented as a broad portfolio licence. Its purpose was to add cash to the balance sheet and further validate the IP's enforceability. It has done both."

Can you point me to where it says this? The RNS gave only amount, everything else confidential-

Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), is pleased to announce that a no-fault agreement has been reached by Nanoco and LG Electronics Inc. ("LG") (collectively, the "Parties") that resolves the litigation between the Parties.

The gross amount agreed to be paid by LG to Nanoco is $5m. Litigation costs incurred by Nanoco to date total $0.6m. Other terms and conditions are confidential.

After ten years I’m cautious, not beaten. Predicting a rich payout in court is simply ramping. For a start the share of the market Shoei have in cadmium free display is quite small, as the majority of cad free display is with Samsung, and that has been settled.

The rest of the market is largely cadmium based by Nanoco’ s own assessment. LG was very likely to be the largest player in cad free beyond Samsung, and they have settled for less than a twentieth of Samsung.

If Shoei choose to string out legal action, then it could be sometime before Nanoco would see a penny, all assuming they win the first rounds and can afford to continue legal action over an extended period.

If a settlement is reached before court action, and Shoei obtain a license for a one off payment like Samsung, that leaves Nanoco relying solely on sensor materials for future revenue, and at present we have no idea whether that will achieve commercialisation.

Failure would leave Nanoco with no reasonable revenue path.

Carpetbaggers are back in town.

Got a sense of Deja Vu, a lot of parallels with early 2020 again minus a pandemic. Share price in the dumpster, end of company sale process, JDA with unnamed customer , CFO took over the CEO's position and instigation of legal action against an infringer.