Member Info for Nanonano

Can anyone on here consider themselves skilled enough in this technology to decipher whom is attempting to snow the PTAB?

I certainly am not, so I think we'll all just have to be a bit more patient and wait until the ruling in May.

Been invested in this company for a several years now, i can afford to wait a few more months.

In the meantime it will be interesting to see how Samsungs QD OLED displays are received at CES in the new year.

It'll be a week or two after the 8th before the transcript gets published.

2.5x would be very modest if they win the case. Circa 10-15m per year, set to virtually double with QD-OLED, license income potentially $150-450m per year for display alone, even at a modest eight times earnings that would value the company at between 1.2-3.6Bn, so somewhere between £3.5 to almost £12 per share. None of this takes into account sensing, life sciences, lighting etc. or back payment for lost royalties plus damages.

I found one of my add-on extensions was blocking the site.

Not to worry. That website doesn't seem to like Firefox browser for some reason. Worked in Chrome.

Anyone know how to login for the AGM. When I follow the link they supply in the RNS,I just get a white screen. This one-

https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/617a688fdf7b150b81e95dd7

Trial and organic growth are both interlinked though.

If for any reason the validity of the patents are called into question through the PTAB, then I believe that throws all future organic business growth into doubt. I think that's where the greatest risk lies, and will hopefully be resolved or at least significantly reduced by next May.

I see some more details are beginning to leak out about the forthcoming Apple AR?VR products. Timelines seem to align with Nanoco's.

https://www.idropnews.com/rumors/apples-ar-headset-will-usher-in-the-next-generation-of-computing-when-it-arrives-in-2022/174309/

Details on the website-

https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2021/11/Notice-of-AGM-2021.pdf

I get the impression some suspect those holding court may be suborned?

Nanoco have repeatedly stated that the QD technology applies to all generations of display including the QD OLED. Samsung's QD-display/QD-OLED use the same dots as the QLED sets, but they use a lot more per display, between five to ten times.

The sets are reportedly going to be very expensive though- around $8-10k, and production capacity is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands initially, rising eventually to 4m, although currently facilities are said to be capped at around 1m sets per annum. That could potentially bring licensing revenue from $80m+ per annum.

That alone should put the companies share price at two or three quid, discounting all other revenue from display and sensors etc. Assuming our patents stand up to PTAB scrutiny.

I would take the following points into consideration with Nanoco.

Their technology has a demonstrated ability to improve the sensitivity of silicon based infra red sensors in the NIR and SWIR bands at very low cost. The alternative is InGaAs, which are very expensive and only really suited to use in high grade military and explorative tools with large budgets- not consumer product friendly.

We know from other information that the market for IR sensors is likely to explode in the next few years with AR, autonomous and semi-autonomous driving systems/aids, health monitoring sensors in smart watches, IoT etc. The sensors will need to be cheap.

There seems at present to be few competitors, Nanosys appear to be remarkably quiet about this area of the technology, which in my opinion calls into question their ability to produce cad free materials at scale of good enough quality. perhaps they're working in stealth mode, but why did Apple come to Nanoco when Nanosys are on their doorstep with a CEO that has a track record with the company?

Next point is the legal action against Samsung. The main risk here is the PTAB ruling. I think there we have the greatest risk, but if we can clear that hurdle without any ambiguity, then Nanoco have Samsung by the short and curlies, the question then will not be if they'll have to pay up, just how much and when.

This is all near to medium term. we'll know in about six months whether Nanoco's patented technology is sound or not. Almost certainly Samsung will appeal against a decision that doesn't go their way, but I believe it will be very much easier for Nanoco to raise funds if required to bridge any possible delay in revenue.

Regarding Samsung there is another possible factor now emerging. Up until now Samsung/Hansol QD's have been used solely in Samsung displays, but it's rumoured that the QD-oled screens, branded as QD-display are likely to be used by Sony and possibly some Chinese OEM's like Hisense and TCL, and I can't see those companies wishing to get caught up in a legal mess. So I think it increases the possibility that Samsung may wish to settle this dispute before such items come to market.

I think a fund raise would only be necessary if the litigation gets strung out and also the Stmicro contract is either delayed or ended.

I think the former is likely, given Samsung's past record, and the latter is possible, but delay rather than complete cancellation is a more likely risk, bearing in mind the sensors are just a link in a long chain.

Samsung QD screens are routinely considered to be best of their type. I think probably the small differences between cadmium and cadmium free QD's are probably something you might observe on a spec sheet but wouldn't notice as a viewer.

I suspect those companies that have remained with cadmium dots have doen so for one reason- cost.

The present legal action is why. The one company that has taken cad free seriously decided to use the tech without licensing it.

Other companies using cadmium based dots have had little penetration into the market, and beyond display, business has been small. that is hopefully due to change in the next 12 months or so.

You talk some absolute nonsense, BTB.

CFQD never taken off- I guess around 90% of the QD display market not quite good enough?

I think it was UbiQD that has an ex Nanoco employee in the management team?

Probably not huge liquidity, at least half the company owned by about three main holders, the rest I suspect are mainly long term holders waiting hopefully for when this company finally lives up to its potential.

That would be a desirable outcome. What's the odds of Samsung doing this, or perhaps only when all other alternatives have been exhausted?