Member Info for Nanonano

I was reading the PTAB's conclusion from the IPR in the Samsung vs Nucurrent case. In that instance Sansung have been successful in challenging the validity of Nucurrents patents, having claimed prior art like they have done with Nanoco.

So still remains some risk, and Samsung are not for lying down and giving up.

If like me you couldn't access the 3rd November meeting, here's a link to the transcript. It says it's from the 4th November, but I logged into that meeting, and there seems to be a little more information and different questions.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4466400-nanoco-group-plc-nnocf-ceo-brian-tenner-on-year-ended-july-31-2021-results-earnings-call

I see that Applied materials are using QD's with UV micro led for AR application. Slightly different approach to other companies using blue LED, but a further validation of QD tech in next gen display.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/applied-materials-overcomes-some-challenges-in-microled-for-vr

Try this- https://tinyurl.com/5p4zrzfc

I'm no legal expert, but was Jeremy Wilson attempting to bamboozle the witness on more than one occasion, by assuming certain statements? I see at page 130 there was a definite attempt to question the credibility of the witness

I think the fact that STMicro are talking about the QD based sensors is much more reassuring, as it signals a strong intention that these will make it to market. Unlike the Apple product which was kept under a tight lid, until it was cancelled, and even then it was subject to speculation. Also by reading many Apple patents and technology in other sectors it's clear that infrared is a spectrum that needs a lot of sensors, and the QD enhanced silicon sensors appear to be a solution that has little competition when it comes to price vs performance.

The whole idea of the non-dilutive loan from LO and RG was to circumvent the likelihood of a placing. It should be more than adequate to give the company time to both demonstrate the validity (or not) of its patents, and also for the nascent QD sensor market to bear fruit If each of those are successful, the company will be in a much stronger position to raise cash in a number ways.

The company has been low on cash for a very long time now, but we do have a pretty clear timetable of when revenue should be expected to begin from sensors e.g. 2023, and we also have the trial which although subject to risk is near term in the case of the PTAB ruling, and which is pivotal to the future of the company.

Some interesting details at this links plus the comments section.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2021/10/st-to-present-ist-quantum-dot-swir.html

I think it may take a week or two for the transcript to be published, going by the Mark Green's deposition.

i understand the trial last a fixed length of time. By delaying until after the PTAB ruling, and assuming it rules in Nanoco's favour, it allows their legal team to focus on other matters which may potentially increase damages.

Brian Tenner has been frank in playing down display revenue opportunities in his past updates. This is in stark contrast to Michael Edelman who liked to whip up some froth, but little came of it beyond a temporary lift in share value that often enabled him to sell his personal share holding.

Brian did say there may be some small opportunities, but they may have since diminished. It does appear that beyond Samsung, Nanosys and Nanjing hold all the cards in the QD display industry. Nanosys have prduced an air stable QD product that costs a little about $6 to integrate into a TV

There are, I'm sure, things going on behind the scenes that we're completely unaware of. We don't know if these companies are infringing on Nanoco IP, but even if that was so we can be reasonably sure that Nanoco do not have the capability to support further legal action at this stage.

Everything really depends on how the PTAB reaches its conclusion in a little over seven months from now.

The executive teams of companies like Haydale and AGM draw high salaries, which when combined are pushing on for 20% of the companies running costs. Do have to question if such salaries are justified, when they rely so highly on dilution to fund activities.

Someone offloading those shares too. What do they know- or not know?

The PTAB decision is crucial to the future of Nanoco, IMO. If the patents are judged invalid and the IP is declared prior art, then it will be a free for all for the likes of Nanging and Nanosys to pursue molecular seeding QD's without fear of prosecution.

It was listed on ADVFN, so it's an issue with LSE .

Odd that didn't publish as an RNS on this site. I had expected notice of results this week, as it would have aligned with last years schedule.

I think they're manufactured by Hisense.

With regards to the 13 OEM's, my thoughts are that they have looked at Nanoco's tech and decided to remain with cadmium based tech until such time as legislation forces them to reevaluate.

I remember Michael Edelman cautioning that a delay in legislation by the EU to ban cadmium in display would encourage a flood of cheaper cadmium based QD TV's from China and elsewhere. Sadly that seems to been one prediction that has proven to be all too accurate, although it's still worth remembering that Samsung maintain the lions share of the market with their cadmium free sets. Also IIRC, the forthcoming displays with QD colour filters will need to be cad free to avoid exceeding current legislation limits for cadmium content.

Nanosys now produce cad free QD's, but it remains to be seen the quantity they're producing, and whether they'll be found to be infringing patents in their production.

I don't think it'll stagnate for the next 18 months. Certainly it may remain quiet up until we hear the judgement from the PTAB. That may be in a positive or negative direction, depending on the outcome, but things will definitely get interesting from there on, IMO.

In the meantime further updates and news could drop at any time.

The CTO of Nanoco's life sciences moved on earlier this year, according to his linked in profile-

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/imad-naasani-00291b5?challengeId=AQEqY3Hp90V99gAAAXxU8drOWhrpXryIWv9ZlLVxnyoYT-Ds7lKR9619LY12C2PYW6Z_LicIveou1Ycrsz9BSZA7COcoZsGWrA&submissionId=59e6935a-2767-ab16-1de1-a4897f73a731

I believe most of the biological research has been mothballed. Some has been kept on in a reduced capacity, fundamentally I believe through extra cash for Covid testing research. Revenue form any such venture was always likely to be some years off anyway. With the loss of the Apple contract, Nanoco have had to focus on what will bring revenue in the near term, which is primarily dIsplay via Samsung litigation and sensors via STMicro and the unnamed Asian chemicals supplier.