Member Info for Nanonano

Looks like Carewar are extending their supply.

https://www.printedelectronicsnow.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2021-10-01/carewear-announces-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-for-arthritis-sufferers/?widget=listSection

I would think there may be an RNS this week with a date for notice of results.

Was the pun intended?

Quite. However, if Nanoco's patents prove to be watertight, any product they bring forth with cad-free dots are a potential revenue stream for the company.

It wasn't related to STMicro. I'm aware that our current sparring partner, Samsung are also working on meta lens tech, e.g. https://petapixel.com/2021/07/12/samsung-researching-flat-metalens-tech-for-smartphone-integration/ and I suspect most other sensor makers also have R&D programs in this field. Who will be the leaders in the field, remains to be seen.

https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=56993.php

You have to register to read it, but it's free for a couple of articles per month. Interesting article on the future of QD display and projected revenue through to 2026.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/the-future-of-qd-display-phosphors-quantum-dots-industry-forum-2021

From the beginning of the STMicro contract it's been non-exclusive, so the potential market is very large. Especially when you consider this tech is almost certainly being incorporated with the Metalenz technology, which is game changing on its own.

If Apple are sourcing through STMicro, then it's unlikely we'll see QD's in a Apple product within the next eighteen months to two years, because Nanoco have already stated they will not begin to scale until calendar 2023 at the earliest.

Small low volume trading.

Less than nine months until PTAB judgement, and probably about a year until a court case- should it get to that.

Major news before then could significantly move the needle, and such news could drop anytime. Such news could be positive or negative.

I think what we can observe is that the QD industry is growing into what was once predicted, just on an extended timetable.

The PTAB's judgement will dictate just how large a role Nanoco play in that growth.

Jason Hartlove has shown that XQDEF material in past interviews, although that's the first time I've seen it linked to actual OEM's.

Difficult to say for sure, because it all hinges on how much royalty was negotiated. I think probably three pounds, perhaps more based on future earnings from QD OLED etc.

Interesting that various display pundits and Nanosys themselves have not mentioned the recent news on the PTAB decision.

I think with regards to Nanoco future valuation it does depend hugely on the PTAB ruling next year. I believe the value of the company lies more with license deals than damages. With QD-display (QD-OLED) coming online in the next year or so, the amount of dots Samsung require are likely to double from current levels, and that leaves the potential for income from display alone in the $2-300m ballpark unless they drive a significant discount. Even based on a very small multiplier that would potentially value the company in the billions rather than the millions.

In regards to sensors, it would be interesting to know the sort of price Nanoco intend to charge for their heatwave QD technology. I expect the density of dots will be higher than used in QD LED screens, and may be closer to the density required in the colour filters for QD-OLED, perhaps greater. Even with the billions of sensors likely to be required, it's going to need a high volume to get close to display revenue unless there is some bias in the pricing.

Well that will be corrected by the courts, hopefully. All assuming our patents are proven sound.

I personally think that graphene is a nano material much further away from being widely adopted than quantum dots.

Certainly is a game changer, especially with respects to it's ability to modify the properties of many common place materials like paints and coatings, resins and lubricants, but industry will cater to a market, and whilst they can sell their existing products, there is often resistance to change and thus a great deal of inertia to overcome.

QD's are now catering to a market which needs to change- enhanced display and sensors. Alternatives are more costly or less effective.

Nine months before we know the outcome from the PTAB IPR's, that should bring about meaningful movement in the share price, one way or the other.

AFAIK Samsung don't seem to have appeared to deny using Nanoco's technology, they're claiming it wasn't patentable in the first place. Seems to be a common line of defence for the company- I believe they took a similar line with the finFET case. Didn't wash with that, and I don't think it will with Nanoco's IP either.

Someone selling, someone buying. the only time there can be investment in a company is when someone pumps money in either through issuing new shares, profit from sales, inward capital from a third party company, or a loan.

Graphene is still a very new material and it's going to take several years yet for it to find a firm footing in industry. I expect AGM to go through additional fund raises before they establish any substantial commercial footprint.

Well we're just along for the ride, so best to sit back and enjoy the view.

If a friendly or aggressive move was made for a takeover, I think they would have to offer pounds rather than pence. Probably still quite a few LTH's out there that paid a couple of quid for their shares back when the Dow contract was first signed, and with the choppy ride they've experienced since, they'll want to see a reasonable return on that for holding on so long.

It would be LO and Richard Griffith’s when would decide if the price was right. PI’s would have little influence.

I think a ten to fifteen times earnings would be a more practical estimate, assuming all things go our way in the Samsung case.

That would still value the company in the billions, and a return a very attractive return for all investors. We'll just have to bide our time and wait and see.