Member Info for Nanonano

Nanosys also sued QD vision in 2016.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160414006498/en/Nanosys-Files-Lawsuit-against-QD-Vision-for-Patent-Infringement

With Nanosys reported to be going public at some stage, it will be interesting to find out in the fullness of time the volume of QD's Nanosys sells per annum, and what percentage are cadmium free. Course the deal may not go through, they tried to go public about 16 or 17 years ago, and failed to attract sufficient interest. Maybe that's why they're going down the SPAC route this time.

Nanoco isn't AIM.

Going by this that would be another $300m (or $900m for wilful infringement) they'd owe Nanoco since the legal process started. Assuming our patents survive the IPR process, natch.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/samsung-to-lead-premium-tv-sales-globally-in-2021-says-report-121032300201_1.html

For every sell there’s a buyer.

I agree that STMicro are likely to be incorporating CFQD's into their AR glasses, and will most likely incorporate them into a whole range of sensors.

I noticed that Metalenz director of design and computation - Pawel Latawiec has been involved with QD's in the past, according to his linked in profile, and I'm sure he's not the only one.

There's a big incentive to drive down cost, power consumption and size, whilst improving performance, and QD's look to deliver on all these aspects.

As investors we never got an explanation of why companies like AUO decided to use Nanosys dots after they'd used Nanoco dots in their show demonstrations. Some have speculated it's linked with performance, which is plausible as cadmium dots offer slightly improved performance over cad free, but it may be something more simplistic- price.

Regardless, I don't believe Nanosys are doing as well as they would like many to think IMO. Certainly doing better than Nanoco, but they have required large injections of capital investment to expand in quite recent times- this would hardly be needed if their dots were used in the volume of displays claimed, as they would have plenty of cash.

If Samsung offer a deal, i can't see them doing so until the outcome of the PTAB IPR is settled, and that's assuming everything goes our way, and they don't appeal. even then they'd probably leave it until a week or two before any court case is due to start.

Why would it be in their interest to settle any earlier?

Nanosys claim to have 25million displays with their dots in them. If we use the $15 per display benchmark that has been mentioned by Nanoco, then that would be $375m, if we take some of that off for costs, and then divide by about six, bearing in mind QD displays have only been on the market for the last six years or so, then probably looking at around $50-60m dollars per year. That is small beer compared to what Nanoco should have been realising had Samsung not done them the dirty.

Little old Nanoco valued by the market at about one twelfth of that.

"I think the most recent funding round and statement that production (with ST ) is not now expected until 2023 suggests we have missed this years iPhone update in September though?"

Agreed, and next years too. iphone 15 September 2023, perhaps. Tech could appear in other Apple products in the interim however, and leaks of information linking suppliers could influence share price in the lead up to release.

The two companies lending the money hold over 30% of the company shares, so I suspect it would be vot4d through no matter what the objections raised by PI's.

Typically end of year results are reported on in September or early October.

There's been a few eyebrow raising situations over the years, most involving the former CEO's share dealing antics, but I remember the fund raising back in 2017 which caused some chagrin amongst private investors, as the equity was only available to ii's at what was then a very significant discount. A later fund raise was made available but not at the same level of discount. Course subsequent circumstances with the Apple contract cancellation and the Covid epidemic have created opportunities for PI's to buy in at significant discount to any prior cash raise, but you have to have a few quid spare tyo take advantage at the right time.

Samsung don't appear to have denied infringing the patents, their defence seems to centre on the invention being non patentable owing to prior art.

Samsung go on selling tv's. I would expect them to try and find some grounds for appeal, if that fails, then they have to pay-up any award or find themselves in contempt.

The key lies the PTAB decision. If that goes our way i believe the court result is just a formality.

"There’s a lot of companies who are in research mode, but over 98% of the quantum dots that have ever been in the world in consumer products have come from either Nanosys or our licensed manufacturing partners."

Careful use of language by Nanosys CEO, he doesn't say 98% of consumer products use Nanosys QD's. Samsung license patents from Nanosys, but they don't use their QD's or it seems their methods for QD production.

If we believe what Nanoco said that 90% of QD displays on the market are Samsung, that leaves 8% to Nanosys.

It's not just display patents, it's the patents for molecular seeding, that's key to all of Nanoco's products.

The case is critical IMO. If they fail, it opens the door for any other company to exploit the IP, if they're not doing so already.

Many investors seem to be looking at the potential of a big payout, but seem to be overlooking that if the patents are valid, the Samsung will have to pay for an ongoing license, and with that hovering anywhere from $100-300m per year depending on how you gauge present and future royalties, that can value the company at $1-3bn plus based on a modest ten times earnings multiplier.

Naturally that could be completely wide of the mark, so we will have to wait and see.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/non-dilutive-debt-extends-organic-cash-runway/29741

"Its the video link."

I take it you're referring to the video with Artem Fokin- certainly a name you have to be cautious in your pronunciation!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBuH8pyc8Y0