Member Info for Nanonano

I think it's worth remembering what Brian Tenner stated, that Nanoco are simply a supplier in a long chain of others that contribute to a final product.

The timer also aligns with Nanoco's own projected scale-up.

"Metalenz will go into mass production toward the end of the year. Its first application will be to serve as the lens system of a 3D sensor in a smartphone. (The company did not give the name of the phone maker.)"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/a-new-lens-technology-is-primed-to-jumpstart-phone-cameras/?comments=1

A decent supply contract with STMicro would concentrate minds at Samsung I think, then they would at least realise that the company is not going to slink away or be reduced to a patent holding company.

Without that, I really can't see Samsung making any attempts to broker a deal.

Sorry forgot to paste the link

https://www.displaysupplychain.com/blog/sid-dscc-business-conference-download-tv-display-technology-and-markets

i looked at this interesting article the other day.

If you look at the bar charts, it clearly shows Samsung have most of the market in high end TV's, with the most popular sub $1000 market almost sewn up.

Nanoco are due a cut of that if their argument wins the day.

A look through the Rns's will confirm that he topped up post Apple contract termination. It was Lombard that were topping up before the contract.

Nanoco aren't an AIM company.

WaveOptics was working closely with Plessey. I wonder how the Snap acquisition will affect Facebooks AR project?

'Of course .... we don't want the IP sold for peanuts ...what exactly is its REAL value ??'

About £21m?

e.g. the present share price. This is one of those shares where you buy in and remain very patient and don't expect miracles. Might be five years or more before this company is supplying in significant volume, assuming it makes it that far.

Graphene was only discovered about fifteen or sixteen years ago. It's a record to see it in products in that time, in the pst it took decades for most new materials to find commercial traction.

Worth a watch if you're interested in what the competition are up to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2W25ssWiM&list=PLt3sTxy5BSZptQNk6Qwv9ricqYhFhUdUC&index=2

I saw this story yesterday-

https://www.ledinside.com/node/31990

Also rather strange behaviour to showcase displays with a technology that supposedly doesn't stack up .

I suspect some baser motives at play, truth will out in the end.

Seems to be the case that Samsung strung Nanoco along for at least a couple of years, until late 2017, probably with promises of second line supply, which never materialised.

What has never been explained is what happened with AUO. They used Wah Hong fine colour film in their display units at Touch Taiwan four years ago, but when the production units came on the market they used dots from competitors. It would be interesting to know what the reasons were for that snub, was it cost, performance or pressure from other sources?

Mea Culpa.

It appears the IPR decision can be appealed.

"I have a feeling something is going on behind the scenes, 20% drop since last week on two decent RNS's. Either a larger holder is adjusting their position or selling off in anticipation of buying at a discounted placing, or someone has got a sniff of some less positive news from PTAB. Let's hope neither is the case."

As I said on Monday. So unfortunately it looks like it's going to be a drawn out punch-up. I rather suspect Samsung's opinion carries more weight in government departments than in Texas courts. The only positive is that the PTAB decision is final and binding, but we can fully expect Samsung to exploit anything that goes there way- the longer they can hold out, the worse things get for Nanoco.

The Stmicro contracts, and whatever else the company can secure are now critical to its survival in its present form. My thoughts are that orders will not be substantial enough, at least initially, to stave off a further fund raise within the next 12 months or so, but we will have to wait and see.

In the interim I expect the share price to wallow about and probably drift back into the teens.

I have a feeling something is going on behind the scenes, 20% drop since last week on two decent RNS's. Either a larger holder is adjusting their position or selling off in anticipation of buying at a discounted placing, or someone has got a sniff of some less positive news from PTAB. Let's hope neither is the case.

My own belief is that Nanoco will become a potential target for takeover (friendly or hostile) once the legal action is settled one way or the other, assuming the patents are upheld.

I think because the markets are largely driven by sentiment, and a small company like Nanoco is relatively unknown.

We can take some heart in the fact that the biggest investor, LOAM, have increased albeit marginally, whilst other large investors have held steady

It is still a risk, the PTAB board may not report in the way we hope, plus there is the possibility of further dilution if Samsung really ring the case out. However there is no guarantee that Samsung will win any appeal if it went that far.

If the PTAB is positive, I'm not expecting the share price to skyrocket, but I would think it would reach the sort of levels we saw when the Apple contract was looking rosy.

At the similar time I first invested in Nanoco about five years ago, i was looking at companies like Nvidia, Square and AMD, look at how the value of those have risen since then. Look at Tesla.

Nanoco couldn't catch a break it seems, but they may be about to now. I think it's worth the risk.

That figure was for Samsung only. The Chinese OEMs are still using cadmium dots, as I believe are the Taiwanese OEMs.

Samsung sold about 7m QLED sets last year. $15 per set equals $105m, they’re sledged to be looking at around 4m QD OLED screens in 2022. They use QD colour filters which use about five times that of LCD, so for costing maybe $75 per set, or $300m. My thoughts are that they’ll want to drive down cost though, plus it may affect QLED sales a bit hence I lowered the royalty a by about $100m.