Member Info for Nanonano

Remember it's just the North American market, estimated to be about one third of the total. So it would be around $600-750m of lost revenue worldwide. Multiply for wilful infringement that would be $1.8-2.25bn, then add on costs, damage to reputation plus future earnings QD-OLED should at least double the volume QD's required based on 4m sets per annum (5x QD enhanced LCD). The you have ongoing license, which could be £300m+ per annum.

Based ten times earnings that would value the company at $3bn+ and $10 (£8-9) per share. That's not taking into account other markets in Display, sensing, health, solar and agriculture.

Needs many stars to align, the big one IMO is the integrity of Nanoco's patents. Whether the market will see it that way remains to be seen.

Expected this month, but no definite date given, so could be any day now. All beyond Nanoco's control, government departments move at their own speed

"I am concerned that Nanoco is still living from hand to mouth."

That's why the share price is where it is. Nanoco remains a cash burner reliant on selling equity to maintain cash flow. One contract would be enough to turn things around, a second or third would back that up.

Having said that, if the PTAB result is positive, I don't think they'll have any problem raising cash going forwards, assuming that might be required.

Personally I'm not worried about my investment at all. We've had a lot more visibility about what has been going on in the past twelve months or so, and he mystery of what happened to the Samsung dots has been solved. I believe that Nanoco could possibly be in a monopoly situation if what BT said was accurate about anyone making Cd free QD's beyond laboratory scale is potentially using the molecular seeding process and thus infringing Nanoco's patents.

"Is that because the deal is with ST Micro and expectation of we Stage 2 income had already been bagged"

That's the way i see it. i recall in past updates cash to H2 2022 was dependent on present contracts being honoured, but that contingency plans were in place should the contracts be ended earlier than expected.

In effect Nanoco would probably revert to a skeleton staffing level as a patent holding company. That would be worst case scenario I think.

Well can anyone be trusted to play it straight in business, big or small? I guess the answer is some will, some won't. IF we win the Samsung dispute, the big difference will be that Nanoco will have some serious capital, and that makes you far less likely to be messed about with.

"Can they be trusted to pay us licensing fees for every QD they produce?"

Probably not, and further legal action may be required. Nanoco are under no obligation to provide a license to Samsung and/or Hansol however.

Wasn't referring to Samsung with regards to supply from Runcorn, was referring to supplying STMicro, which is totally in context with the original post by frostbar12.

With regards to who the RNS relates to, I agree that it can't be anyone other than STMicro, and the recent reluctance to name them (they were coy about naming the company in their most recent update in April) I suspect might be down to customers further down the supply chain e.g. Apple.

LOL, what on earth for?

Nanoco have capabilities themselves to readily supply QD's in bulk from their Runcorn facility, plus Dow/Duponts mothballed facility in Korea, originally built to supply Samsung (situated directly next door to one of their factories).

They only asked for $10m originally though. Samsung offered them $6m. Be over $4bn (20x$200-250m) if it works out that way for us, $12bn+ if you factored in worldwide sales. Some hopes I guess, but just putting it into context.

I think the market will pick up more when we know the results from the PTAB. If we then got some good news regarding STMicro that should certainly send things very positive .

Ericsson a huge multi national company with oodles of cash, compared with a tiny company with little cash and little sales pipeline (at present). No surprise that Samsung will play meaner with one than the other.

I think it was December 2020 that they filed with the courts.

We should have a clearer view of how things are likely to go after the PTAB and the Judges Markman hearing report, which should be sometime within the next three weeks. Prior to that I don't really see much to be gained in speculating on outcomes.

"Edison estimates a settlement in the region of $£250m mark"

That's incorrect. This is what they state-

"Although the value of the potential payout has not been disclosed, we calculate that lost revenue in the US attributable to the patent infringement to date could be in the region of US$200–250m or more."

That's lost revenue, damages awarded for wilful infringement can be multiples of that amount, typically three times or more.

I should add that I'm aware that the $1bn figure would only cover lost sales in North America, and that worldwide sales are three times that figure, but the legal action is against North American sales. Any further damages would be negotiated elsewhere.

It would be nice if Samsung offered a worldwide deal, but I wouldn't count on it.

Some big figures being bandied about here, which I think belong in the realms of fantasy.

I would say a settlement of north of $1bn would be very decent , based on loss of earnings times three, plus a bit more for costs incurred, damage to reputation, harm to company prospects etc. Any kind of license would have to be negotiated separately from the legal proceedings, and with Samsung would probably require some further legal action to get Samsung to comply , reference to KAIST who had to go back to court for similar shenanigans.

Sensors could be much more significant for anyone that has kept a close eye on how things are moving exponentially with IoT, AR and machine learning (incorporating automated cars).

My own thoughts are that if Nanoco win this action, it will become a much more attractive prospect for a buyout by a larger corporation. Nanoco have never really been keen on becoming a manufacturing company, they'd rather leave that to someone else, and have only dipped their toe in the water as a consequence of losing sales to the Korean OEM's.

We don't need one.

We just need our patents declared valid by the PTAB and the judge to side with Nanoco/Mintz side of the case. then it's just a matter of time, IMO.

On what ground would they be In dispute with Dow/DuPont or LG. AFAIK neither have infringed Nanoco IP. If it’s in relation to some kind of alleged collusion to frustrate the market for Nanoco’s dots, I’d say that would be a pretty bold claim and very difficult to prove even if it were true.

It would be interesting to know what kind of QD’s will be going in LG’s new QNED sets. From what Brian Tenner said at the last update about any cad free QD’s at scale it looks likely that Nanosys and possibly UbiQD could possibly be borrowing some of Nanoco’s techniques, but with insufficient sales to date to make it worthwhile pursuing them in court at this time.

According to an article on Display Daily, Samsung have an order for 1m oled screens from LG in 2031 and 4m in 2022. This seems to be via third party sources so treat with caution. However if these screens get treated to QD colour filters, then with a reported five times a institutes per screen, that should roughly triple the amount of dots Samsung will require. That would have a very meaningful effect on any licensing revenue, circa $300m per annum? Ten time earnings $3bn valuation?

I don't think this is a takeover.I think it's just Lo displaying a degree of confidence in Nanoco's position, perhaps they have a sniff of future business with STMicro?

If Samsung wanted to buy the company out,. they could have done so much easier last year by placing a sensible bid, but they did not.