Member Info for Nanonano

My best guess, assuming the story is accurate, is that Samsung will be using WOLED but perhaps with QD colour filters for the RGB. Samsung have had a lot of reports about their prototype QD-OLED screens failing to achieve adequate brightness, WOLED was principally developed to get round this problem, bu LG exclusively hold the patents, which were originally registered by Kodak.

Looks like development of QD-OLED is in trouble. LG OLED is a very different technology to what Samsung were planning.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375179/samsung-electronics-lg-display-oled-tv-panels-quantum-dot-qd

Should know mostly where we stand within the next five or six weeks if not sooner, once the Judge's report from the Markman hearing is published and the patent board reports back on the IPR.

A settlement would have to be much higher, as it would need to be for worldwide sales not just North America. The estimated amount is $200-250m for US sales alone, accounting for about one third of worldwide sales. So circa $600-750m, plus yearly license, possibly worth $150-200m per annum (based on 10m annual sales). That would value the company at a lot more.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/10941338

We'll find out soon enough where we stand with the patents. A watched kettle never boils, as the old saying goes.

We'll get to find out sometime before the end of May. Unlike Nanoco's previous business dealings which are often cloaked in NDA's, the patent dispute and court dealings are made public.

One or two on here getting over wound once again like they did when the company was up for sale and expecting Samsung to pay big bucks for it. Then they got all disappointed.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched.

I doubt it very much.

My thoughts are they will see it through to court, then if they lose, appeal. That could take things through to late 2023, so anyone looking for a quick payday should bear that in mind.

What makes you assume an offer would be accepted even if they made one?

Re LG and Nanosys, I'm mindful of what Brian Tenner said about producing CFQD in anything beyond university lab level requires the use of the molecular seeding process.

All roads lead back to Samsung. The CFQD products have Samsung's badge regardless of whom they have sub contracted to. If other makes and products from other manufacturers start appearing with Nanoco style CFQD in them, then that will no doubt provoke a different case. It will be interesting to learn about the type of dots LG's new line of QNED sets will use, would Nanosys be bold enough to use Nanoco's patented system?

Much of that would be difficult to prove, but should Samsung be found guilty- assuming the case gets that far, then the damages are likely to be scaled to the higher end if the Judge considers these factors.

Even if Samsung are found guilty and get slapped with a hefty bill for their shenanigans, they still come out on top, having made billions of pounds extra profit and got a massive head start against the competition with QD display.

If Nanoco had received revenue from Dow/Dupont via sales to Samsung,as was originally expected, I would think the share price today would have been north of a fiver, bearing in mind the two fundings and subsequent dilutions in 2017 and 2020 wouldn't have been required. That would be based on a modest eight times earnings, and with QD colour filters on the horizon, which should in time double the volume of dots required, speculative buys could have pushed it even higher.

Sensor revenue would be added to that, but we're not there yet with that.

I suspect this is one of the II's shifting some stock about, wouldn't be surprised to see an RNS stating someone reducing or extending their position later this week.

I have a feeling Facebook may be one of the additional companies now looking at our dots.

They are investing huge sums into AR, and with their soft takeover of Plessey, they're almost certain to be aware of Nanoco and their capabilities. Pretty certain Apple still have a dog in this fight too, and with those two in tow it would be understandable for the sudden reluctance to name the chip companies that they're working with, as investors may start joining up the dots.

It's now on their website-

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/results-centre/

I used the one in the RNS for the live webcast , couldn't find anything on their website as stated in the RNS- typical Nanoco PR. You have to enter you email, name etc.

https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/604a5c131e24d464e23edbb2

Worth having a listen to yesterdays analyst meeting. Good bit of information in that update.