Member Info for Nanonano

I think we have to be prepared for this action to drag on well into 2022 and very likely 2023 though, Samsung's past form suggests they'll never fall on their sword.

We really do need those contract in sensing to keep the company ticking over, else I predict there will be another fund raise by around this time next year.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/progressing-sensing-opportunity/29184/

...LG are sourcing their Quantum Dots from? AFAIK only two companies with the capability to produce cadmium free at scale and one of those is questionable in Nanosys, and they're keeping very quiet whcih goes against the grain for them. The other is Dow/Dupont.

Interims tomorrow, lets hope they bring us further good news.

Sensible to allow plenty of time for a report, If they said a week or two, and it was delayed, they'd be called out on it.

The case gets little exposure beyond boards like this.

The initial instigation of legal action inked some headlines, but nothing since. I think the large ii's already have their positions and are just sitting tight.

We're not necessarily going to hear much about that for a few weeks after the hearing. Details may well leak out, but don't expect it.

There are also the interim updates on Tuesday 30th March, although as per the last results, the board may choose not to comment on the case. What would be nice is some news of other display contract(s) and/or (good) news on the STMicro contract.

The predictions for any possible settlement are generally based on the rough estimates Nanoco themselves have given for lost revenue.

We know that the legal action is in regards to North American sales only, which was given as around 14m Tv's as of February 2020. We also know this represents approximately a third of Samsung's market share, so that would roughly be 42m sales worldwide.

Nanoco said that the average size screen Samsung produce would equal about $20 in lost license fees, but some screens are smaller and some bigger, and the $20 may be a bit high or low depending on your personal viewpoint.

However if we use that benchmark, it gives us $280m for the US market. A worldwide figure would be at least triple that, so $840m, then multiply that figure by up to three for wilful infringement $2.52B.

Then there is the issue of damage done to the company through years of underfunding, plus damages being based on value added to Samsung's product rather than cost to produce- circa $1000 per TV versus about $100 to add that value. Plus a couple years of bumper sales, and the (hoped for) introduction of QD-OLED screens in 2022 with QD colour filters, which use about five times the amount of QD's of current screens.

Nvidia crashed and burnt since that legal action. Share price in 2014 was circa $15, over $500 today.

Nanosys are superb at marketing spin, yet I believe their dots represent less than 15% of the QD display market, with the rest belonging to Samsung who have used Nanoco’s patented technology.

Regarding the legal aspects of the case, it's all there to read in black and white anyway. Not much to say beyodn that, Nanoco say one thing Samsung another. It will be the decision of the judge and jury that's pivotal.

In the meantime would be nice if we got some news on the STMicro contract in or before the interims, which can't be far away now.

The award for the funder is multiples of their original financial commitment, and is capped at a certain amount. the company hasn't given details of the multiplication factor or how much the cap is.

Sorry hit the button before finishing.

The link below suggests to me strong likelihood of the need for IR based cameras and TOF sensors, and there will be a need to keep costs low, which QD sensors permit.

https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/news/apple-mixed-reality-headset-reportedly-packs-15-cameras-heres-what-theyll-do

He also the Judge on the Samsung Vs Kaist litigation.

Over 80% of the QD display market is cad free anyway, chiefly as a consequence of Samsung's dominance . Good news for us if we get a good deal and/or win the case against them, not so good if we don't.

The legal action is important because without it, anyone can come and and copy Nanoco's technology, after all they've supplied the details in the patents.

So not without risk, and either you want to take that risk or you don't. Most posters on this board have been invested for several years, and well before they knew of Samsung's chicanery, which only came to light when the legal action was announced. Many suspected something was up long before, but had no information to make anything other than assumptions.

My understanding was that in the US, the Judge decides on points of law, the jury delivers a verdict based on facts?

Very interesting article, pertinent to our investment. You need to register to read it in full, but it's free and you get a limited number of articles to read per month.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/cadmium-containing-qds-are-on-the-chopping-block-rohs-update-2021

It's all a big 'IF'.

The present share value can be looked upon as a problem or an opportunity. For many holders the present situation means they're well underwater, whilst for many others they've made a decent profit. historically the share price is very low, so if you're bullish about the prospects of the company, then perhaps it's a good time to hoover up whatever you can afford.

The more bearish may think the share price will revisit the single figure levels once again, which isn't out of the question if the case against Samsung drags on and there is a paucity of news from the company regarding other dealings, and thus the present price looks expensive.

Perhaps they're having an extended negotiation.