Member Info for Nanonano

Cad free is no longer exclusive to Nanoco, the method of producing it is, Samsung's alleged theft aside.

How easily and cost effectively other companies can produce cad free is another matter. Not a lot of information out there, and non-publicly traded companies like Nanosys have no obligation to share such details.

However they seem very keen to maintain the use of cadmium in display, which i think suggests they have a weaker hand when it comes to cad free.

I think the Chinese are mainly using Najingtech cadmium based dots.

ME did warn that the Chinese would flood the market with cheap cad based QD display if it wasn't legislated against, and that appears to be what is happening.

Not enough information to form anything beyond wild speculation.

Nanosys promote themselves relentlessly, but when you actually look at the amount of products on the market, it's relatively small (albeit much greater than Nanoco when you discount Samsung) and they still seem to need cash injections to enhance their operations, so that makes me wonder how much profit they generate. They are also remarkably coy with details on how much cad free versus cadmium based QD they actually sell.

Hopefully some more details will be revealed in this weeks CES, but I wouldn't count on it.

The method Nanosys use is very different to Nanoco, and the techniques leave evidence which is easy for the initiated to prove which method has been used.

Nanosys don't seem to be crowing about partnering with LG if that is the case, and they're usually not backwards in coming forwards in such instances.

Nanosys are very good at promoting their company, but AFAIK theior products are still only used in about 15% of QD displays, the rest is from Samsung. Nanosys like to lay claim to Samsung QD display too, but as we have discovered Samsung don't use their method of making dots.

Truth will out.

It's taken two significant fund raises in 2017 and 2020 to give the firm enough cash to keep afloat. The Apple contract provided further funding, plus the more modest income from other sources which has never been sufficient to cover costs.

So it really is a miracle that Nano is still around.

Perhaps Samsung are hoping the STmicro deal falls flat, and if they can long the case out towards the end of 2022, the company will be in financial difficulties once more.

On Edison's last update-

"Although the value of the potential pay out has not been disclosed, we calculated in our October note that lost revenue in the US attributable to the patent infringement to date could be US$200–250m. Any damages award could also make an additional allowance for future sales of Samsung TVs using QDs and sales in other territories."

Then add on enhanced damages for wilful infringement, all assuming they are found guilty naturally.

With what money?

How much backing would they have got if the payout was minor? Probably little to nothing.

Plus what were Samsung promising behind the scenes. I well remember all the chatter about dual supply strategy, which never materialised.

Well in the North American market alone Nanoco have lost an estimated $250m in sales as of February 2019, and that accounts for roughly a third of worldwide sales, so we're looking at circa $750m for worldwide sales loss. 2020 has been a good year Samsung, so expect that figure to scale nicely in the interim.

The infringement is also wilful, so multiply the damages, often tripled, plus costs plus damage to business etc.

To give some context KAIST sued Samsung for using their FINFET technology without a license, they asked Samsung for $10m. The court awarded them $700m, reduced to $400m on appeal, and KAIST eventually accepted $200m presumably with some other deals arranged behind closed doors. Still twenty times the original sum asked for, but it took some time to get it.

Well in the North American market alone Nanoco have lost an estimated $250m in sales as of February 2019, and that accounts for roughly a third of worldwide sales, so we're looking at circa $750m for worldwide sales loss. 2020 has been a good year Samsung, so expect that figure to scale nicely in the interim.

The infringement is also wilful, so multiply the damages, often tripled, plus costs plus damage to business etc.

To give some context KAIST sued Samsung for using their FINFET technology without a license, they asked Samsung for $10m. The court awarded them $700m, reduced to $400m on appeal, and KAIST eventually accepted $200m presumably with some other deals arranged behind closed doors. Still twenty times the original sum asked for, but it took some time to get it.

It's far from inconceivable that legal action could last well into 2022 if it gets to court, however five years is stretching it. Samsung would most likely appeal should the case go against them, but there's no guarantee they'd be granted one.

Course if Samsung's team can satisfactorily demonstrate prior art, that will open up a whole new can of worms for Nanoco, as the value of their core IP will be wiped out. So it looks like it's **** or bust, place your bets please.

Samsung must think the Judge was born yesterday. Samsung have had years to peruse the patents, bearing in mind their long standing partnership with Nanoco and a minimum of 22 months since being formally notified of their infringement.

We'll see I guess, but that district isn't known for dragging its heels, and they'll be only too familiar with Samsung's little games.

AR will need very accurate IR sensors, so I think this will be a use, but they will buy them in, very likely from STmicro.

Spun out of the same University I guess. Also Konstantin Novoselov has worked with Nanoco.

IMO the STmicro contract is far more significant than the Apple contract ever was, and will be transformational if it makes it into end products. Tenfold improvement in infrared sensor sensitivity at very modest cost is going to have a significant impact.

The risk factor is that we fall at the final hurdle, but we should know by middle of 2021 where we stand on that.

Just lack of legislation that has reduced the desire for OEM's to use cad free, apart from Samsung, who represent about 85% of the QD display market anyway.

LG entering the fray is an interesting development, it remains to be seen from whom they are obtaining their dots.

Does anyone know if the details of a Markman hearing are published, or does it remain confidential? Regardless i would expect some whispers to leak out, and the share price to move accordingly depending on which way the axe is likely to fall.

News can drop at any time, positive or negative- always been a major issue with Nanoco, as it's been a company on the edge of self sufficiency for so many years and experienced many disappointments .

At least currently we have a named partner in STMicro , unlike the cloak of secrecy with Apple and other OEM 's, and can also deduce the likely end product with their range of ToF sensors and perhaps some added performance to their camera modules, where they must have been feeling the heat from Sony in recent times.

I wouldn’t underestimate the potential of the stmicro contract. It does pivot on adoption of the technology, but to date the signs are encouraging and the reach of STmicro means sales volume could stretch far beyond the original Apple deal.

I think they’ll need to raise cash in 2021, don’t think the commercialisation is going to ramp quickly enough to cover running costs within the next year or two. The company is still burning through a lot of cash despite the cost trimming.

Don't know Hawi, not a subscriber. Just information for anyone interested.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32355906/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co,_Ltd_et_al