Member Info for Nanonano

The average time to bring a patent infringement case to court is 18 months for Texas. We're already ten months in to that schedule, with an October date booked, which we've been advised may slip a bit, but that would be bang on the 18 months. Also many other cases which are listed as taking years to resolve often include the time the companies were in dispute outside of legal proceedings . So in effect the Nanoco vs Samsung dispute has been going on for four or five years, and by the time it's over, one way or the other, it'll be six or seven.

Edison amount is just a repeat of what Nanoco claim they’ve lost in the North American market, they have also stated damages could be multiples of that amount and may cover other markets. Where have you got three years from?

Well if the Samsung's defence holds up, I think Nanoco will have much bigger problems to worry about. They sounded very bullish in their AGM statement.

£600m? When they've knocked us for probably the best part of $1b of lost revenue, not to mention the negative impact on the company as a whole, plus wilful infringement, so times by three the damages.

I would say they'd have to raise their offer to more like £5-6 to stand any chance of securing a deal. Even then they'd be getting off lightly IMO.

Been holding for +4 years, can wait a few more months.

No t a member, so if you want to know what's inside you'll have to pay the fee I'm afraid.

Posted yesterday-

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

There's been plenty of past partnership working between TCL and Samsung e.g. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-04/22/content_12373938.htm

The Chinese can make displays and sell them at a profit cheaper than Samsung can make them on home turf.

Samsung have a lot of past form for putting down false trails.

Samsung are the largest manufacturer of OLED displays in the world today, so they'll be only too well aware of the pros and cons associated with the technology.

I do agree that QNED looks to be the big game changer, with all the benefits of other tech and none of the disadvantages, cost aside.

Perhaps we'll learn more after CES2021 in January. Overall whatever tech is adopted, it will feature QD's, and QD colour filters, so it's all good assuming Nanoco's case is watertight.

It'll take substantial news or a leak of some substantial news to move the meter on this share.

At present trade volumes are small, most investors are sitting on their stock and waiting.

We really only have a few more months now until we know which way things are going to go for Nanoco.

I expect 2021 will be a great deal more interesting than 2020 for Nanoco investors.

Samsung make a habit of slugging it out in the courts, I think they must regard it as a good sport. They seem to lose the vast majority of the time.

You may not like Samsung, but there wouldn't be much a market at all without them.

I think income would vastly exceed $50M per annum. Samsung sold nearly 2.5m QLED sets in Q3 2020 alone-

https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-captures-third-global-tv-market-revenue/

With QD-OLED and QNED sets pencilled in at some point next year, QD volume will probably at the very least double. No doubt price pressure will be brought to bear, but even still significant revenue possibility.

Only Samsung know how much they've made from QD display. All the other estimates including Nanoco's are based on conjecture. I think a few commentators on here would favour acceptance on a low ball offer with a corresponding rise in the share price, sell up and move on to another potential multi-bagger. I would personally like to see the company flourish and move on to bigger and brighter things, although I rather suspect they may eventually be bought out by a larger enterprise.

Manufacturing cost of producing a normal LCD TV of 55" screen size was about $250 in 2016, and has been dropping YOY. Bolt on some QD's and add another $100, so $350. If we say that marketing distribution and sale adds on say $1000 per set, that leaves around $650 profit. That's just an estimate, which maybe wide of the mark.

In comparison OLED TV's cost more than twice that to produce, so the profit margin is much lower. In the past year or so, QD tv's have really started to fall in price, as the Chinese have entered the field, and 8K QLED has moved into the premium segment.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/784279/55-inch-uhd-tv-panel-manufacturing-cost-by-technology/

Also I'm basing valuation not on any past damages, but earnings going forward from that for license to use the tech. That IMO is of more value, bearing in mind QD display is beginning to scale heavily now and it applies to a worldwide market.

It does depend on the outcome of the case, however. Which is the risk.

As mentioned before on your estimates, what backs up your theory of these amounts?

Damages are calculated against value the product gained by the patent infringement, not against how much would have been owed had they paid the going rate for the materials.

So damages, if awarded are very likely to be much higher.

I understand from Nanoco's last update that the case is centred on the North American market- a third of Samsung's market share. What isn't clear is if the projected 250m loss Nanoco have said they've sustained was solely applicable to the North American market or worldwide.

If we assume it's solely the North Amercian market, then a 500m valuation looks rather low to me, as projected income should be north of 150m per annum (based on 50M per sector per year), and with companies tending to be valued between 8-15 times earnings, 1.2B-2.25B valuation seems more sensible, or £4-9 per share. This doesn't factor in any other deals e.g. the STMicro arrangement and the fact that anyone else wanting the dots will have to license.

If we assume that the 250m is applicable to the worldwide market, then clearly any forward earnings will be lower, however Samsung's forthcoming QD-OLED and QNED screens will need significantly greater amounts of QD's than QLED sets as they employ QD colour filters, 6-10 times the amount per set is the projected figure. production is much lower than LCD based screens, but mooted at around 3M sets per annum- probably starting much lower than that.

This could significantly improve income.

A great many assumptions from getting from where we are now to where we could be.

The timetable of events is not within either parties control- it's within the courts, and they are known to be quick by legal standards. We're already ten months into the process, and typically the process takes eighteen months to two years, assuming an out of court settlement fails to materialise.