Member Info for Nanonano

That should have been 'Don’t suppose there can be many shareholders that aren't deeply underwater at present.'

Not doing bad job of destroying shareholder value presently. Don’t suppose gene can be many shareholders deeply underwater at present.

The level of secrecy and non disclosure is a problem, we are rarely informed about who they’re working with until a contract is cancelled, and sometimes not even then. Past form in development partnerships has not resulted in a single supply contract of any significance. They either wind up in a technological cul-de-sac like with Apple and STMicro, or infringed by the likes of Samsung, LG, and yet to be proven Shoei.

Considerably lower than cash position.

The important factor is assuming they win or get a settlement, what form will it take a one off payment, or ongoing royalty, and for how much. Past deals have taught investors QD IP licensing is less lucrative than first thought- recalling the $6.60 per TV figure.

Have TCL been using cad free dots?

TCL alongside Hisense were the two OEM's found to be shipping displays labelled as quantum dot technology, but with no dots in them and have been getting sued for such in the USA.

There's so much chicanery going on, it's difficult to really separate the truth from lies.

Doubtful anyone here can give any accurate insight into the value of Shoei's supply chain. If it was significant it does beg the question why Nanosys had to sell up, on the other hand Shoei appear to have expanded production volume in 2023, and they were working closely with Nanosys since 2020 at least e.g. https://www.inkworldmagazine.com/breaking-news/nanosys-shoei-chemical-announce-quantum-dot-supply-agreement/

Until now probably a majority of their production has been cadmium based, but with the shift to cad free, they will need to pivot towards 100% cad free production to satisfy OEM's.

The two main issues I see are first how much value remains in display which appears to be the main current addressable market for Shoei and others. Samsung have a license, so nothing more coming from them, and they still retain the lions share of the QD display market. LG have settled for an amount that whilst topped up cash a little for Nanoco, it is not really meaningful for a business that wants to continue as a going concern, but we don't know the full details of that settlement or whether LG intend to continue using QD's in their products- e.g. Apple are expected to use OLED screens in Macbook pro's from next year and LG have said their QNED screens no longer incorporate QD's. That leaves Chinese and Taiwanese OEM's.

Second, how any legal proceedings pan out in Virginia. It would be unwise to assume things will automatically go Nanoco's way. Legally at least they've prevailed against Samsung and LG, but it's not provided a sustainable business model for the company and Sensors are still a maybe.

A different jurisdiction may prove to be more sympathetic to Shoei's argument.

I think this fight would have happened a lot sooner had the cadmium ban been implemented earlier. I dare say a lot of palms were greased to persuade in delaying such legislation for as long as possible.

If Shoei are judged to be in the right then they have legal permission to carry on, and Nanoco will be in a degree of doo doo. If they're found to be infringing then they negotiate a license deal with Nanoco. The cost to Shoei, some legal costs, but perhaps they consider that a risk worth taking rather than admit infringement and negotiate a deal with Nanoco from the outset.

"Difficult to think Shoei think they have anything but a strong case otherwise why kick it off ?"

Perhaps because it's affecting business with existing and/or future customers, the recent EU legislation must also be a factor making cadmium QD's less attractive to display OEM's going forwards.

Don't think Lg can play the innocent. they had a long standing relationship with Nanoco, they knew what they were about.

Once again we are left to speculate. e.g. will LG continue supply of QD screens, and if so then who will supply their QD's.

Are you inferring there was some kind of deal to supply LG, because if so can they keep that confidential? After all that would highly material to company value.

I think an awkward question for Shoei/Nanosys is if they truly have a proprietary system to make cadmium free QD's at scale without infringing Nanoco's IP, then why didn't Samsung use that?

The 35-50m figure does make more sense if you factor in Samsung's tally.

Perhaps Nanosys were supplying Samsung and Hansol was simply a smokescreen, speculative.

The company stated many times that pursuing QD suppliers was not a good strategy, so clearly that is a major shift.

Relying on licensing and IP enforcement has not done terribly well for investors up until now- they don't get very much out of it for the time and money invested, and the biggest fish has already slipped through the net with Samsung, who still remain top dog in QD based displays.

So what could be the value of any potential settlement from Shoei? As of 2023 they claimed to have their dots in 35-50m devices, so potentially significantly more in the three years since then especially with Shoei's increased production, but how many are cad free? The 35-50m figure from 2023 does sound a bit suspect, as it exceeded Samsung's figures for QD display at the time, when they had circa 85-90% of the market.

I don't think anyone can claim that the Shoei action was expected as a consequence of the LG litigation, I wonder if it's more aligned with the expiry of WO2005106082 patent, and they're now trying their luck to see if they can skirt around the other patents with later expiry dates.

The share price has been subdued since STMicro ended the partnership. There was a lift with the new CEO and coupled with the prospect of a sale. The second JDA helped lift things up, but clearly confidence in a sale diminished in the second half of 2025, and with the ending of the sale process with no offers, here we are.

I think they're simply now in a place where they have few or no alternatives. There's no other addressable market beyond display at present, perhaps one in the future with sensors but that may not arrive or it comes later than expected- the lack of candour about who the customer is and products is always a red flag to me. STMicro backing out at the stage they did suggests to me something is a bit off with this technology that's being kept under the rug.

I cannot envisage Nanoco raising any more cash on the market, and if Shoei decide to go for the long game in court, legal costs could seriously erode Nanocos finances reducing their cash runway.

If they get a deal with Shoei like previous settlements, that should lift the share price from these very low levels, but they would still have a finite amount of cash once more but still with no addressable market, once more relying on sensor materials coming good.

Definitely TW.

So in other words, previous management strategy was flawed.

You read like Terrorwit under a different board name.

If that's the case, why didn't they go after them following the Samsung settlement? A ton of cash in the bank prior to the tender offer in order to fund the legal team, so knock'em out of the game. That was the strategy of Hamoodi's gang, but Nanoco were scornful of such an approach- nothing much to be gained by litigating against QD producers was their claim as I recall.