Member Info for Nanonano

Showing how the market share for TV's over a $1000 has halved in the past three years.

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/us-tv-market-strong-but-low-priced

I think it more likely Samsung Display will acquire their dots via Hansol. After all since when has Samsung tried to do the right thing to date?

As legal action is against SEC, and action against SDC has been dropped 9for now), perhaps they consider this will allow them to proceed unhindered. Can't give that lot an inch.

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200923008700320

Very likely to be the case, but we don't know, because the company has never said a word about it, leaving investors to speculate as is often the case. They were always keen to announce new engagements, but coy when it came to any follow up, quoting NDC's etc. Samsung are a big deal, but not the only game in town. Toshiba are releasing QLED tv's this year, there have also been the monitors from Asus and Acer with QD enhanced screens.

Surely production engineering was originally supposed to be the preserve of Dow now Dupont?

Although the lack of sales to Samsung have now been explained, it doesn't answer why others have failed to take up the tech in display, and why they've favoured Nanosys.

We should get the scheduling conference from Judge Gilstrap tomorrow afternoon. Then we have the year end update from Nanoco sometime in October. Perhaps they'll put some more flesh on the bones then.

That was OLED patents though not LED. Different chemistry, although I'm sure Merck have a foot in each camp.

I find it unconvincing that SDC played no part in producing QLED display, the displays have to be tuned to work with QD's so they would have to have been heavily involved to produce them.

I believe this is chicanery to reduce any adverse effects on Samsung Display bringing QDOLED to market should an injunction block any sale of QLED.

Samsung have until 19th September to respond now?

Audacity is not something Samsung are light on.

if you look at the counter claim from Samsung to the Kaist infringement, they basically said they hadn't infringed on the patent, that they designed their own version of finfet technology. they provided no evidence to back this up, it was simply 'because we say so'. They seem to be playing the same hand with Nanoco.

It's surprising that Kaist accepted the about half the original court award, I'm pretty sure they'd have received the full amount, it does make me wonder if Kaist were persuaded (e.g. bribed or coerced) into accepting the offer.

Reading up on them, they look a formidable team.

Communication is generally a poor area dose the company, Caroline Watson should be replaced IMO, not good at her job.

With regards to an update, Edison said October, I’m assuming it’s a bit late this year owing to the shuffle in management plus Samsung’s delaying tactics.

My guess is that Samsung wagered on Nanoco ending up penniless and without any further funding from investors quite some time ago.

Those who've been with the company a while will recall the 2017 interims where the CEO stated they didn't anticipate the need for further funding. Then later in the year, fund raise required.

I believe that Samsung had strung the board along until that point. Apple taking an interest must have been a surprise for them, you do have to wonder if the sudden shift in strategy by Apple was a result of being leaned on by Samsung,

Yes but Kaist only wanted $10m initially. If you base Nanoco's estimated earning of $250m at twenty times, that equals $5b, and I believe this infringement is far worse than Kaist.

$300m sends a signal that you can rip anyone you like off and still come out winning.

I think any court award is going to be in the billions territory going by past cases, but the full $14b quoted by some is exceedingly unlikely.

Or perhaps simply retained whilst the formal sale process was in play, and subsequent legal action initiated.

I find it very difficult to imagine that the sale of the majority of his stock last year went without comment amongst large holders in the company.

If Edison are correct in their timetable for end of year update, then I would expect an RNS mid September at the earliest, as it's typically announced two weeks before publication.

I think one of the things to remember is what ME said a few months back, it was either at the interims or one of the interviews with directors talk or Edison, where he was asked how difficult it was to prove the process Samsung had used to make the dots, and he said 'it's easy'. Nothing ambiguous about that, or open to interpretation from what I can see.

Well how do they deal with other cases requiring technical expertise. I guess independent experts will be called by both sides to give their opinion and present that to the jury.

Samsung's alleged infringement on Nanoco IP is significantly more serious than cases like Apple or Kaist, for the following reasons.

They worked in partnership for about a decade before Samsung pulled out. A very long time to string a company along, and the partnership must have been at considerable cost to Nanoco fine tuning processes, all for no reward.

The theft of the IP represented Nanoco's chief method of doing business. Any other strings to their bow left them vulnerable, especially when they had an exclusive partnership with Dow, which then had to be renegotiated costing time and money. The IP stolen represented pretty much everything the company had to offer.

As a consequence, I think any court award will be extremely stiff, provided the case is sound and Samsung are found guilty. Getting that money off Samsung may prove more tricky, an injunction would certainly release the moths from their wallet but would be amazed to see that enforced.

Yes he is.