Member Info for Nanonano

So that confirms Mintz aren't funding the litigation, someone else who remains undisclosed at present.

Also reading that indicates to me that Nanoco aren't expecting a quick resolution, or expecting much income in the next two years.

A lot of people quote Samsung vs Apple when it comes to patent infringement, but I don't think it's the best example. I think the best recent example of how they like to roll is the Kaist vs Samsung. They asked for just $10m for licensing their finfet tech. other companies like Apple and Intel were initially caught red handed using the tech unlicensed- so Samsung not alone for fiddling- and coughed up immediately. Samsung brazened it out, and ended up coughing up rather a lot more, around $200m, although originally Kaist were awarded double that by the court, still twenty times what they asked for originally. if it went that way with Nanoco,, they'd be looking at an award of $10b, and settle for $5b. Be nice wouldn't it?

https://newsarticleinsiders.com/kaist-asked-for-less-than-10-million-for-samsung-to-license-finfet

Regardless of which side the axe falls, it looks likely Samsung are in no mood to cut a deal, and we're in a for a drawn out fight to the finish.

I rather suspect he kept is position whilst potential sale and then litigation was worked through.

For me his I was always amazed he kept his job after the large sale of shares very shortly before the Apple cancellation bomb dropped, but perhaps his card was marked by the Ii’s.

This may be some way of gumming up the works a bit, or insulating Samsung Display from any action that may affect production of their QD-OLED displays.

If Nanoco or their backers are put in a position where they have to go after a multi-headed hydra, could prove more costly and long winded to reach a settlement.

On the flipside, might be nothing of any real concern. Lack of information leaves the Pi to speculate.

CFQD enhanced red herrings.

Why would Samsung want to do the right thing now?

Can't see that Samsung have any motivation to do anything other than delay and frustrate proceedings.

If an injunction was made on their sales, they'd soon come round, but I think I have more chance of getting a choc ice from old nick, than that happening.

It's Samsung Display that is spearheading the new QD-OLED tech. I wager that's a factor in this.

Yes one piece of good news can turn things around, however things seem to be moving forward leaving whilst Nanoco behind. They've been reliant on dilution to keep the company solvent.

The sensor contract is going to take a long time to scale IMO.

The amount of QD's in a sensor is miniscule (nano?) compared to a display, so they're going to need to sell millions of the things to get close to the dots used in a few thousand displays. Then we have to assume we have no competition, from competing technology and other QD producerse- Nanosys for one are well aware of the use of QD's in sensors. they could well try and undercut Nanoco. I guess that was why Nanoco stipulated a minimum purchase quantity in the STmicro contract, but I don't recall any mention of what that quantity is.

Other than sensors and display I can't imagine other markets like horticulture and health having much impact on Nanoco's cash flow in the next few years.

So it does seem at the moment, we are reliant on the outcome of the court case

I always take what ME says with a pinch of salt when he uses ambiguous language e.g. 'watch this space'. He's made no statement of intent with such a phrase leaving the listener to decide what they may wish to interpret, right or wrong.

A statement such as 'we are presently negotiating with Merck on renewal of licensing our CFQD technology, and expect a positive outcome' would have still enabled them to claim negotiations didn't pan out as hoped, but been more straightforward. However this company is never that way inclined- the CEO seems to enjoy playing poker with the companies investors.

So looks like this is one to tuck away for a year or two. No doubt the board will be turning on the charm in eighteen months or so if the case is still slugging it out and the pot of cash is running dry.

Speculative, but reading further down in this article could QD-OLED be a possibility for near future foldable phone display?

https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/materials-remain-important-for-under-display-cameras

Still no news on the end of year update. Seems likely the board are waiting to hear what Samsung have to say for themselves, although how that will trickle down to us minnows remains to be sen.

Don’t see anything odd about it. Pleasey improves their tech to natively use red and green without a requirement for QD.

It was around four to one. So to get back to original value, you'd be looking at around 50-60p a share. So still a potnetial large upside if they can maintain sales momentum.

Very possible, but not yet proven.

Nanosys are very creative with their use of language in their statements. They claim to have 20m operating display devices with their tech, but it doesn't state what tech, and that number is likely to include Samsung displays, as they are using some Nanosys patents in the production of their screens, but they're using Nanoco tech for the dots, allegedly of course.

Then we have the recent $20m funding Nanosys received. If they're making so much money, why do they need external capital to expand?

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-settles-patent-infringement-lawsuit-with-nanosys-inc-for-quantum-dot-technology/

Apart from Samsung, no one else to date appears to have shown any desire to use cad free QD's in their displays. this is probably because cadmium is cheaper, and there is no legislation banning its use.

Samsung's reasons for doing what they have done remain subject to speculation. Perhaps they had hoped Nanoco would be out of business by now , perhaps they hadn't reckoned on Apple showing an interest, and the subsequent Stmicro deal. Although the Apple contract didn't pan out, I think it possibly kept the wolf from the door for a year or more.

Going by previous years timetables, we may get an announcement of end of year update by the end of the week or early next.

I'm not expecting any significant news, although Nanoco may choose to wait until the end of the month to update investors on Samsung's response to patent infringement. What do you mean and pigs might fly?

85% of QD dsplays sold use Nanoco technology. They just haven't received a penny for it, because they were ripped off by Samsung , allegedly.

Depends on how well sales scale. To date sales have been poor. Increasing distribution channels are encouraging, but let’s see how they pan out in orders.