Member Info for Nanonano

Https://x.com/DSCCRoss/status/1922462041882952044

and

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/26/say-goodbye-to-the-notch-oti-raises-55m-for-technology-to-remove-screen-obstructions/

A couple of stories regarding STMicro caught my eye this week.

First one was an intensified relationship with Metalenz-

https://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2025/07/stmicro-and-metalenz-sign-new-licensing.html

Second one is an acquisition of NXP mems division.

https://www.eu-startups.com/2025/07/genevas-stmicroelectronics-snaps-up-nxps-mems-sensors-unit-in-e808-million-all-cash-deal/

Both deals suggest a significant ramping up in sensor business, yet they pivoted away from QD sensors.

on a *****iness scale of 1-10, you’d be an eleven.

Sony are buying in their QDOLED panels from Samsung, they have also used QLED LCD screens from Samsung in last models, no mystery there. That is within the terms of the license agreed.

Samsung are not licensed to supply cad free QD materials for sensors or ready made sensors using cadmium free materials in sensors used either in house or supplied to another OEM.

All this AI content is worthless- the AI will only work with material in the public domain, even then it often interpolates incorrectly or presents ambiguous answers through insufficient information.

Samsung may well be supplying a camera chip in future iPhones, however there is more than one camera chip in a iPhone. The camera they’re talking about is the rear facing camera, but iPhones also have a forward facing camera, and that is the one more likely to incorporate QD technology for enhancement in the infrared spectrum, so any future model could incorporate cameras from both companies.

How does that compare with Apple using screens from LG with dots sourced from Shoei?

Preferable not to sell at all, become a self-sustaining business, assuming they have the capacity to do so. There was no hint of a sale until the STMicro contract was withdrawn, and the last time they attempted it, they were in a tight spot.

We don’t know what the IP is worth, the only figure that has been put out is £46m, but could be more or less.

It all depends on how badly someone- if anyone- wants to buy it.

I think a court win would have been subject to appeals, and the company would have been out of cash before any payment was made. That doesn’t excuse the comms from the company pre and post settlement, or the complete lack of business beyond a few hundred pounds of materials in a one time contract fulfilling deal. The settlement gave Nanoco some more time, but the clock is running down.

We simply have to wait and see what the company come up with for a sale, although I can’t imagine if Nanoco executives thought a cash bonanza was within a years reach in sensor materials, that they’d be looking for a buyer.

Been there many times with this company. First with display, now with sensing- always the bridesmaid never the bride.

They no longer have the luxury of waiting for markets to mature, eight years ago yes, but not now.

Their patents are running down, and going by Justia, they no longer seem to be innovating- their last patent was over two years ago January 2023

https://patents.justia.com/assignee/nanoco-technologies-ltd

I'm assuming zero, and simply correlating the settlement with the prospects of the company going forwards. $65m for license for the 85%+ of the only current marketable product does not bode well for a company that burns through £5m ($6.7m) when the remaining market equates to £7.25m before tax assuming the remaining 15% of the market is completely cd free, which it isn't. What is the value of such a company on the market? A few pence above cash, and here we are.

If enough shareholders express disapproval of the way a company is being run, then it can result in a removal of the executive team. Companies can and do go under through poor strategy.

I’m not preaching anything, I’m using the information provided by the companies for lost revenue in royalties had the original contract with Dow been honoured for supply.

A settlement would be expected to be materially lower, but in actuality it was less than 7% of the expected lost revenue and that materially impacts the potential for the company to negotiate any license fees going forward with other infringers, of whom have a significantly smaller share of the market than Samsung.

Any revenue from other sources like sensors or coatings are still a ‘maybe’ and have become significantly more risky since STmicro bowed out. LOAM cut and run as soon as that news dropped.

Nanoco have been engaged with just about every display company of importance over the years, and none have used their materials.

....Compare this with Nanoco's original royalty figure of $6.60 per average QLED screen.

Such an amount for the length of patents would have been equal to around $990m based on 150m screens. With the CEO (Edelman) own estimates QD-OLED commanded a sixfold premium over QLED, but volume much more limited, let's ignore that.

Overall I look at the settlement as a benchmark for future business, and that benchmark was set very low. Tenner would have got a pass if he'd got the STMicro over the line, but he didn't, so he had to go. Now we are left to see what the new broom can do.

Based on the settlement of $65m for IP license to Samsung to 2032/3 for the last of the patents challenged, as of 2023, the production of QLED screens was around 43m I believe, and at present is around 9-10m per annum, QD-OLED may add another 1-2m screens with much more QD's used equivalent to roughly 6-12m QLED screens.

So a conservative estimate would put screen volume at around 150m screens for the life of the patents if, being generous we discount the multiplier for QD-OLED.

That equates to a royalty of about 43 cents per screen. If we use a ballpark of around 85% of QD screen attributed to Samsung, that leaves a 15% market to be addressed, some of which will be using cadmium based tech, lets say 10% is cad free.

That means the addressable market for cadmium free QD display is around 1 million displays per year at present, and if we use the Samsung settlement as a benchmark, that's worth $430k or £320k per annum.

I recall such a question being asked at one of the presentation Q & A’s, I wish I could recall which one, however IIRC the company did say that Samsung had a license for display only for QD materials with Nanoco’s patents. Naturally, if Samsung find a material that doesn’t use Nanoco IP to produce enhanced SWIR sensors, or they decide to use something not patented like lead sulphide, then they could produce a competing product, but I’ve not seen any evidence to support such a hypothesis so far.

Having worked very closely with Nanoco, Apple cannot claim to be unaware of their technology and patents, if you're knowingly in receipt of stolen goods then you are not an innocent party.

There's no way that LG are using cadmium in displays for Apple, so I'd say they certainly are infringing in that market.

LG have made a lot of noise about their 2025 QNED range not using QD's, calling it Dynamic QNED Color Solution, which sounds like marketing bs.

Phosphors perhaps? In which way does that differentiate the sets from their older Nanocell range. Or perhaps they're laying a false trail to try and ward off a larger litigation award. Can't put anything past these Korean outfits, they're dodgy as they come.

We don't know what the percentage of supply is or exactly by whom. Nanjing tech are a recognised supplier of cadmium based dots, and I'd be surprised if they weren't a main or at least second line of supply to Chinese OEM's.

Nanoco have stated in the past that pursuing QD's suppliers wasn't a strategy they were looking to follow as the margins are too small to be worth the expense of legal action, they go after the large end product maker that knowingly uses an infringing product.

Doesn't mean tom tit in terms of revenue. Company has ti find circa £5m+ a year just to tick over, they won't get that from Emberion and co.