Member Info for Nanonano

I did look at the cases, but the point I’m addressing is that the award would likely have been considerably more for Nanoco than it was for those other companies, which would have encouraged Samsung to fight harder IMO.

Also the state of Nanoco’s finances are another factor which Samsung would have been only too well aware of, and likely resulted in harsher terms in negotiations.

We simply don’t have adequate information to second guess what went on behind closed doors.

I was as disappointed as anyone else with the settlement, and the subsequent lack of organic growth. Tenner should have departed two years ago, but he stayed on for a big pay day and gambled on organic growth saving his reputation and job, and that subsequently failed.

Now the options are narrower.

Do you know if those damages been paid, or are they being appealed against? The amounts awarded look considerably lower than what would have likely been awarded to Nanoco (assuming a court win) therefore I'd have expected Samsung to fight harder against any damages awarded.

Can you list some examples of Samsung settling swiftly after a court case?

I recall The Apple vs Samsung case dragged on for about seven years, with numerous appeals despite Apple winning the case, and although they eventually settled and the amount was undisclosed it was whittled down to around half the original award.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-settle-patent-battle-over-copying-iphone

I doubt very much that Samsung would have paid a penny by now had the case been won in court, they'd have used every angle to appeal and grind Nanoco down- they can afford to do so, Nanoco weren't in a position to fight for years on end. With the loss of STMicro, Nanoco would still be owing millions to its creditors with little to no chance of raising more cash on the markets-. I expect the end result would be a fire sale of IP to pay off its creditors.

Remains to be seen if the company can negotiate a decent sale or failing that develop its IP into sustainable revenue.

I expect they had to sell or go bust. Remember they were being sued by Nanosys, and aprobably couldn't afford to take them on in court.

They had about 116 patents, and about as many more pending. They had some products, but they were considered poor quality when compared with devices using QD film. They were actively pursuing QD electroluminescence, and I expect it was that IP that Samsung were interested in, however seems still some way off almost a decade later.

I'd say the industry is only just starting to gain traction. Agreed the clock is running down on patents, but they still have a lot of valuable IP.

As for big money, there aren't many QD companies out there, and the only one that sold in recent times was Nanosys, and we don't know for how much, so QD vision is the only benchmark we can use.

How much money were QD vision making when they sold to Samsung for $70m ($92m or £75m as of 2025) in 2016?

They were being sued by Nanosys as well and they certainly hadn't netted $150m from any other manufacturer.

Not sure where you have pulled this 20p figure from, is it simply a benchmark that allows you to exit your position at a profit or no loss?

Haven't seen anyone make any bids so far.

£39m is derisory.

Company executives have cried wolf too many times, results have never matched the rhetoric.

30p a share isn't much of a return for long term investors.

Assuming they get some offers, what kind of money will be on the table? Company is looking a fair bit cheaper now with the pound taking a belting.

The concern over shareholder voting was expected- the management team can no longer count on LOAM and other II's to vote in their favour, and most shareholders don't bother to vote at all.

Https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/daresbury-quantum-dot-ink-specialist-signs-major-european-jda/

As Nanoco have not named who else is using cadmium and cadmium free QD’s, it’s going to be a guess, but my thoughts are that if the source is a Korean, Japanese or Taiwanese OEM the. It’s probably going to be cadmium free QD’s, and if it’s a Chinese OEM, it’s more likely to be cadmium based.

The lack of organic growth post settlement was the key let down. Sure the amount from Samsung was disappointing, but if it had been followed up with some solid contracts in sensor and/or display, then the share price would have swiftly recovered its mojo IMO.

Ultimately I believe that LOAM with their significant holding were calling the tune, and they wanted enough liquidity to exit their position profitably. With them sold up and out, STMicro long gone BT no doubt knew he was on a sticky wicket.

In reality he should have departed the best part of two years ago, but whilst the big II’s were happy for him to remain, there was no pressure on him to go.

The new CEO seems to have more urgency about him, stating progress should be measured in months not years, it remains to be seen what he can achieve.

It's not hard for a larger company to see the size and balance sheet and realise they're small fry and easier to take take advantage of, so being had over is always going to be an issue for Nanoco until they got some serious wedge to defend the IP.

I would expect a lot of cost could be ground out of InGaAs by a high increase in production.

I wonder if this may impact any potential market for QD based CMOS IR sensors?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-024-01652-6

Sufficient opportunity to sell at a profit from 37p if one wished.

Sadly the potential went unrealised. My disappointment with management lies beyond the settlement but simply the lack of organic growth. Can the new management team turn things around? I think they have a difficult task and one that may be impossible without the backing of a significant third party.

With the loss of STMicro and owing creditors significant funds, the company would probably be a bust by now. Whilst things are not great, they could have been worse.

I believe we’d have heard a lot more about this if that was the case.

Sony, Panasonic, MSI, Alienware to name a few have used Samsung QD based displays in their TV’s and monitors. There are probably others too whose name doesn’t trip off the tongue.

Samsung have been selling QLED and QD-OLED screens to other OEM’s for years.

The license allows them to do this, what it doesn’t permit is for them or Hansol to supply QD materials to another manufacturer.

Media reports indicate that the laptop screens are sourced from LG, although cannot find specific mention of that in relation to QD screens.

Interestingly LG have recently outlined QNEDevo, which they claim doesn’t not use QD’s.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2024/12/18/lg-gets-serious-about-lcd-tvs-with-new-premium-qned-evo-range/