Member Info for Nanonano

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/

Following the fairly recent revelations about TCL, I’d wager it was one of their sets.

Https://oinegro.com.br/news-en/this-changes-everything-apples-iphone-17-surprising-new-tech/28482/

That's not surprising.

When the meeting was called in July '23, LOAM still had their 28-29% holding, and I believe they represented a large majority of the votes placed. With them out of the picture, beyond Cable and Milkwood it's mostly small PI's, and many of them clearly cannot be bothered to vote, probably because many hold only a small amount of stock, and are not overly concerned what happens with the company one way or the other.

How on earth would anyone justify £20m costs to sell a company?

Direct link to save the faff. https://tinyurl.com/ykd89d8y

With an independent valuation put on the IP, however speculative, the market now has something to guide against, whereas before yesterday's RNS the market was placing the company at little more than cash.

Could potentially see a steady rise to the late teens or early twenties, whereupon it may get choppy as some people sell into the rise.

New CEO comes across as more focused and on the ball with regards to commercial strategy. Whether that results in orders or a decent acquisition price, we will have to wait and see.

If Nanoco had any inkling of a supply contract, they'd be talking about it.

I'll listen to what they have to say tomorrow.

We will have to see. Simply don't have the information to call this one way or the other.

No idea whether the Asian customer will work out, I do believe that STMicro's cancellation of Gen 2 and complete pivot away from QD sensors does not inspire confidence. There is the purchase of SWIR Vision by Onsemi as a possible silver lining, and clearly infrared sensing is going to be in very high demand in the future, we just don't know which technology will become dominant, or perhaps many or all will exist with various pros and cons.

Risk has increased for sure with STMicro dropping out entirely. I was always unsure that Gen 1 had any wide market potential unless it was used in a technology where there was no alternative.

However we are seeing scaling of QD in display, albeit not to Nanoco's advantage but to those infringing its IP. Will those infringers wish to see the potential sale of a small company to a much larger company able to defend that IP?

I could see reasons why perhaps Shoei, Samsung and or Apple may find it cheaper to buy the company rather than either get embroiled in infringement legal action and subsequent licensing fees.

Since the tender, no. Since the loss of STMicro, yes, higher risk of failure.

We don't know, just as we didn't know back in 2019/20.

Would I take 24p now? I'd have taken the tender offer if that was the case.

Well I think you should have an inkling for that by the posts on here.

Also whether someone may wish to stop someone else from having it.

Samsung have a license, but others don't or they can be revoked on sale. A bigger company would have the capital to challenge infringers which could put a potential spanner in the works for competitors.

I don't agree. The share price had taken an absolute belting, so most holders were probably well underwater unless they'd only bought in after June 2019 when the Apple contract folded.

Samsung allegedly paid $70m (around $92m today) for QD Vision eight years ago for considerably less IP, and they were being sued at the time by Nanosys for infringement.

Much depends on who wants it, how much they want it, and whether someone else wants it too.

A similar offer today would be equal to about 35-36p per share.

A $90m offer would have been equal to about 24p per share back in 2019. That would not have gone down well with the shareholders.

"If they run the sale as an auction process then there will be dozens of interested parties"

They didn't get much interest back in 2019 when they put the business up for sale. Patents were a lot younger then too, although admittedly they hadn't been tested against PTAB.

I think it's pretty clear that the action against Samsung has not deterred infringers, if anything they seem to have doubled down on their efforts.

They know Nanoco lacks the financial clout to stop them. It looks pretty certain LG are using cad free dots, and I suspect the Taiwanese OEM's are too (e.g. AUO Innolux), not sure about the Chinese OEM's who appear to mainly be using cadmium dots.

Sadly this sort of infringing is really harmful to a small company that hasn't yet established any significant business, as they remain locked in a doom cycle of expending capital on R&D and then failure of supply contracts until its funds are exhausted.

I agree that with the performance of the board to date, giving the board a mandate to present shareholders with a fait accompli is very risky.

I'm not impressed by either side. Milkwood come over as opportunistic, and Nanoco as covert.

Without contracts, the value of the operational aspects of Nanoco is probably more of a liability than an asset. A rented building with secondhand equipment on land looking to be redeveloped burning through millions a year.

The value lies in the IP, so I think any potential bidder- if there are any- will simply be interested in the patents and trade secrets and they will be absorbed into their own brand.