Member Info for Nanonano

Easy to tell it's STMicro by the original May 2020 RNS

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/quantum-dot-material-supply-agreement-c6yi3jxqcl05hvw.html

A subsequent RNS like this one a year later no longer named STMicro, but referred back to the May 2020 RNS.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/project-extension-kcpv25nukp4p3c9.html

Later RNS in 2022, which was the last RNS for that customer I think

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/additional-work-package-for-european-customer-f4y695fujjmbs0u.html

Your other points regarding it being jam tomorrow I broadly agree with. In sensing they're kind of back to where they were a decade ago with display, with a key difference, some key patents are now ten years older.

They made mention of other patents that extend into the 2030's, however have they been tested/validated in PTAB?

The main positives are the company is well funded for the foreseeable future, and the devices could be used in an Apple product which tends to draw a lot of attention in the market. However large volume still seems elusive.

BOE 4K OLED on silicone.

https://youtu.be/_dzkJfvQ9i8?t=179

Apple Vision Pro was originally expected to ship 1m units in the first year, and that has been reduced considerably to around 400m, which is reportedly down to problems with the yield of oled on silicone displays from Sony.

It's public knowledge that BOE have also developed oled on silicone to the same high definition, and I've seen reports that Apple may be considering these displays, perhaps for a less expensive Apple AR device.

For now I believe Sony remain the only source for this technology and that is the main bottleneck.

If supply can be linked reliably to Apple, it'll be interesting to see the effect on Nanoco's share price even for small volume.

I think the CEO is playing a longer game than some investors would wish for, especially those who invested chiefly around the Samsung case. A quick get in and cash out on a positive result (e.g. Mr Hamoodi and his acolytes), but now they face a longer wait, possibly two or three years, with the risk that it may not reach the results hoped for.

If it does hit the ground running however, you could genuinely have a company whose share value is in pounds rather than pence, with sustained revenue.

One thing you can say, is that with no debt and lots of cash, Nanoco aren't going down the tubes.

I take Edison's articles with a pinch of salt.

I think a repeat of the 2019 Apple cancellation is far less likely. For a start the device has been publicly displayed, and is presently out there with software developers. Apple would have a lot of egg on their face if they canned the release at this stage.

We have not seen any confirmation of the use of QD sensors in the Apple Vision Pro, but aspects of the specification appear to suggest it's extremely likely. Not sure how many sensors may have QD's, but I would think at a minimum the four internal sensors used for eye tracking and iris recognition would use them.

If they're going to have this device on sale within the 'early 2024' slot, they will need to start ramping up production very soon I think.

I believe the three main risks remaining are-

Competitors circumventing, or blatantly infringing sensor IP, like they did with display.

Slower or lower adoption of QD’s in CMOS devices.

Key patents expiring within the next two to five years.

I find it difficult to envisage anything beyond modest sales until the lead-free materials are available. I suppose it's possible that the R&D could be accelerated, factoring in remarks that this is possible if requested and the funds are there.

You're a little ray of sunshine!

Not expecting any significant shift in share price until a contract drops.

If the contract turns out to be for Apple Vision Pro, then it won't take long to find out what's inside once the device is released, as there'll almost certainly be a teardown of a device and the part numbers of the device will be in the public domain.

It's questionable how much they could have extracted out of Nanosys. The claim that they have put dots into tens of millions of screens doesn't compute when you consider that Samsung/Hansol have had 90% of the market, and nearer to 100% in the earlier years, unless Nanosys were supplying Samsung on the quiet.

Beyond Samsung would leave around 5m screens sold perhaps, maybe a bit more. Unless they're willing to negotiate a settlement, would legal action be worthwhile?

I don't know enough about the legal aspects of this to comment. Anyone else here what the score is with such a situation?

"Why buy from Nanoco or even licence from just go to Samsungs sister company Hansel."

Simple, they will be infringing. Hansol can only supply Samsung. Other companies can buy displays from Samsung, but cannot make their own with dots from Hansol.

"Takeover and consolidation of QD tech is a real possibility"

I agree, but it's more likely for a company that is running short on cash and cannot raise more, likely because their business model is problematic. Nanoco is not in this position.

My belief is that Nanosys were safe as long as Nanoco's IP was untested at PTAB and in court or via settlement.

Now that cover has gone the emperor is naked. Nanosys CEO stepped down quite quickly after the settlement, coincidence? Perhaps, but a strange move after 15 years, no?

Remember reading articles claiming we'd have self-emissive QD display by now a few years back. I think it's more difficult than many understand, especially with cad free materials.

Blue microled, with QD colour filters for red and green offers more promise near term I believe. There are competing technologies with native RGB pixels (e.g. Porotech, Plessey etc.), so it's unknown which tech will win, or whether there'll be space for all.

"It wouldn't surprise me if they sold the business on the cheap early next year to escape the Executioner"

Couldn't possibly justify such a move when the business has got enough cash for years even they didn't make a bean from anything further. Go and get some sleep.

I would have thought Nanosys (now Shoei) and perhaps Nanjing are the two most likely.

I very much doubt Nanosys made very much money, they were masters at making themselves look bigger than they were by piggybacking off Samsung, and they needed regular injections of capital to maintain the company.

I think if there's money to be made it's going to be mostly from OEM's signing up with Nanoco supply or licensing the IP to make it themselves. Hisense, TCL, CSOT perhaps LG are the main companies I can envisage wanting to sign a deal, or perhaps it'll simply be Nanosys/Shoei and Nanjing looking for a license.

The other companies are so tiny, they're not worth suing at present.

I don't think many PI's bother to vote at all. Many probably don't even follow the company webcasts or even read RNS's.

Most QD companies have gone out of business or have been bought up by larger companies, the latest and largest being Nanosys.

Who is left, Hansol, Shoei Chemical, QS Ltd, Qustom dot, Quantum Solutions, UbiQD, NNlabs, Nanjing, Dotz nano.

Many of them are very small outfits, some still using cadmium dots AFAIK. How many of them, other than Hansol, are using the seeding technology unlicensed?

Perhaps more importantly how much money are they making. In spite of the hyperbole, Nanosys clearly weren't making much, else they wouldn't have sold to Shoei.

I think the executive team are primarily concerned about communication when they need cash or shareholders votes.

If so that might explain why they're not holding an Investor meet presentation- too many awkward questions.

Absolutely agree that the board should be judged on their strategy. I get frustrated when posters keep banging on about the settlement. I was very disappointed with the amount they settled for, wasn't expecting billions, but thought they'd get at least $250m or more, but I recognise complaining won't change the outcome.

We should have had commercialisation by now in sensors on last years guidance, but we've been told it's been delayed by issues further down the supply chain.

Let's see what they have to say on Tuesday. If there are further delays, I'm not entirely sure what effect that will have on the share price, but it certainly won't be rising.

I thought the use of language of what was said in brackets in the link was interesting. Reading too much into that perhaps?

https://postimg.cc/56DNM0Kv

Debate over the settlement has been done over to the point of exhaustion, but the facts are the company has a lot of cash now so concerns over its ability to fund itself are now removed.

That in itself puts the company in a much stronger position than it was before, both when it comes to pursuing new business and any potential infringers.

I'd broadly agree we are at an early stage in seeing future growth, all assuming the contract is inked as expected. One factor perhaps a little different is that the sensors are filling a requirement in the market rather than a nice to have like better colours on your telly. therefore the market could scale sharply assuming QD tech plays the role expected by not just Nanoco but independent analysts.