Member Info for Nanonano

Litigation is really a last attempt to claw back something that has failed.

Eye-wateringly expensive, and the company faced years of underinvestment in the years leading up to the settlement.

It's not a success in my eyes, it's salvage, and they've not succeeded in building any meaningful organic growth since. That's why the company value is at rock bottom..

It still begs the question why these companies wilfully infringed rather than partner with Nanoco.

Bearing in mind that almost every single display company out there that is using quantum dot technology has engaged with Nanoco at some stage, often to a late stage, then subsequently chosen a competitor, then some thing is clearly amiss.

If it isn’t performance then it must be price, as it’s difficult to envisage what else can be the reason.

No one is ignoring that, but most of it is gone, and it required very expensive litigation to procure. Any future revenue relies on a product still in development in a potential market that may or may not materialise, and if it does who’s to know if Shoei sweep in and nick it right from under their noses, just like they did with display.

Just look at the guidance from last year. They were confident of achieving a sale, and the LG case was in play, share price rose to roughly three times the current value.

Now, no bids for the company, CEO has left the building along with the CTO and a couple of non exec's. LG case settled but clearly underwhelmed the market. Shoei countered and from the information we have to hand appear to have came out well from that. Share price has subsequently hit all time lows.

Well I've been long enough in this company to know their guidance often falls very far short.

It’s also all related, because the company will not be able to raise cash if it fails to commercialise sensor technology, and I believe it will have to raise cash anyway in order to reinstate the mothballed facilities assuming they get some orders.

Bearing in mind what former CEO Brian Tenner said in the past about the reticence of companies to engage with Nanoco owing their precarious financial position, I wonder how will that will pan out with no other source of revenue.

The company has outlined potential applications for its materials, but there have been no names or products given- all cloaked in confidentiality. All very familiar with past years.

Until we see a roadmap for orders, there is no visibility of a future market.

Without some kind of statement from the company or an enhanced income it should be clear by now that despite all this logorrhea it makes no difference to the company value, and it will remain at record lows owing to opaque visibility of an addressable market, no interested buyer and a dwindling cash position.

It’s not about details, it’s about the complete absence of any mention of a royalty.

With regards to the sensor materials ‘heatwave’ operating in the infrared wavelengths, Nanoco claim to have a commanding lead over competitors as of November last year. Currently the market for these materials is small, limited to some tens of thousands per annum, with lead sulphide materials which are unattractive to use in consumer devices.

The lead free materials are still in development and as of the last update they are close to achieving the benchmarks required for adoption in volume markets, but not there yet- those last miles can be the hardest.

With regards to risk, there are competitors working in the same space and they should be taken seriously. There is also the possibility that the tech will not be adopted at all.

You believe that announcement of a royalty as part of the settlement would have no impact on the share price for a company presently burning through £4-5m a year?

Until I see something from the company to support a royalty agreement, as far as I'm concerned any mention of one is worthless.

As I said they didn't have to disclose all the details of a royalty, just say there is one as part of the settlement.

Bearing in mind the modest income Nanoco generate through the JDA’s any kind of agreement involving a royalty is very important and I would expect them to have informed as such in an RNS, Qeven if the amount was kept confidential.

What would be the logic in keeping it confidential when they’re negotiating with a company that places its financial statements in the public domain, and income has to be accounted for. At best they buy themselves a few months of anonymity.

I said you believe there are royalties hidden in confidentiality.

You’ve not stopped talking about them since the last RNS, and you’ve countered anyone that says they don’t believe there will be.

A few posts ago-

‘ Shoei's expanding display business shows they had no choice but to settle as soon as possible. A permanent licence to Nanoco's foundational patents would naturally include ongoing royalties — the terms of which would be kept confidential.’

You seem to be the sole poster on here that believes some kind of royalty is hidden in the confidential aspects of the agreement, TW.

There's no evidence to support this, so calling anything contrary to your opinion a guess is a bit rich to say the least.

I've said all I'm going to say on the agreement, my belief is that any future income for Nanoco now rests totally on the sensor technology reaching commercialisation.

That consideration is Shoei will not litigate against Nanoco with regards to its sensor material patents.

Anything more is pure speculation,

The main point of contention centres on whether this agreement will see any revenue from Shoei going forwards.

We’ve all seen the RNS, we know what it says, one poster on here considers that the confidential aspects could conceal a royalty agreement.