Member Info for Nanonano

About 24.5p.

According to this article (near the end of the text).

https://displaydaily.com/lg-wants-oledos-for-vr-and-ledos-for-ar-devices/

As I understand it, the sold patents centered on placing quantum dots on/in film. The sale could have been a tax avoidance strategy, I don't know.

Worth pointing out that a hundred or thereabouts patents sounds a lot, but it includes all the different regions, so the actual details of the patents amounts to considerably less, I think about twenty or so.

I'm sure those patents had some value to Nanoco in earlier times, but now? Appears to me that the display industry is increasingly moving towards inkjet printing dots either straight onto LED/OLEDS or glass, or incorporating them into a diffuser (Nanosys) combined with phosphors.

Many will recall that Nanoco stated in the past that it was necessary for them as a company to provide solutions in order to get them into any kind of marketable commodity, basically sort of throwing a lot at the wall to see what sticks approach. They let a lot of patents lapse in the last year or two anyway- they cost money to maintain after all, and if there's little chance of them bringing money in, might as well ditch them.

The bulk of the case related to the molecular seeding patents IMO. The other patents in dispute were less valuable I think and may have been rejected as I'm not sure how exclusive Nanoco's IP was related to adding QD's to film.

Not really subjective. Figures for past sale volumes are clear, damages models were noted in court documents. Future sales figures could be be considered subjective, but far likely to exceed past sales, but if we said they stay flat the amount came to around $450-500m. So $150m was quite a haircut. Effectively about $2 royalty per set.

The settlement figure was poor, as based on worldwide historic sales alone for the low end of $6.60 per unit, the figure should have been about $250m, but the deal was done, no going back on that.

The importance is on the contract(s), and like always it seems we are having to wait until last knockings for any news. I'm wondering if they'll update the market upon news of validated materials, or if they'll wait until the end of year update statement.

"Indeed, it is quite possible that certain partners relating to the organic business wanted the validity of the technology comprehensively resolved ASAP."

That is speculation, as the company has not given any indication to this effect, AFAIK. Now several months post settlement but no further news pending of contracts beyond what was already on the boil pre-settlement.

Do you believe the c-suite should retain their positions if there is no contract in place before the end of this year?

QD's have only been significantly commercialised in the last six or seven years, and then only with reasonable volume in the last three years or so, and all by one company in one application- display by Samsung- who ripped off Nanoco's IP.

Now the industry is just starting to enter a second market with sensing. Remains to be seen how well that will do, but the signs look promising.

I support accountability.

Management is more than just strategy, it's about relationships and trust between various parties. Bring in a new broom and that trust may not be there.

Unsettling a company right at a critical time, not a good idea IMO.

My view is that the action is premature. Should the STMicro contract(s) fail, then the whole board should resign, as their strategy is a bust.

Unfortunately, the contracts have been delayed by about six months or so, but we should see a contract before the end of the year, if not then the managers should answer for it. Should the managers feel inclined to try and tough it out after that, I think it will be much easier to convince shareholders to back a shake-out of the c-suite.

The full settlement amount was $150m. Sure that included sale of IP, but unlikely that IP was of value to Nancoco going forwards anyway as from what I could observe it revolved around putting the dots onto film rather than the actual dots themselves.

The LOAM/RG loan were related to keeping the company solvent whilst they await commercial traction it had nothing to do with pursuing the case against Samsung. So with the second payment due in a few months looking at about $90m less some tax, which I believe is what was stated.

Do you want to keep repeating in the hope of a different outcome?

Link corrupted, try this- https://tinyurl.com/5c5ru8fk

Who remembers the outcome of that episode of Father Ted- Chirpy Burpy Cheap Sheep?

I'm reminded a similar outcome could be the consequence of all this.

If Tariq Hammoodi and his group had any firm evidence of fraud or insider trading, I believe he would have presented it by now, and if so the board wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What I've seen to date is nothing more than circumstantial, and action against the board is premature. His group are acting with an air of desperation to unseat the board before some commercial traction can be gained, after all it would be considerably easier to turf them out if the contracts don't pan out as expected.

I don't wish to depart the frying pan and find myself in the fire.

Can you two put a sock in it please, getting very tiresome reading this nonsense.

Edison tend to say 'who we believe is STMicro', or words to that effect. Therefore the company can correctly claim they have not named the company. This is much the same reasoning as Edison's valuations for the lost revenue in the Smasung litigation.

RNS's after the 2020 RNS I linked to in my last post indicated the contracts were extensions from the initial supply agreement, so make of that what you wish. Plus not many other major European companies of the type described.

STMicro were still being named up until 2020, but after that were referred to as the European customer. e.g.

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

Perhaps STMicros 'US customer' preferred this information not to be too widely disclosed, after all they were never named in the original partnership.

Just to back that up. https://youtu.be/RnAP1FgZtTA?t=781

No, that's correct, validation of both materials is expected this month. Commercial contract for at least one material is 2023 calendar year

My view is that the alternative board have not presented a credible strategy to attract sufficient votes to unseat the board, they've not presented concrete evidence of misdeeds- smoke sure but no fire.

They've pulled the trigger early, if they'd waited until after a contract is, or isn't delivered, then things could be different, if it's bad news, they'd be in with a good chance of removing the board, however good news, would mean quite the opposite. I'm sure that's a major factor in their timing strategy.

Cake is still baking.