Member Info for Nanonano

Https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/12/apple-reality-pro-wwdc-delays-production/

This aligns pretty much bang on with the interim commercialisation schedule.

While the headset is still on track to make its debut at WWDC, today’s report points out that it won’t be available “for most users until the fall at the earliest.” Mass production isn’t slated to begin until December, the report says.

Well shared enough to allow Samsung to proceed sans Nanoco and a contract for supply.

Legal action seemed to be a damage limitation exercise, the real harm was done years earlier when they worked closely with Samsung and shared all their secrets for nothing with the expectation of a big contract for supply.

Nanoco will probably never be the company it once had ambitions to be, but perhaps it can secure a major share of the IR sensor market. I find it hard to believe they could max out their facility any time soon, but perhaps £10-20M revenue per annum is feasible within the next couple of years in sensors. Perhaps they can win a few million more in display.

So with plenty of cash and a streamlined operation no more worries of the company going broke for the foreseeable future, but with regards to organic growth things are still murky, and no guarantees, which is why the share price is where it is I believe.

I'd broadly agree with that. Illogical to spend millions to get one or two back in damages, hopefully they won't need to.

I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be for Nanosys to continue as a QD producer if they had to pay a royalty to Nanoco, but then it's difficult to find sympathy when they were quick enough to jump on Nanoco years ago when they felt they were infringing their cadmium based IP, not to mention NNcrystal. Quid pro quo.

Perhaps they wish to wait until they have a bit more cash in hand?

After all, their accounts are public, and any infringer is likely to know whether they've got the clout to take them on, and I think it'll be easier when they have a few tens of million on hand plus (hopefully) a contract or two for commercial volume.

Ditto.

Only news (or leaked news) good or bad from the company moves the needle with any force on this share.

Can't see any reference to a nanoco short position of that magnitude?

Little guy against big guy. Big guy is going to win.

Nanoco probably naively showed them all they needed to know, else what were they doing for several years in collaboration- playing Trivial Pursuit?

Question remaining is the new boss the same as the old boss, and will we all get fooled again?

Reestablishing confidence will require something of substance. Even then it may take a while, as the company always keeps its cards close to its chest. The delays in sensor commercialisation haven't helped post-settlement.

Perhaps less about producing lead sulphide QD's but more about applying them onto another substrate.

Any thoughts on when such technology may bring in some revenue?

It appears the Apple AR device is likely to use lead sulphide based sensors at least for SWIR. This is far from exclusive technology which Nanoco stated, although they added they have a lot of experience with this material and have overcome a lot of challenges with making it suitable for wide spread use, which is protected by trade secret.

I noted at the last presentation that the gestation period for new IR materials had extended to five or six years from a previously mentioned two or three, which suggested to me that some engagements are possibly only likely to enter commercial territory by 2027, which aligns with independent analysis (e.g. Yole) for widespread adoption of QD based SWIR sensors.

This is all assuming other tech doesn't arrive to disrupt that timetable e.g. organic photodetectors, which Samsung are said to be heavily involved with.

Really couldn't see that getting anywhere.

Unless someone has some hard evidence to present that some chicanery has gone on, the worst that any investor could present was that they presented an overly optimisitic view of any potential settlement. Slapped wrist move on.

If they can't get the sensor contracts over the line, then that's another matter, as the company is running out of time to capitalise on its key patents. Anyone here care to comment on how valuable other patents beyond the seeding process are likely to win significant business going forward? Can't say I'm qualified to know, the next gen IR materials may prove significant, or be a damp squib.

Perhaps QS Ltd will come along and steal Nanoco's bacon butty?

Their concept of fair value worked out at about $1-1.50 per set rather than the quoted $6.60, that's assuming futures sales match past sales, which is likely generous as future sales are likely to eclipse past sales by some margin.

Don't think that was fair. It was something better than nothing, and whole lot of nothing is what Nanoco had before.

$300m or thereabouts would not have been based on conjecture, but an amount based on the court documents the CEO said should have been used as guidance. Can't remember the exact figure from memory I think it was $6.60 per tv for the low end figure, multiply by 42m tv's gives $277m. That's for historic sales, then add on for future sales within the lifetime of the relevant patents. $150m was quite some discount.

This is past tense of course but consequently, the markets now remain wary of the CEO's statements.

What is hearsay?

Regardless of what model was used, the settlement figure was well below any reasonable expectation. If they can't deliver on commercialisation in sensors by the end of the year, it's time to consider if this is simply a privately funded R&D gig rather than a business.

The money from Samsung has barely covered past costs, especially when factoring in inflation, not to mention the damage done to the company through loss of revenue after they swiped the IP, and inferred nobbling with other display OEM's.

Potential commercial orders.....

Something to bear in mind is that there is a larger pool of PI's holding the vote than previously, and most are disappointed with the current situation, plus they have a very ticked off II who wants blood. At the interims in the Q&A, the CEO sounded like he was reading from a pre-prepared manuscript as opposed to previous Q&A's where the answers sounded a little less structured. Indicated to me that BT was choosing his words carefully.

Consequently, I think the board are in a slightly less comfortable place than in previous years when RG and LOAM held about 40% of the vote between them and it will be easier for PI's to hold the company to account for its forward looking statements.

I think a lot will depend on the position of the company in early 2024. If they have a contract or two in hand with more in the pipeline, the share price should be looking a lot more rosy than it is now. I'm not expecting it to reach dizzy heights, but I'd expect it to trace back to the mid-fifties at least, unless confidence has been so badly damaged that nothing short of a multi-million pound supply agreement will move the needle. Under those circumstances, investors could be in for a long wait to 2025 or later.

My main concern in sensing is not Samsung, but QS Ltd. as their top team is almost exclusively ex-nanoco scientists. They may be small and lack the funding of Nanoco, but they're growing fast and making a lot of noise in the industry and claim to have the best materials and a novel process of applying them. We'll see.

"Samsung are now allowed to use the molecular seeding IP for mass production - for sensors also I presume."

I don't believe the license is for anything beyond display.