Member Info for nanostory

I am sure samsung was far more afraid of going to trial than nanoco as nanoco's probability of winning was overwhelming (an average case in eastern district of Texas has 70% change of winning; nanoco had probably 95% plus wailful infringement). However, samsung was far better at negotiating (they have been sued about 1000 times and still have nearly 100 cases open), whilst this was the first case and settlement for the board, who also was desperate. It was like Michael Jordan playing with a high school kid.

" A lawsuit would have quickly resulted in a higher sum on paper, but Samsung would have appealed and the whole thing would have dragged on for years."

As I said in another thread, if nanoco had won a $1B at trial, its mcap would have jumped to $2B+ and the company could have raised $300-400M in a heartbeat and keep 100% of the $300-400M without sharing with lawyers, advisors, etc. It won't matter how long the appeal lasts. You don't understand how the capital market works.

"Samsung's appeal to the PTAB against the patents would have been rolled out again and who knows what would have happened then."

Again, as I said in other threads, the probability of all claims surviving an IPR institution is 10%. The probability of all 5 patents surviving is 1 in 100,000. To win a trial, you only need one good claim that is infringed. The probability of all 47 claims being invalidated on appeal ZERO. You need to gather facts before you speak.

"The fact is that the $150 million is split and part of it is royalties. It is ultimately completely irrelevant whether for the past or the future. In the past they were not on the balance sheet or there was no income. The fact is that for the next 9 years £6 million will be on the balance sheet in license fees per year and that will interest investors."

Tenner and Richards cannot take credit even for the low settlement amount as they couldn't manage or decide on their own and had to rely extensively on advisors (read the RNS's). Worst yet, they weren't even at nanoco when the litigated patents were created, so it's like inheriting $ from an uncle you didn't know you had and pretending you earned it.

@TG2D

Don't hold your breath. I don't expect people (especially in their 50's or 60's) suddenly to transform from a crook to an angel or from a lifetime failure to an overnight success. It would be a miracle.

Truly pittance for seminal patents that cannot be designed around.

1. Samsung sold ca 10M units of CFQD TVs worldwide in ’22 (13% growth from ’21).

2. The damages report submitted to court suggests 7.24M units sold in the US during the 6.7 year damage period (1/2/15 to 4/10/21).

3. Per BT, US represents 1/3 of worldwide sales for Samsung. 7.24M * 3 = 21.7M units WW during the damage period.

4. The later of the two patents set for trial expires in Jan 2028, providing a royalty period from 10/21 to 01/28 (6.2 years).

5. Assuming sales grow at 13% CAGR starting 2022, total worldwide sales = 87M units during the royalty period.

6. Total units for the damages period + royalty period = 87M + 21.7M = 108.7M units

7. Assuming the average price of CFQD TV is $2,500, Samsung's revenue = 108.7B * 2500 = $272B

8. Effective royalty rate = $65M/$272B= 0.02%

@TG2D

Yes, indeed. Clearly intended to illegally benefit their master shareholders (who had enough shares to boot them out anytime) by screwing retail investors. I have no doubt the judgment day will come and justice will prevail one way or the other.

Here is what Brain Tenner stated in writing regarding wilful infringement (CAPITALIZED BELOW), again boosting the SP.

28/6/21 RNS

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/xj3681w

"Going to trial after the outcome of the IPRs is known will maximise Nanoco's chances of winning the litigation. Nanoco';s team will be able to leverage claims that have already been shown to be valid and thereby remove one hurdle to be overcome during the trial. The sale of additional TVs by Samsung in the run up to the later trial date also has the potential to increase the baseline value in any damages model, which WOULD [NOT COULD] ALSO BE SUBJECT TO A MULTIPLIER FOR WILFUL INFRINGEMENT."

@Tm58: "Monorail. Glad you weren't involved in the negotiations. Yours appears to be let them know the lowest you will accept and hope you can get more from them."

@qdnano: "I don't know of any manager who ever publishes a possible low volume result before a final result of negotiations. That would be about the most irresponsible thing a CEO could do. I would have loved to read the comments here :-)"

Stop obfuscating the real issue. Nobody has ever asked the board to disclose its negotiation strategy or the settlement amount it would take. Nobody is that stupid. What everyone is asking is why the three damages amounts already filed with court and absolutely shared with Samsung (as required by the court procedures) were not disclosed to shareholders. This is material 'factual" information requiring immediate disclosure per MAR. Stop distorting the question. I know why they didn't disclose. Because doing do would have crashed the SP, and LOAM/RG could not have realized huge profits by screwing unsuspecting investors. The board was dead focused on pumping the stock by sponsoring TPI and Edison (both paid by Nanoco) to publish bogus inflated estimates $200-300M. The board was so diligent in issuing RNS's to announce widely available already public information (eg., IPR petition filed, IPR instituted, IPR wins, etc), yet deliberately concealing far more material info that could damage the SP. If it happens once, you might think it's a mistake or unintentional, but here it happened so many times that anyone with a brain can see through their lies. Shame on you.

Https://geeksmodo.com/why-apple-uses-samsung-parts-explained/

Samsung is one of the main suppliers of components for Apple devices, including the iPhone and iPad.

One of the main reasons why Apple uses Samsung parts is simply because they are the best available. Samsung is known for producing high-quality components that are reliable and efficient. Apple is known for being extremely selective about the components they use in their devices, and they are willing to pay a premium for the best quality. Samsung has a reputation for producing some of the best components in the industry, so it makes sense that Apple would want to use their parts.

@qdnano,

You fabricate a bogus vision and ask for a guarantee it will not come true, whist blatantly disregarding clear evidence of the current board's chronic corruption and incompetence, to which to cannot provide a single sensible answer. What kind of convoluted logic is this?

“Tariq explains to shareholders that the lawsuits against possible patent infringers are very expensive and Nanoco is using the cash to avoid third-party funding. The legal fees are enormous anyway. Shareholders get nothing. Patent infringement lawsuits last for years.”

You are mistaken. These are the words from the current board, not from Tariq. The board has licensed 90% of the market through Samsung for a measly $65M and spent $61M, for $4M net income. How do they plan to license the remaining 10% and make profit? They have never articulated any strategy other than hiring an expensive advisor and doing heat maps. What a joke.

“No revenue, Nanoco is an IP shell and the share .price is collapsing.”

You should look in the mirror. The SP has already collapsed below cash, thanks to the current crooked incompetent board. Nobody is buying shares because they see no future and don’t trust the board. Not even the current directors, LOAM or RG. LOAM does not even publicly endorse the board at this critical juncture. It’s pity the incumbent directors have not voluntarily resigned, wasting shareholder money to defend their incompetence, lack of integrity and lack of independence. They have no conscience.

@qdnano,

100% of your posts are full of distortions, lies, false allegations, etc. to blindly promote the crooked board. Let’s correct each of your statements.

“Just imagine Tariq Hamoodi wins the vote. He and his team then announce a week later that the European client is withdrawing from cooperation with Nanoco due to the uncertainty with the new management.”

Fearmongering. Fortune 500 companies routinely change D&O whilst keeping the remaining staff intact. When you elect a new prime minister, does the country go bankrupt or automatically lose all allies?

“It becomes public that it was ST Micro and Nanoco would have been part of the Apple's supply chain.”

Complete lie. Read my earlier thread “Apple Vision Pro - Bill of Materials”. Cowell Electronics of China, not ST, is the supplier of sensors/cameras for Vision Pro.

“Nanoco would lose millions in revenue as a result and the work of years would have been destroyed.”

You are blind if you don’t see clear evidence of destroyed shareholder value under the current board. There is zero evidence the new board will destroy anything of value. Just look at Mr Lee’s track records.

“The Asian customer is also not extending the cooperation with Nanoco, since it is not certain whether the patents will still be owned by Nanoco.”

Another nonsense comment. Nobody in the world is cooperating with nanoco because of nanoco’s patent portfolio. It has never happened and will never happen. That’s not what the patents do.

‘Under the leadership of Mr. Lee Nanoco announces to sell all but 3 patents.”

You are making it up again. Watch the video again. He said (at min 35 of the webcast) he would probably keep the most valuable 15 – 20 (not 3) patents (out of ca 60+ US patents) because the rest are just fillers, adding zero value and just costing money to maintain (e.g., CFQD patents in Israel, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, Australia, India, France, Netherlands, etc are worthless). His point was settlement $$ from Samsung is due to the key patents in litigation and all remaining patents were included in the settlement by default for no additional consideration only because nanoco owns them. That’s 100% true, not just for nanoco but for most high-tech companies. He would like to sell these less relevant patents for cash, like what nanoco presumably did with Samsung. That’s smart thinking.

“After months, it becomes clear that these patents are being sold well below fair value.”

Stop making it up. Mr. Lee is far smarter than you think. Just look at his track record, beyond comparison with any of the board members. Regardless, what value is nanoco receiving from each of the 370+ patents? In due course, they will all expire without adding any value to nanoco’s bottom line.

The board was on a mission to boost the SP to help LOAM dump ca 48M shares in 8 months at 2 - 4 times the current price. Here are some undeniable examples:

1. Deliberately concealed the $43.9M damages claim filed with court on 20 may 2021 and again when released by the court at pre-trial conference in aug 2022, both in clear violations of MAR. In the meantime shareholders were solely relying on Edison's and TPI's bogus estimates of $200-300M based on 25M units of past sales at $8- 12/unit royalty, which are entirely made up and not even based on any market reports. Had this number been disclosed, the SP would have crashed, preventing LOAM from start dumping on 13 June 2022 at 42 - 44p.

2. $65M + $85M in the settlement term sheet were not disclosed on 6 jan, again in clear violation of MAR requirements. If it were disclosed, the SP would have crashed right away, and LOAM could not have sold 25.2M shares from 6 jan to 17 jan, two weeks before the settlement amount was disclosed.

3. The term sheet, the license agreement and the sale agreement were all subject to shareholder approval per the FCA listing rules 10 and 13, but the board decided not to seek shareholder approval in fear that doing so would crash the SP, preventing LOAM from selling as in #2.

The board cannot come up with any sensible excuses for these three deliberate acts, which ended up screwing unsuspecting retail investors. Whilst the board was fundraising at 37p last june, LOAM was actively selling. LOAM should be a fortune teller.

Business is about managing risk, not eliminating it. Patent litigation is fraught with risks, losing in IPR, losing in claim construction, losing for non-infringement, losing on damages model, etc. When there is an order of magnitude difference between the two options, it's a no brainer for me. Following your logic, you will never go to trial even with 99.9% chance of winning $5B.

What do you mean by "a year-long legal battle where the outcome isn't as clear as some like to make it out to be"?

Nanoco had an exceptionally strong case in terms of infringement and validity (5 seminal patents selected from 500+ with all 47 claims in 5 patents surviving IPRs, the probability of which is 1/100,000 according to the PTAB statistics, seminal patents that cannot be designed around) and damages ($43.9M low end and $412M high end) times ca 10X for worldwide coverage & full life of the patents (ca 73M units; $440M low end, $4.12B high end) plus overwhelming evidence of wilful infringement (2 to 3X for enhanced damages; $880M - $1.3B low end; $8.2B – 12B high end) in the best district court in the country under the most patent friendly judge, where the probability of winning could’ve been 95%+ (vs 70% on average, see below). This could have been one of the biggest verdicts/settlements in history. Apparently, the board wanted to “eliminate” risk for job security instead of going to trial for far greater risk-adjusted expected value (95% * $B’s).

28/03/23 RNS: “The Board believes that winning with Nanoco's 'high case' damages model would inevitably have led to an appeals process potentially lasting a number of years with the risks of losing on appeal, a re-trial, or a re-trial of damages only and possibly resulting in a lower damages award. The Board also considered the incremental funding costs of an extended litigation process and the potentially significant impact of the time value of money”.

These statements are so stupid and clearly highlight the board’s incompetence and ignorance. If Nanoco won a $2B verdict, its MCap would be easily $3 to 4B, enabling them to fundraise $300-400M in a heartbeat, or protect the verdict with judgement preservation insurance, or sell part of the verdict, etc. The proposed chairman, Dooyong Lee, had three trials and won all three last year. While flying high, his Acacia raised $400M in two rounds of equity sale. If you are worried about paying your mortgage or losing your job, you can never negotiate the best deal. As a shareholder, if you had a choice between walking away with $1M or betting $1M for a 95%+ chance of winning $100M, which one would you choose?

https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/patent-litigation-in-texas-what-happened-in-2022-and-what-to-expect-next/

Judge Gilstrap took nine cases to jury verdicts in 2022, with six resulting in infringement verdicts—including a US$31 million award against Ericsson and a US$218 million award against PNC Bank.

https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/seven-out-of-ten-patent-jury-trials-favor-plaintiffs/

Seven out of Ten Patent Jury Trials Favor Plaintiffs

September 30, 2020

@Nanonano: "Samsung have a license to use Quantum dots for display, but they do not have a license to use them in sensors. VR/XR requires lots of sensors operating in the infrared spectrum."

This is very presumptuous. Having a field of use limitation in a settlement is rare for global companies like Samsung with various businesses and products.

Dooyong Lee’s comments in the 25 July webcast were insightful and powerful. Filing an ITC action could have gotten the results in 18 months instead of 3 years. Getting an exclusionary order would have forced Samsung to pay much more (without bothering with different damages models). How many individuals do you know who generated $30M+/yr with 40% in earnings with just two principals and a secretary or who grew annual revenue from $4M to $251M and market cap from $110M to $2.1B in just 8 years. He is a blessing to Nanoco.

Ikchoon Tim Kang has 30+ years of international marketing and sales experience at fortune 500 companies with good connections with many Asian companies, including Samsung and LG. He will be of great value as Nanoco grow or form partnerships internationally. Nanoco's board is entirely from the UK and needs more non-UK representations and international connections.

Tariq Hamoodi. I see numerous seemingly full-time posters (probably paid by the board) on this BB fearmongering with “unrealistic” concerns about stripping assets for quick profits. Unrealistic because he doesn’t control the board; the nominee directors don’t work for him and have no prior association with him. Besides, any asset sale would be subject to shareholder approval anyway. If quick profits were his motive, why he would spend so much of his own money in this campaign without any assurance of success for his 4.3% share of any quick profits? That said, if you are still concerned, don’t vote for him but elect at least some nominees as Nanoco desperately needs better governance. The board clearly screwed retail shareholders in last year’s fundraise at 37p, whilst enabling LOAM to sell ca 48M shares at 2 – 4 times the current price. Those who participated in the fundaise lost 50% of their money whilst LOAM/RG gained 179% from their loan to Nanoco. How can you trust the current board to take care of us?

Priority #1: Chris Richards and Brian Tenner

They are directly responsible for all false communications, concealments of material facts and wrongdoings. As an example, Tenner had concealed the $43.9M damages claim filed with court from shareholders from 20 may 2021 to 9 feb 2023 and lied to Hamoodi on 24 Feb 2023 (see the video clip on transformingnanoco.com) that he had never seen that damages amount. In the meantime, the board had been sponsoring Edison and TPI (both paid by nanoco) to publish bogus $200-300M (sometimes $250M) estimates, enabling LOAM to sell ca 48M shares at 2 – 4 times the current price from June 2022 to 17 jan 2023, 2 weeks before the crash. Besides, they are incompetent and not independent.

Priority #2: Alison Fielding and Chris Betterham

Fielding was in the litigation subcommittee, participating in so many wrongdoings surrounding the Samsung litigation. Betterham is the chair of audit committee and is accountable for non-compliance. They both have long been associated with LOAM and RG and are not independent.

Priority #3: Liam Gray

He is overpaid for his role/experience and was brought in by Tenner. It's easy to replace a CFO.

WITHHOLD if it helps certain shareholders sell at inflated prices, like the $65+85M in the 6/1/23 term sheet, and $43.9 low end damages in court papers on 20/5/21 and 1/7/22, loam's participation in the litigation subcommittee, 5/1/23 private call with loam/rg

RELEASE if it doesn't hurt certain shareholders' sales, even when the info is widely and readily available to the public, including: IPR petitions, IPR institution, IPR win, claim construction ruling, trial schedule change, etc.

@Tornadotony,

I disagree with your assessment.

First, the 6/1 RNS should have disclosed $65M + $85M in the term sheet, which were clearly inside info requiring immediate disclosure per MAR. During the recent webcast, the board explained they couldn't disclose because of "confidentiality restrictions", which turned out to be false because the very next business day's RNS said the total settlement value is "expected to be towards the lower end of the range ...", essentially admitting the "confidentiality restrictions" were made up. Then, the RNS deliberately added a word "fair", which has a special meaning per Tenner (global coverage + past damages + future royalties), boosting the SP, helping loam's sales.

Second, regarding the fees allegedly reduced by $11M (if true, perhaps $5m edelman + $1m epstein + loam bonus $5.7m = $11.7m being reduced to $700k), I do not believe for a second that LOAM (or anyone in the right state of mind) would have agreed to waive their $5.7M receivable (would you?) without knowing the reason, which necessitates disclosing the settlement amount. Even then, why would they? Perhaps qui pro quo was not to disclose the $65+85M in the 6/1 RNS and add "fair" settlement in the 9/1 RNS, enabling loam to recover their waived $5.7m from selling 25.2M shares at 22p higher before the collapse. Regardless, if they indeed reduced the fees, the board would/should have disclosed full details of where the $11M of fee reduction came from with supporting documents. They cannot, because a) it's not true (based on the board's chronic tendency to lie) or b) they would then have to admit Epstein's $5m, and Edelman's $1m (which is too late to admit because the board already said $35k for edelman and a small fraction of $5m for epstein at the 25/7 pre-egm webcast).

The problem the board is facing is making up a lie to cover another lie then another etc... After a while, they can no longer come up with a cohesive story that makes sense.

LOAM started selling while Henry Turcan (LOAM) was on the litigation subcommittee (1/9/21 – 12/9/22) with access to MNPI, including Samsung’s early offers and the board’s low end damages of $43.9M in court papers.

06/22: Edison’s and TPI's (both paid by Nanoco) low end damages estimates $200 – 300M

1/7/22: $43.9M low end damages in court paper (withheld by the board)

13/6/22: 2,507,809 @ 41.6 – 44.3p

16/6/22: 1,061,679 @ 41 – 42.4p

11/7/22: 6,356,574 @ 34.4 – 35.8p

25/8/22: 3,011,008 @41 - 43p

10/22: Edison’s low end damages estimates $200 – 250M

4/11/22: 4,046,978 @35 – 38.4p

19/12/22: 2,706,983 @37.5 – 39.9p

3/1/23: 2,844,641 @44 – 46.8p

5/1/23: Private phone call between LOAM and the board

6/1/23: RNS term sheet without financial details, helping LOAM to sell high

6/1/23: 12,505,075 @55.4 – 72.6p (largest one day sale)

9/1/23: RNS “fair settlement” “towards the low end of the range”, helping LOAM to sell high

10/1/23: 5,972,532 @37.6 – 42.1p

13/1/23: 1,770,677 @36.5 – 38.7p

17/1/23: 4,949,014 @32.3 – 36.4p

Total shares sold: 47,733,039 at circa 2 - 4 times the current SP

Thank you, all board members. LOAM could not have done so well (like a fortune teller) without you.

3/2/23: SP crash on disclosure of Samsung settlement