Member Info for nanostory

1. The $2.1B consumer SWIR sensor market in 2028 is for end products (cameras and modules). How big is the “materials” market? What’s the average QD materials cost for a sensor?

2. Steckel of ST says they are still looking for good use case applications. What are the most likely applications of CFQD-CMOS materials where CFQD is compelling despite its higher costs over cadmium-based QD? As a wild guess, will the % of CFQD portion of the QD market be more like 10% or 50% or 90%?

3. Besides Nanoco, who else is in the CFQD-CMOS sensor materials market? Anyone currently supplying materials for commercial products? Are there any risks of Samsung, Hansol, Nanging/NNcrsytal, Nanosys, TriEye, Artilux, TriEye, Artilux, or Omnivision competing in this market?

4. Nanoco’s key patents will expire in 2 to 4.5 years (27/4/25; 27/10/26; 29/1/27; 25/1/28). In the event the CFQD-based sensor market doesn’t materially develop until after the patents expire, how competitive is Nanoco’s technology in quality, price, etc (how would we even know that)?

5. Nanoco’s potential = X% of CFQD-CMOS materials after excluding cadmium-based QD-CMOS materials after excluding SiGe-based materials, correct?

@Nanonano

Here is a market forecast I found for SWIR imaging, including quantum dots, organic photodiodes, germanium-based technologies.

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/swir-market-waits-for-game-changers-2023-04/

Based on this, can you estimate the rough market sizes (ranges?) for QD materials vs CFQD materials vs. Nanoco CFQD?

@Maxi19

It's not just 2020. In 2021, it says “production revenue in 2023”, which will not happen and has changed to "production order in 2023" as of 28/3/23. I don't understand why this is not clear to you, unless you are also connected to the board like intrusivethought, NRG, Valueformoney, etc.

Even if the company receives an order by year end, I would not be surprised if the amount is extremely small based on the board's history of chronic misrepresentations.

@Nanonano, thank you for sharing your insights.

Https://epic-assoc.com/events/epic-online-technology-meeting-on-quantum-metrology-and-quantum-sensors/

Jonathan Steckel's presentation on 27/2/23. The relevant Q&A starts at minute 57.

@Maxi19

Thanks but I am having difficulty reconciling your comments with the following:

2020 annual report

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/n/LSE_NANO_2020.pdf

“potential commercial production in 2022” (note this is not “order” but “production”)

2021 annual report

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/n/LSE_NANO_2021.pdf

“visibility in late 2022” (previously "production") on “potential sensing production revenue in 2023” (changed from 2022)

2022 annual report

“visibility of commercial production orders around the end of H1 FY23” (changed from “production revenue in 2023” to “visibility of production orders around the end of H1 FY23”)

Based on the above pattern, I can no longer trust any projection from the board.

@Nanonano

Thanks for your insightful comments and making this BB informative.

1. Can you estimate the current size of the QD materials market?

2. Who are the suppliers for the remaining 10% display market after Hansol/Samsung?

3. Why do you think Nanoco has been unable to get any share of that 10%?

4. https://epic-assoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Jonathan-Steckel-STMicroelectronics.pdf Page 26 lists the players in the QD SWIR sensor market. Is anyone currently selling commercial sensors and making profit?

5. Some posters are speculating a commercial order may be coming from ST by year end, but on 27/2/23 Steckel of ST said at a conference that they are still looking for compelling use case scenarios and commercialization is 2 - 5 years away. What do you make out of all these?

@Maxi19

What is visibility? Isn't repeatedly delaying projections for visibility material? If not, why does the company even bother announcing projections for visibility?

I really don't want to waste my time but feel compelled to correct false statements made by certain posters who must be paid by or working for the board.

@valueformoney, I never said the board should disclose "absolutely everything". Of course, they should be prudent in not disclosing highly sensitive info but should disclose enough so that the owners/shareholders understand why there is no commercial order on the current board's watch (see below). Can you explain why Hansol and Nanosys have been selling tons of materials whilst Nanoco has sold zilch? Nanoco's annual reports keep stating the addressable QD market is over $25B. How is it addressable when your market share is always 0%?

@NRG1616, you should check your facts before making false statements, which are always non-responsive, biased and devoid of facts.

Picket is a co-founder and has been with the company since 2001. Any issues with Nanoco's technology are squarely on him.

Commercial production projections per annual reports & Chairman, CEO/COO/CFO and CTO tenures at Nanoco.

2001: Picket as Cofounder and CTO

18/5/16: Richards as Chairman

2017: Projection for CY19

20/8/18: Tenner as COO & CFO

2018: Projection for 2H CY19 (changed from CY19)

1/9/20: Tenner as CEO

2019: No prospects for near-term commercial production (changed from 2H CY19)

2020: Projection for CY22

2021: Projection for 2H CY22 (changed from CY22)

2022: Projection for 2H FY23 (changed from 2H CY22)

28/3/23: Projection for the end of CY23 (changed from 2H FY23)

@troublesome: "If the tech is useless in your opinion, how will changing the Board have any effect ?"

The current board has never explained why they consistently missed each of the projections over the last 5+ years and what they did each time to fix the issues, whether it’s pricing, quality, marketing, manufacturing, etc. Considering no revenue from commercial volume production despite 22 years of R&D, £60M of capital investment (probably £100M+ in NPV), and a Fortune 500 licensee (Dow), whilst Hansol and Nanosys have been selling QD materials in large commercial volumes for years, I cannot help but suspect Nanoco's technology is not ready for commercialization or otherwise inherently defective. If it were indeed defective, the current board would never disclose the truth to continue their well paying jobs based on their long history of misrepresentations and concealments of material facts during the Samsung litigation.

What we need under the new board including a QD expert (Greg Moeller) is an "objective" assessment of Nanoco's core technology to determine 1) why commercial volume production has been delayed for so long, and 2) if there are any deficiencies in the technology, what can be done to fix them in terms of time, money, process, personnel, etc. Possible outcomes may include restructuring, changing strategy/process/personnel, joint-venturing with another company, receiving external funding, divesting some parts of QD business, etc.

I realize some posters have concerns that a wholesale change of the board might be too disruptive. Here is how I see it. The current market cap being £10M below cash is an honest indication that shareholders collectively expect the current board to destroy shareholder value by the sum of £10M plus the value of the entire organic business (including Runcorn manufacturing facilities) plus the value of 370 core patents. The sum is probably well over £50M IMO, which would mean the current board represents £50M of liability. Depositing cash in the bank with no management will do better than that. The proposed directors have good track records and would not need expensive advisers to launch a licensing or litigation campaign. Everyone except Nanoco has made money from the Samsung settlement/license: Nanoco $1.3M of loss; Edelman $1M; Epstein $5M; GLS + Litigation Counsels = est $40M; LOAM/RG = $5.7M.

@SteakAndAil, you are in the right direction. The grounds for challenging validity in an IPR petition are narrower (anticipation/novelty under "35 USC 102" and obviousness "103") and can only be based on patents and printed publications. On the other hand, the validity in district court can be challenged based on two additional grounds (patentability under "101" and written description/indefiniteness/enablement "112") and not only patents and printed publication but also systems in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public. The standard for invalidating a claim is lower in the IPR (preponderance of evidence) than in district court (clear and convincing). The bottom line is that a patent can still be invalidated in court after surviving an IPR (although the petitioner is not allowed to raise the 102 and 103 invalidity grounds in court that were or could've been raised in the earlier IPR). Here is an article with further explanations. Don't listen to other BS.

https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/publications/item/2022-06-07/ipr-estoppel-on-grounds-similar-but-not-identical-to-grounds-that-could-have-been-raised-in-an-ipr

@troublesome: "Why are you so concerned when you think the the tech is useless anyway ?"

After studying Hamoodi's presentation thoroughly, I believe the only way to recover lost value is by replacing the board. Their letter responding to Hamoodi doesn't make much sense, they have repeatedly missed or misled every projection for commercial volume production year after year (never explaining why they missed), deals with major companies like Dow, Merck, Osram, etc have produced nothing, and the Chair, CEO and CTO have no track record of ever building a profitable business at Nanoco or elsewhere. Honestly I don't understand why some posters (assuming they are not connected with the board) still believe it is different this time and Nanoco will receive an order for commercial volume production by year end. All that aside, the current market cap being £10m below cash is a clear indication that shareholders at large (except a few posters here) have zero expectation for any miracle under the current management and want change.

That said, I would love to hear if anyone can present convincing reasons based on facts for supporting the current board and am willing to change my view. I created a separate thread " Wait until year end?", which received 41 replies but none explaining why we should wait until year end before taking action.

@Intrusivethougtht: "If Samsung want to utilize the 2d nanomaterials, they will have to now pay for it"

What is the basis of your statement? Samsung is not stupid to pay twice for the same patents, especially for related or possible fields of use. Field of use limitation is rare in the IT space except when the licensee never envisions going beyond a particular field of use.

@Intrusivethought: "I'm sure the settlement includes an acknowledgement of and repsect for Nanoco's IP portfolio, and a promise not to infringe."

I bet you have never seen (let alone negotiated) settlement agreements. What's the factual basis of your statement?

@QL, virtually every statement in the post is false or misleading. The amount of damages has nothing to do with Nanoco's relative size as long as the litigation is well financed (as it was with GLS).

@Nanonano, I am well aware of this, which is a dispute with the funder, who wants to get a bigger piece of the pie. There are also other disputes between various parties related to KAIST regarding how they split the proceeds. None of these have anything to do with the fact that Samsung settled with KAIST in 3 yrs and 10 months after the initial lawsuit or 7 months after the final verdict, not after "years of appeal" as the BoD suggested.

@troublesome, I am not looking to invest more in Nanoco but hoping to recover lost value by changing the BoD. Regarding "depth of research", it doesn't take much time to find relevant facts from the web. I just want keep the BB free from fake news and polluted opinions.

From Quantum Leaper or ADVFN

"Nanoco is not Ericcson, Qualcomm or Nokia. It is a tiny company that had been on the brink of insolvency for years. To compare it to giants just goes to show his out of touch you are with the reality of litigation.

And the Kaist matter lasted seven years."

I was simply answering your question verbatim re "examples of legal cases where Samsung have paid out any more money than they have agreed to pay Nanoco prior to all appeals being exhausted". Now you are changing your own question. It's impossible to have a meaningful dialogue as you keep distorting facts or making false statements.

The two KAIST cases combined lasted 3 years 10 months until the settlement (vs 3 yrs for Nanoco). Not 7 years. They asserted just one patent (vs 5 for Nanoco, later reduced to 2).

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12245947

1st suit filed on 29/11/16 ending in a jury verdict in favor of KAIST on 15/6/18

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13235525

2nd suit filed on 14/2/19 ending in a jury verdict in favor of KAIST in 02/20

https://www.law360.com/articles/1308926/kaist-samsung-settle-203m-patent-suit-over-firm-s-protest

Settlement on 10/9/20 (3 years 10 months after the first suit, or 7 months after the second verdict)

It is not necessarily easier for large companies to collect huge royalties from other large companies as they often end up infringing each other's patents, reducing the balancing payment to the other side. Plus they generally end up enforcing

5. Qualcomm

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_to_pay_13_billion_us_dollars_for_qualcomm_patents-news-1238.php

8/11/09 – Qualcomm signs a patent license agreement WITHOUT LITIGATION and receives $1.3B plus running royalties for the next 15 years (not as one lump-sum payment for past damages and future royalties combined)

Samsung agreed to pay the CDMA patent holder (read: Qualcomm) nearly the same amount, namely 1.3 billion US dollars, in order to get Qualcomm's permission to use its CDMA, WCDMA and OFDMA patents. That sounds like a fortune and it actually is: that makes approximately 80% of the 2009 net income of Qualcomm (good 1.59 billion US dollars). But as it turns out, this deal is a steal: the fees depend on company and market area, however, Samsung managed to get the lowest price. Anyway, this is just the amount which is about to be paid in advance and there will be some additional royalties for the next 15 years, but they were not disclosed.

6. KAIST

https://www.law360.com/articles/1308926/kaist-samsung-settle-203m-patent-suit-over-firm-s-protest

In 02/20 KAIST obtained a $203M judgment ($101.5M doubled for wilful infringement) against Samsung from Judge Gilstrap (same judge as in Nanoco v Samsung) and settled 7 months (not years) later in 09/20.

Quantum Leaper 1 on ADVFN: "So far, no-one has found any examples of legal cases where Samsung have paid out any more money than they have agreed to pay Nanoco prior to all appeals being exhausted."

1. Microsoft

https://www.scribd.com/document/235647261/Microsoft-vs-Samsung?irclickid=WSZT8f0yUxyPR6FwPKQBewEOUkF0zh0HSSkIWU0&irgwc=1&irpid=10078&sharedid=arstechnica.com&utm_campaign=affiliate_pdm_acquisition_Skimbit+Ltd.&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=impact#

09/11 - Microsoft enters into a patent license agreement with Samsung without litigation.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/samsung-paid-microsoft-1b-last-year-patent-royalties-related-to-android

Under the patent license agreement, Samsung paid Microsoft $1B in patent royalties for 2013 alone (not as one lump sum payment for all past damages and future royalties combined).

2. Nokia

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/nokia-samsung-extend-patent-licensing-deal-for-5-years

1/1/14 - Nokia signs a patent license agreement with Samsung without litigation for hundreds of millions EUR (believed to be annual)

https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/1/10883792/nokia-samsung-patent-settlement

Nokia continues to profit from smartphone legacy with Samsung patent deal. This morning, the company announced that it had settled a [patent license contract] dispute with Samsung over the licensing of its technologies, boosting the Finnish firm's bottom line by HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF EUROS. Nokia's dedicated patent unit, Nokia Technologies, says it expects sales of around €1.02 billion ($1.1 billion) in 2015 following the deal, with an additional €1.3 billion ($1.4 billion) in the years 2016 to 2018.

3. Ericsson #1

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ericsson-samsung-patents/samsung-to-pay-ericsson-650-million-plus-royalties-to-end-patent-spat-idUSBREA0Q0A120140127

27/1/14 - Ericsson settled in 14 months after filing a lawsuit against Samsung for $650 million plus royalties to end patent spat [not as one lump-sum payment for past damages and future royalties combined]

4. Ericsson #2

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/ericsson-samsung-partner-up-in-licensing-deal/

9/5/21 - Ericsson settled for $237M in 5 months after filing a lawsuit against Samsung

Ericsson said it had not disclosed how many years the deal, which includes patents for all cellular technologies, would last. It said it now expects second-quarter patent licensing revenue to be 2 billion crowns ($237 million) to 2.5 billion crowns. The settlement, which ends ongoing lawsuits in several countries, was done in record time as patent disputes between technology companies can often take years to settle.

@intrusivethought & @NRG

I have yet to see a single post from them that is sensible. Their opinions are always biased knee jerk reactions with NO supporting facts. Their comments are irrelevant and don't address issues raised by other posters. They have ZERO regard for laws, regulations, best practice, and even simple chat rules.