Member Info for NGR1616

Nanogeddon…..you need your head examined

NDA’s are usually put in place by the larger entity (the one with most to lose although ironically it’ll be the minnow that gets wiped out in fiscal terms) and they are also usually time limited.

I’m holding 000k’s of these so if anyone thinks I’m a deramper working on an agenda for higher powers needs their head examined. I’m putting water on those who post as if Samsung have no arguments in court and that we’ll settle when we’ve been told otherwise. Is that so hard to accept?

Of course it is. Gale force wind. It doesn't change the facts and I'm simply quoting the CEO in most cases re going to trial and that the case is not a foregone conclusion. And in classic bias behaviours people are predictably starting to attack me because my narrative doesn't align with their own. I've seen it a thousand times.

Believe if you will that the CEO is still negotiating and that Samsung won't defend the case as strongly as they can with their expensive legal teams all you want when it does go to trial. I don't agree with that, that's all.

It’s pretty obvious they will be challenging various aspects of the patents, specifically their wording ie those words included and those not and likely also the materials and recipes involved in a bid to invalidate Nanoco’s previous successful defence of the patents at PTAB.
I’m not suggesting they have good case but they will present it robustly regardless and might genuinely believe they have a chance of winning. And that’s why we’re going to trial and not settling and why BT advised that the trial “outcome is uncertain”

"deramping" Oh here we go. As soon as someone offers an alternate view it's a de-ramp. Grow up. Clearly Samsung would appear to be in a very weak position from what we know from the coms from Nanoco. What hasn't been equally well communicated is Samsung's defense but they do have one, and you may think it's weak, but it will be up to the lawyers on each side in trial to try and convince the jury one way or the other. We're going to trial.

Feeks "N will be entering the trial with its main pleadings intact, or it will be settling at a good value from the strongest possible bargaining position it could have wished for. This is already crystal clear to all but a very few people here so I would suggest we turn to another topic now."
S will be entering this trial with a robust defense. You can be assured of that, and I think only a very few people here are cognisant of that.

I'm not wanting to confuse the investment case with that of hope. I'm not suggesting people are "blindly holding" onto their shares, only that some are hoping of a settlement because either that or a takeover (another often used suggestion) are the two 'easiest' outcomes.

Samsung didn't buy the company when it was openly for sale and no negotiated settlement was reached and the mediation was suspended. Honestly of course I would like that outcome too, but that is not what we are being told is going to happen and it's no longer a negotiation tactic.

I’ll tell you what……when this goes to trial I except a sincere “I didn’t think Tenner was serious when he said “we’re going to Trial” in the last RNS apology “. In exchange I’ll not offer anything because that would be stupid.

It’s not trolling, it’s the reality. The fact you’re blindly holding onto the hope that your investment is risk free doesn’t change the fact that the CEO of the company has told you “we’re going to trial”. Why? Because Samsung don’t want to ‘deal’. They have an argument and they’re going to use it. Instead you are continuing on the misguided and now out of date belief that we are still negotiating and it’s the current “offer” that’s been unacceptable to Nanoco. There’s no evidence any settlement was ever on the table, nor that Samsung were ever open to a negotiated settlement despite Tenners stated preference and that’s all moot because we were advised that mediation has ended. Yet you still don’t believe it.

Sammy…..you think? Does the fact mediation was suspended and the quote “we’re going to trial” sound to you like mediation will resume before we go to court and that Samsung will settle before the trial starts?

I can think of another reason Samsung aren’t willing to settle. They believe they have a defence and want to argue it in court. And if they lose they will challenge it at appeal and if they lose that they will not lose face when you have so many faces already.

BT has been advised of the latest findings by his lawyers and released that RNS based on their feedback. They have clearly also advised him that Samsung have no intention of settling pre-trial and expect to submit a defence in court that they believe has a chance of success. That’s the only conclusion that can be arrived at despite how much we might prefer an early settlement.

Confirmation bias is the single most perilous hazard to investment. It’s usually only after you’ve been badly burned that you appreciate the precept by which point it’s too late. Clearly Samsung think they have a defence so why would they settle no matter how willing BT might be.

So we’re going to trial. I firmly believe that to be the case and others are perfectly entitled to their own opinions as long as it’s arrived at sensibly.

105 posts of mostly ****€. Glad I wasn’t tuned in all day.

So we’re going to trial!!!

Steak in relation to Europe and the patents - this from Edison in April which also includes some narrative on a settlement

"In the interim statement, Nanoco notes that, if the trial verdict is favourable, it is likely to
commence further litigation in territories where it has registered its patents and where the legal
process is faster than the US and, importantly, where **INJUNCTIONS** are more commonly granted.
(Injunctions are rare in the US unless an infringer is a direct competitor).

While this could potentially result in payouts to Nanoco while the outcome of the US trial is still being appealed, it is more likely in management’s opinion to lead to additional pressure on Samsung to come to the negotiating
table with a meaningful settlement offer covering all global markets"

Appreciate that. I was referring to STM and the Asian customers I should have added for clarity.

*before

In relation to ‘trading’ I’ve mentioned said this and I’ll say it again
BT had made reference on more than one occasion about manufacturing capacity at Runcorn…..£/$100m per annum (I’m working remotely so can’t check which). The optimist in me suggests that might mean that’s the level he sees medium term - which of course would be transformative. Of course in reality he was maybe just stating capacity for informations sake, but I keep asking myself-why was he telling us?

Sensible RNS that’s taken some of the steam out of what was becoming an overbought situation.