Member Info for NGR1616

Wide words gents.

10p is what they are nominally worth. 37p is the raise price.

Same here Feeks. Although not sure I'd make 85 whatever the outcome!

I’m almost completely discounting Samsung now. Definitely just a cherry on what could be an amazing cake made of sensor tech and transform that value of this company in the next 2-3 years. Longer term who knows what the trajectory could be. I’m optimistic I can retire when I hit 55 from it.

Although the trading update does contain this line " Today's separate announcement of a full year service contract with our major European electronics customer (the 'New Contract') more than doubles the Group's order book year-on-year."

Yup fair enough Feeks. I do wish that RNS’s were written in less ambiguous terms!

I think it is the latter on reflection.

OR it could be interpreted as £2.6m for the year (2 x 6months of H1 22)

"The contract delivers a monthly revenue run rate equivalent to that delivered in H1 FY22"
H1 22 revenue was £1.3m so by my reading we now have FY revenue of £15.6m starting from 1st May 2022. Anyone care to confirm they see the same?

I think it's impossible to say what the damages may be in the mid and upper case.But I think we can take some comfort about what the lower range will be which will be something like that guided by Edison at $250m. On that basis alone the SP will be higher from here and its worth holding for that alone.

RJT105 the high case I presented was taken from Nanoco’s own guidance in terms of how damages could be awarded. Ie on value of the market created by the technology which is the premium of between $1000 and $1500 per unit. So please don’t criticise republishing Nanoco’s own guidance no matter how ridiculous you might view it.

For clarity I don’t expect anything like the high case calculations. In my opinion it will be between $1 and 3bn.

Thanks Hawi. Encouraging read.

as a reminder, the high case settlement is based on the market created by the use of the IP. The 'sets' are estimated to sell for a premium of between $1000 and $1500.

28m sold globally x $1000 is $28bn x 1.5 damages is $44bn just for sales to date and doesn't take into account the patents are still valid until 2028 and 2035.

The most likely outcome remains in my opinion a negotiated settlement. This will require sign off at the highest levels within Samsung after the lawyers have exhausted negotiations so it won't happen soon but I believe it will before the court case. That's purely my opinion.

There was a trade logged at 12:53 today off book for £7.8m for just over 1m shares @ 750.00

The appeal documents appear to be challenging the boards process and uses words such as "whether the board violated the Administrative Procedure Act......"

Samsung are clearly not concerned about their future relationship with the board, which is odd given they will probably re-acquainted soon enough.

Likewise Feeks. Whether we’re right or not remains to be seen but on balance the risk has reduced post PTAB and it seems the wider tech is being adopted and the market growth could be exponential in the medium term. I’m betting the farm!

These guys don’t become wealthy betting everything on the sheep farm through to the end! He’s made some money from identifiable milestones (PTAb but also STM) and in some ways that was likely the riskiest part of his investment now completed. ‘he’ has now taken some profit and is hopefully going to leave the rest for a free ride to commercialisation and a court win. That’s my speculative interpretation.

Tenner discussed only recently a negotiated settlement based on the life of the patents ie 2028 &2035 with fair value for the patents globally being the boards preferred outcome. The lawyers (Mintz) will definitely be making it clear that their intentions will be to pursue the European sales as suggested below and arguing this is speculation is being a little obtuse I’d say.

I had a quick look at their half year results. The court case settlement is mentioned but I don’t see any line input for the cash. Perhaps that comes in the next period. I’d do more research but I’m short on research time just now.

My original post was on the basis that where do you ever hear what a settlement value is in corporate disputes? It's almost always as far as I can deduce published and worded along the lines of "undisclosed amount" which I think will be a requirement in this case too from Samsung regardless of Nanocos' preference. Its the 'undisclosed' part that I refer to in terms of an NDA, not a further reaching NDA. But it can't remain hidden forever. There will be commentary on it, and it must appear on the books at some point but Nanoco won't I believe publish the amount of any out of court settlement. Damages at trial however is another matter.