Member Info for NGR1616

I see the 'Nanoco' thread has ben carried on in relation to YPF but just for transparency in relation to your response GTX, I hold both Nanoco and Burford. There are arguments to hold shares on both cases. My act on Nano is around 16p funnily enough.

Anyone following the Nanoco court case? They are suing Samsung for IP theft and the high case outcome potential is eye watering even though the low case will be the more likely scenario. That’s worth any where between $200-$1.5bn (the high case is $63bn). Nanoco’s lawyers are Mintz, very well respected who did their due diligence before accepting the case on a discounted basis. The case itself is funded by a third party and I think Burford could be involved.

sensible Mattyboy. Or sell at 29p to be safe.

For a laugh....taking info from the Edison note. US sales of Samsung TV's with Nanoco QD's estimated at 14m units. They had a premium over other TV's of $1000+. Edison notes "Top end: damages based on the premise that Samsung’s QD TV market in the US is wholly enabled by Nanoco’s QD technology, so the value of the lost revenue would be derived from
the total value of that market"
i.e. 14m x $1000 = $14bn before any multiplier for damages guided by BT at 1.5. Us is is 1/3....so it could (and I'm genuinely just putting this here for sh!7s and giggles) be 14bnx1.5x3 = $63billion. That would put the share price at........£201.89 by my calculations! New yacht anyone :-)

Let's not be too down hearted as some seem want to be, BT's view on the PTAB case isn't his thoughts alone, he will have been guided by his lawyers that the case looks strong.

new notes

FML. Ok it’s the highest since 1st May 2019 some 2 years 350ish days ago :-)

It’s a 3 year high too!

I see it as Samsung will appeal the PTAB but they'd need to win the PTAB appeal then sue Nanoco in new court proceedings by which time the original trial would have already made its decision. The question would be, could Samsung request a stay on damages whilst the PTAB appeal is undertaken. This would all simply be delaying tactics as they wouldn't win the PTAB appeal without new evidence, which I'd expect Nanoco to defend even more vigorously.

Mattyboy it did pique my interest when cadmium was referenced, almost as if there might be a renewed effort to remove the RoHS exemptions. Wishful thinking perhaps but surely it must happen one day and when it does Nanoco will be in the driving seat.

"he lawsuit against Samsung is progressing well and two key value inflection points are expected during 2022: the outcome of the IPRs in May 2022 and the jury trial in Texas in the second half of 2022. The Board is confident both events will vindicate the defence of our IP. To preserve this value it is critical that we protect the financial position of the Company and our cash runway is currently adequate to pass both inflection points, subject to new customer orders with contingency plans available if needed."

As the NASA engineer in the Apollo 13 film said when trying to get the crew returned safely, "power is everything"

In this case for me it's revenue that's everything. And better still repeating and growing revenue. I was viewing the Samsung case as a [very] 'nice to have', something that could validate the company, have a licence agreement and the potential of a special dividend to share holders. The prospect of the STM revenue was in many way more important to me, especially when you add in the Asian Chemical company potential and all the routes to market that opens up and that more of these customers are progressing towards orders and more will hopefully appear.....'build it and they will come!'

But in the RNS is this statement re display :

"Display materials (CFQD® Quantum Dots)

The current market for displays using quantum dots remains dominated by Samsung who have an estimated 90% share. The 10% held by other market participants which includes cadmium based systems is likely to grow in the short term and should see a move to cadmium free quantum dots as more countries limit the use of cadmium. Nanoco believe that anyone wishing to manufacture cadmium free quantum dots at scale will require a licence to our IP. The demand for material or licences from Nanoco is therefore closely linked to the outcome of the litigation against Samsung.

We continue to pursue small scale development projects with a number of customers in display opportunities and also in adjacent markets such as horticultural applications where cadmium free quantum dots lack of toxicity provides a clear commercial advantage.

We retain our core capabilities to deliver R&D services, scale up and commercial production of cadmium free quantum dots' from our Runcorn facility. We are therefore well positioned to take advantage of any broadening in the adoption of non-toxic quantum dots."

This is highly significant. Winning the Samsung case could disrupt the display market significantly and be a double edged sword for Samsung on one hand, and a double whammy for Nanoco on the other.

BC - 100%

Great to hear BTB. The Share Price will only be going one way now! ^

Cash runway extension......that raise must not be immediately imminent then as some [one] suggested.

Overall it's a bullish RNS.

Just to confirm, I'm not expecting an announcement tomorrow. It's an event to go over the interim financial results and that's all I'm expecting to be covered. So this way I'll only be disappointed if instead they talk about other things and not the Interim results.

BTB 31st March
“ The sell-off is now underway. I'm intrigued to see if 25p holds. If it doesn't then I think we could see sub 20p again in the near future.” after selling at 29p.

Price to buy today……29p

I'm not expecting an announcement as such at the interims, but maybe some more positive narrative.

I think the money is coming in in anticipation of both a positive PTAB outcome in May and future revenue in H2. I won't be disappointed if there's no confirmation of the revenue in H2 during the interims as the latest RNS confirmed only an additional work package. In H2 there will hopefully be an RNS confirming a production contract. The interims are not the appropriate vehicle for such an announcement unless there is an RNS on the day.

So will revenue. Have you bought back in yet BTB? 28.9p

BTB you are proposing that others follow your lead in essence to create a trading opportunity just at the point the company is about to commercialise its product (as guided) and nearing the PTAB decision which looks to me to favour Nanoco.

I wish in many ways I was more “exposed”. But you go for it. There might well be a small pull back and you can make an extra few % on a trade, but I’m waiting on the 1000%+ potential thanks.