We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Katstrangler, there are over 300m shares so a fiver a share would be just under $2b market cap, so don't think your maths checks out.
Secondly, you can't just buy a company because you have more money than its market cap. You have to get 75% acceptance from the shareholders. And until recently the biggest shareholder with 19%, Lombard, held a seat on the board and between them and the other directors held over 25% of the company. So if the board had resisted a takeover on the basis that it represented worse value than a court settlement then you could be confident no deal would be done, and Samsung would have been left with egg on their face having publicly demonstrated they were infringing the patents.
NGR, what the commentary from Nanoco certainly has been is consistent, that is to say consistently insistent on obtaining "fair value".
What "fair value" means is another question, but it shouldn't mean accepting a low ball offer. Nor is that more likely given Nanoco's strong position going into the trial following PTAB and the pre-trial motions.
So I think we can be hopeful on the final award. Personally, I think it will be between $500m - $1b for historic sales and between $100-$200m for estimates of ongoing royalties per annum.
I'd also speculate that one of the reasons why the agreement will be finalised in 30 days is to allow Samsung to tally up their Q4 sales and for an independent auditor to verify all historic sales.
I'm guessing the term sheet will actually be an agreement for royalty rates to be applied historically and going forward e.g. 1% for X TV, 1.2% for Y TV. Then there should be an uplift for historic sales to compensate for lost interest e.g. 15-20%.
I also understand that royalties are nearly always paid quarterly. So we should probably expect royalties to come in at the end of Jan, April, July and October or thereabouts.
I echo the comments of other posters on here that the $500m figure being quoted by The Times and Shares Magazine is frustratingly misleading for two reasons:
1. It is taken from the October 2021 high damages model, and so only covers US sales up until October 2021. If it were applied to US sales up until Dec 2022 you'd be looking at approx $750m based on the same model.
2. It only includes US sales which are a third of total sales, and we know any agreement will be global in coverage. So if you actually applied that Oct 2021 model *globally* and up to *Dec 2022* you'd get a $2.25b total.
Now we're not going to get anywhere near $2.25b from Samsung for past sales, but it's certainly possible we get *over* $500m, not a fraction of $500m.
Anyway, it's best not to get too wound up by these things. We'll find out the true amount sooner rather than later.
I think fair value will be around about 1% of revenue, which I seem to remember BT hinted at in the recent webinar.
If that were the case, we'd be looking at over $500m for historic sales and over $100m licence revenues per year, which should be enough to get us to £3.
But it remains to be seen how much of that was fighting talk on BT's part. Maybe the amount will be lower, which he justify by the elimination of trial risk.
To a certain extent I understand how the share price isn't running away at this point. Even now it assumes we'll get at least a $100m payout. It's easy to forget but that is an enormous sum of money and we have zero indication from that RNS what the settlement amount might be. All we have to go on is BT's previous insistence on obtaining fair value.
That said, there is also no reason to suggest that the settlement won't be for fair value, and if it is I think £3 share price is easily within range. So it's a fantastic buying opportunity.
Hawi, companies frequently accept low-ball offers on the eve of court. I don't think that is the case here at all, based on everything BT has said and the strength of our IP, but you can understand the "market" being cautious with the share price.
Wow, it's actually happened! We now have to wait and see the final details but we can be confident the settlement and licence won't be lowball, but actual fair value.
NGR, thanks for admitting you were wrong, although really it was all fun and games right?! Get a nice bottle of chianti and enjoy yourself. Although once you've finished it shall we argue about the settlement agreement?
Interesting document. I think I was incorrect when I thought the jury would award damages according to the Oct 2021 model - it seems like they will award damages for all past infringement which won't be topped up by the judge.
You can see how in that final section N and S put their options for whether the damages is for the past only or past and future in different orders. There's a whole load of psychology behind how to phrase questions - does anyone remember Brexit when originally the boxes were going to be Yes for Remain and No for Leave, which were then changed to Remain and Leave because it would have favoured Remain too greatly (because people are more inclined to tick Yes than No).
Hawi, the case you referred to for 31 Oct trial date was Equity Mobile v Walmart, which did settle on the Tuesday before, but the case first in the schedule was Continental something or other, which actually settled on the Friday before.
NGR, I'm as knowledgeable/clueless as you.
One reason pre-trial settlement is preferred to in-trial settlement is that court costs are enormous. But also once the trial starts you can get a feeling of how things are going and that can weaken or strengthen a party's negotiating position. Even the appointment of the jury, where you can see what kind of people will be deciding the case, can be instructive.
NGR, I know this will get you going but selling now eliminates the possibility of gains from a last minute settlement. I still think there's a realistic chance of it happening in the next couple of days. So I don't see that as a particularly wise move.
I don't think there's been much chat on it but it's an example of Samsung taking a case to trial and appealing. You can distinguish it though by the fact that Samsung successfully appealed on validity. That could happen here, but it would appear to be unlikely after the 47-0 result at PTAB and Nanoco's belief that the scope of any appeal is limited.
Any successful Samsung appeal, therefore, would have to be on infringement or damages. Of the two, I'd say damages is the most likely of the two - whilst knowing nothing about the actual tech it seems unlikely that the case would have got this far with funding involved for infringement to be in doubt.
What would those rumours be about though? As I said below, if the jury give their verdict outside of trading hours any rumours are irrelevant.
The more likely subject of rumours is a settlement, but I haven't seen any to date so not sure why they'd start now.
I agree, I don't see why there should be a market suspension, the trading hadn't been volatile at all the last few trading days and we're nearly at trial. The only possible case I could see for suspending it is when the jury would release their verdict, because anyone in the court room listening to it would effectively have insider knowledge. But that verdict would, I believe, be after 4:30pm UK time so it shouldn't be relevant.