Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Yes failure could be a wipe-out. The other end of the scale is however also very intriguing. I don't think people have seriously considered the best case senario as even remotely possible. It just doesn't seem even vaguely credible! . But just for a laugh lets assume Feeks' GBP 14 billion (maybe US dollars ?) Samsung profit is right and absolutely everything goes the best possible at the trial. (I know I know, what is the possibility of that? But it's just for a laugh remember so let's say it does!) So assume the jury awards us half the Samsung profit so down to 7 but the judge times 3 for wilfulness so back up to 21. Then let's assume Nanoco then lose up to 11 paying the litagation backers and paying tax. That would still leave (finger in the air) GBP 10 bn. Could you image what that would do to the share price? There are approx 322m shares in circulation so let say 10,000,000,000 divided by 322,000,000 which give over GBP 30 per share without royalties or new material orders etc! LOL. Anyone with more than 34,000 shares (currently woth less than GBP 17,000) would instantly become a (paper) millionaire! Crazy figures! Low probability, but if it came to pass, totally mind boggling! Thoughts anyone? Are any of these figures totally impossible? Of course the are the few minor flies in the ointment. We have to win the trial then wait for the appeal resul,t then win that, and then get Samsung to pay up . So I haven't signed the contract on my new house yet! Ha Ha. GLA. Not long to trial now!
At the risk of being called a ramper (I'm actually a LTH) I think that IF we win (big if) GBP 1.00 by year end would be a seriously bad result. Factoring in some reasonable first orders from our European'partner and royalties on ongoing QD sales etc the SP ought be be above GBP 3.00. Of course to be fair if it all goes wrong (we lose at trial and no orders for the new materials and no QD royalties) then if we are lucky the SP might be around 5p.
Although I expect one of the experts to explain the different damages models, I doubt that any Nanoco expert will be actually arguing for the low level award. Surely they will be arguing that the lowest award model is inappropriate and that in this case the higher/highest damages models are more justified. They will probably address the issue from different angles: other similar cases(?), the profit Samsung has made from the 'borrowed' pattent (?) etc. Why shouldn't we get ALL the addition profit they been able to make from Nanoco's patents? Nail-biting and exciting! Not long now
Yes without dismissing the risks, I think the odds are clearly in our favor about the infringement. I also think the odds favour wilfullnes and probably the middle damages model being decided by the jury but less strongly than the basic infrigement. Whilst I tbelieve real justice would deserve the high damages model *times3 , I wouldn't be too upset with the middle damages model times 1.5 or 2. Anything less and I think justice will have not been done and I will be disappointed. That said, life sometimes brings us disappointments. Not long now. GLA.
I'm going to try to forget about Nanoco the week of the trail until Friday. It is to be seen whether I will succeed! Question: What happens if the jury can't decide or perhaps need more time for deliberation? Might the result not be known by the end of the week of the trial? I assume the result won't be known early enough for the London market to be still open, but what about the american market?
ST Technology Tour 2022 starts today and there are several other STmicro events coming up in the autumn. I wonder whether STmicro will use these, among many other things of course, to promote and assess customer requirements for the potential product(s) that would use the new Nanoco's materials. Althought this is an exciting time it is also very frustrating. We still don't know much about exactly what the products are apart from they will be used in sensors to improve efficiency and effectiveness at specific wavelengths. Phones? Cars? Something else entirely? Nor do we know what end customer reaction will be to the proposed STmicro products. Presumably STmicro will only give volume orders to Nanoco if they see volume orders for their product. Although probably the new material will initially appear in only one STmicro product, that product could potentially be used by many end customers in many ways (maybe?). Having an actual product successfully using a Nanoco product at volume would transform how everyone looks at Nanoco. But it has been a long long journey with several false dawns. I not only want a good return on my investment (obviously) I also want this new technologyand nanoco to succeed. Come on Nanoco. ??
No they won't settle for peanuts, but they probably would settle for a lot less than the true damages that have been done. It isn't just Samsung's TVs it's the lost buiness across phones, displays and potentially other devices as well as other companies beside Samsung.. I know we won't get it but I think Nanoco could have been making hundreds of millions of pounds a year by now and it could have been be a muli-billion dollar company. I stress I have no hope/expectation of getting anywhere near the fair compensation which would put Nanoco back where it would have been. 5-10 billion US dollars anyone? Yeah right, we will be lucky now if we get 1 billion US dollars and possible could get much less. I do however feel very angry and I will never buy a Samsung device ever again even if they start paying Nanoco royalties.
I am uncertain but I think the litigation is just about TVs (and then only in the US) , but I can't help wondering whether Samsung has used Nanoco's technology in other products. Fairness (see Amerloque's recent post) would probably dicate thet Nanoco would become a massive company equal in sizze to Samsung now and Samsung would go bust. But realistically that won't happen because it isn't about fairness however much we want it to be. I suspect in the end whatever the settlement is, Nanoco shareholders will have been short changed and Samsung's shareholders will have gained from their use of Nanoco's hard earned technology. Nanoco won't be 'made whole'. It's a shame and I would love to be proved wrong but I just don't see it happening. Hopefully we will get a substantial anount but probably not anywhere near enough to recompense us for what happened.
Won't it be nerve-racking for us too?
So I admit that the timing of the litigation in Germany caught me by surprise. I thought ithey would wait until after the US trial. So now I'm wondering... any more surprises to come pre-trial?
@Sammy88, it may be, but isn't also possible that N could just be positioning itself for what they expect to be a win followed by an appeal. Litigation in another key market could encourage S to come to a deal after the court case if they (S) lose. The idea may be to hit Samsung where it hurts (the bank account) to make them think twice about dragging appeals on and on in the US courts. Interesting decision though by Nanoco. Is it possible that N would have got a better funding deal for this litigation after a successful trial? Also no mention that the funding is dependent on a win in the US!
@Ecclescake, Are you saying you would steal from someone else just because you could and you coulld probably get away with it? Most of us don't think like that thankfully!
If one believes a company wilfully stole another's patents,surely it would be logical to be extremely cynical about all their subsequent actions. Do you expect honour from a thief? So if I were to assume S did this and I was was cycnical I guess I would expect S to settle if and only if they think it is in their best interests, and to go to trial if they think that is their best interest. Which action S thinks is in their best interest I don't know. My guess it boils down to what they think their chances would be at trial and what they expect the consequences to be for each trial outcome! Not long now. May justice be done!
Bascadet's post just now is very interesting because of the 'just before trial' aspect but the phrase that most caught my eye was "The terms of the settlement haven't been disclosed'. If (note this small but important word) S and N settle are we also likely to be shut out of the details? If so how iwould an investor be able to take a sensible view of Nanoco might (or might not) then be worth many times its pre-settlement value?
If the Samsung decision rests with one ot two people it could also just be pride. We don't always make decision in our own true best interest!
Some questions for those more knowledgeable about legal and patent processes to inform the rest of us if they would.
Looking ahead, assuming no agreed pre- or post trial settlement, I would assume the losing side will probably appeal. So does anyone know the time limit to make the appeal?
Can either appeal before the judge gives his written deliberations?
If Samsung lose do we think they will also immediately appeal the PTAB decisions as well?
Is there a separate time limit for them to start that appeal?
Do people think S would limit any PTAB appeal to the specific patents on which they lose at trial or use a more scattergun approach to minimise potential future problems?
Can S accept the infringement but just appeal the damages amount and is that likely?
Do we know whether N's backers are 'signed-up' to support any appeal process?
How long do people think this will probably take before 'we get our money'? (Lol, not pre-judging the trial much of course)
Can we watch the verdict being given online? If so where? Would the verdict likely to be given in a reasonable time window on the Friday 19 September? I don't think I would want to watch the trial itself, but the verdict itself might be exciting!
@Sammy88, I agree a lot of trust has been lost., but we mustn't forget that Samsung is still some 90% of the market. Nanoco might be wise to swallow any desire for 'just retribution' and make money by working with the 'only' game in town.
I had a problem with my computer so was slow to finish my last post. In the meantime there were serveral good and helpful posts by people who replied before I sent off my 'completed' post. Many thanks for these.
i'LL TRY AGAIN: , @Crow2, I acknowledge your post which was earlier than mine! I think my question is subtly different although it is based on the same fundamental idea of the possible need for future collaboration. What I am unclear about is whether only Nanoco's first discovery is truely ground breaking and the rest is just an edifice which others could easily build once they know this first discovery OR have Nanoco produced (and may be are continuing to produce) a series of ground breaking discoveries that other's such as Samsung are unlikely to be able to keep up with unless they have Nanoco's help?