Member Info for SmithyB

My problem with the JDA2 chem co customer being samsung was the apr 2025 rns. I suppose all jda's are exploratory but this would have been a fallback for samsung for if metalenz didn't work out and they really shouldn't have been saying production in 2027 if this was depending on their preferred solution failing. Obviously like to be wrong but that would make the rns disingenous.

Maybe nanonano - it was an oblique ref to Kooba's link to a report from the recent sensors europe were cost was given as the main reason for holding back adoption of qd swir.

Lol

The very bullish post by smithless makes the sae point on oems apple/samsung hitting a wall with NIR underscreen face id sensing. He goes further and claims the 2nd JDA is with samsung. I cannot find negative comment on samsung/metalenz incorporation of Polaris ID but it still hasn't fouind its way into galaxy or google pixel and is still just a rumour for 2027.

If as smithless said NIR is not man emough for underscreen then the cost factor of swir becomes less relevant.

As a final point, some of the comments on here about the settlement being a 3 year truce is wrong - it is a covenant not to sue *forever* for breach of any current patents and future patents granted before 2029.

Well spotted Sammy. It is also a way of saying neither will be creating IP in those fields for the next 3 years.

Yeah I saw that – he’s no relation – 2ns jda was announced apr 2025 long before any potential weaknesses in Samsung/metalenz. The rns says production 2027 so it’s not galaxy/goodle pixel.

Only swir for 2027 is likely industrial production line cameras, do these fit high volume electronics? Don’t think they’ve ever used the term ‘consumer; with the 2nd jda. Doesn’t preclude it being Samsung but it doesn’t look like phones.

It’s still odd. As Kooba said without steer/spin from nanoco or Edison we lack explanation.

If he is also right and legal costs are 1,5m – 2m or higher then I’m thinking with a way to go in the trial they didn’t see that the financial win from the court was big enough to offset risk, especially as they had already said adding Apple wouldn’t increase the payday. And not upsetting apple in the context of future dreams of qd swir in iphones is probably relevant.

Problem is if you add apple to the counter claim then odds are they would drive the settlement.

If legal costs are closer to what I got with AI – 500k then why did they settle? They weren’t scared of shoeis arguments, in fact the settlement recognises shoei are using nano patents. And the image sensor quid pro quo/mirror in the settlement – not something raised in the claim or counter-counter claim, might be genuine but not relevant to this claim and counterclaim. Back to Apple again.

I see from the recent linkedin post Jai Subramanian didn't leave with Dimitri

My Ai session thinks nano legal bill might be no more than 500k

Stay is for 10 days up to and including 30/3/26 after which settled and dismissed or back to court with progress report on where they got to. So, should know a week tomorrow.

Still sealing away in East Virginia. One of the docs was the transcript of a meeting of counsels where shoei are trying to pin down how nanoco constructs/determines value in its licensing, They wanted stuff beyond samsung/lg, Dow is named. God knows what the strategy was here, it cuts off fairly abruptly..

Not expecting to be any clearer on what has happened here at the interims presentation - if there is one. Still suspect nano or both parties thought the legal bill was going to be high. Nano needed a win on paper (covenant not to sue in display) else samsung and LG go wtf. Perhaps shoei just needed to save face and got a quid pro quo on image sensors - doubr nano will tell us anything about shoei patents in image sensing even if directly asked in a Q & A

On the downside - what is going to be the final legal bill, no more adventures in suing display oems,

Not much on the plus side unless they were finding it hard to talk to potential image sensor customers cos it looked like they were in an existential legal fight.

Unless something comes out of left field my reading is shoei's obstructions ran up the legal cost meter until it hit Liam;s flag (the money from LG and hopefully no more than that) and as they are - for whatever reason - reluctant to use apple as a payday they looked for an out.

Put the AI down TW. We don't even know the legal bill. It's all very odd. From wanting to put apple on the stand, to what looks like a cave in which preserves shoei's rep. If you want something to cling to when asking why would nanoco cave like this, perhaps these covenants will be dependant on shoei buying nanoco, but i think it's a long shot.

The stay not showing here but on their own site. Zero payable to each, each pay thedir own costs. Nano stay out of display, Shoei stay out of sensing. As usual very disappointing

There is a 'notice of settlement', that implies something concrete not something to be constructed over ten days.

That would imply settling from a strong position and that shoei have made an offer too good to refuse. if not a sale of the co then a decent sum with no details because shoei won't want to say they took a license.

Unexpected, hope they break the habit of bad or underwhelming news.

In 2023, Apple sold approximately 16.05 million Macs in the United States, with the MacBook Pro representing 51% of all Mac sales. However, specific annual sales figures for the MacBook Pro are not publicly disclosed by Apple.

Statista

+1

Globally 22.4 m macs in 2024. If we say half are pro we are looking at 8m in the US, 11m worldwide. Even if shoei were getting just the equivalent of a dollar per unit there is something substantial to be won here in damages for the past 2 years and licensing going forward.

Also waiting for news on asian JDA number 2 which is either imminent or is never mentioned again, 12 months nearly up. Annual report had customer pleased that nanoco were ahead on milestones.

If shoei (Japan) lose claim and counterclaim i don't care what they do to the former nanosys employees who work for Shoei (California). But would personally prefer apple joining, agreeing a licence deal and passing those costs back on to shoei.