Member Info for SmithyB

Apple macbook pro for 2026 isn't oled, though i guess they may still introduce an oled as an "ultra" pro in 2026 or early 2027. Still no mention of QDs in the spec.

https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2026/03/apple-introduces-macbook-pro-with-all-new-m5-pro-and-m5-max/

Nano's RNS of 23 feb assumes apple will be added and that these are just formalities, and all as a consequence of shoei not giving anything up in the arguments over the boundaries to discovery.

Shoei busy in court yesterday. I'm not reading all that.

Could the answer be that infringement is not at scale because nanosys are a large percentage bs and probably didn't turn a profit for shoei on cad free dots until the apple macbook pro

Hoping the judge also told them to give up detail on the "Accused methods" also.

Personally i;d like the former Nanoys arm of shoei to continue to bs, and do nothing to stop apple joining. If apple are committed to qds in macbook displays then they will look to license the supply chain. Regardless of the respectful tone nanoco adopted in the litigation update - we are not going after apple money - it would be apple making the problem go away by putting a hand in their own pocket.

Or call Apple. Try harder.

Reluctant defendants don't counterclaim

Er no. Nanoco is asking permission to put apple alongside shoei

Nice find nanonano! Don't think we'll be going back to ptab. OK so we can all see the potential with damages/licensing, now they need to win on the science or just look likely to win in order to get a favourable settlement.

Won some but not all in its motion to compel shoei to hand over more stuff. Be interesting to know what exactly the disputed data are.

my session with ai said something similar, shoei on the defensive, lot of heat, trial more likely 2027.

Yeah, it's all guessing. imo 5m is low so i think it's an indemnity payment personally.

also TW, without a subscription to pacer no one knows what shoei are holding back, again i personally think it more likely to be the science than the sales, and shoei would do that to avoid allowing us to broaden beyond literal qd synthesis methods.

Bit of stonewalling from shoei on handing over data going on at the trial hearing next friday to resolve,

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61367121/Shoei_Chemical_Inc%2C_et_al_v_Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd

Can you do that with unlisted private japanese companies?

Might be early days with asian jda no 2 but you missed the bit where if the can is not kicked down the road or abandoned it leads to scaled production in 2027. It's a 1 year so we should find out april.

That's not really the best outcome, but then i've only been here a couple of years.

In April 2025 interim statement dimitri said we were in 10 projects and should see low level dot production runs 2026, this is not backed up by further rns or even the vague mention of qd display for the military.

for swir we have:

1st asian jda - industrial scale product runs 2028

2nd asian jda industrial scale production runs 2027

2nd jda was a 1 year so we get bad or good news April/May 2026.

Pre-trial with shoei is may 2026

Interims Apr 2026.

Text attributed to Jalal in recent RNS:

"I would like to thank Dmitry for his tireless efforts during the process, working on development and implementation of Nanoco's organic growth strategy, in parallel with both the CDX process and LG Electronics litigation.

If you go back to dimitry's 1st piece to camera - presentation after delayed fy - he says the growth strategy is his, notes he didn't write it, but accepts that it is his.

Losing to samsung probably would have put the lights out. These recurring patterns, litigation and all in with one customer are, as dimitri and his head of sales found out, because the market beyond display is still small scale.

According to shoei's complaint in the nanoco v lg case, nanoco attempted to depose Martin Devenney (Ceo of nanosys or SEMI as they are officially now known) in October 2025).

Shoei filed the day after Nannoco announced the 5M settlement with LG. It was nanosys that wanted to move the nanoco V LG case to california. I have always found nanosys to smell of bs and way too much hype, obviously i hope that gets proven to be true. Last of the 4 patents expires 2028, i think a win for nanoco results in a lump sum for damages/paid up license. If that a happens i'd go for a tender offer to give milkwood an exit, this equity is just a plaything for them at the moment.

Hopefully Nano will submit their own prior to the scheduling conference on 28/1. Presumably this will be the narrow v broad view on synthesis methods and we don't want to see a docket that says court adopts plaintiffs discovery plan otherwise it makes things a bit tougher.