Member Info for SmithyB

Apple are cad free

https://www.engadget.com/computing/laptops/apple-secretly-included-quantum-dot-tech-in-the-m4-macbook-pros-display-173424130.html

I think you are looking at the wrong shoei

https://shoeichem.co.jp/global/profile/index.html

I was wondering how someone managed to get an unsourced comment meant to induce share price reaction on a market news website, it's untrue, so it's quite impressive. If it is connected to the nano's share price movement - and though dated 26/11 and 25/11 on its sister site marketscreener i think it only appeared more recently = then someone made something out of it. I don't think it appears anywhere else.

Let's assume Nano were bright enough to know that Shoei were LG's supplier of qds before they took them to court. Do you think they forgot to google all about Shoei's synthesis methods before they did so because that seems about the strength of the argument.

And not that it matters in a court case, but just for context = Shoei Chemical is not a subsidiary of any of the other Shehis, is not a listed company and in 2024 achieved sales of 71 mill yen or about 350k gbp

https://shoeichem.co.jp/global/profile/index.html

If nanosys is the largest producer of cfqd they must be making jumpers with them. Hansol use the seeding process.

Shoeis share of the qd market is tiny. Samsung/hansol use the seeding method

If they ask for an extension then they are not rolling over and shareholders should expect an update.

Yes imo they deliberately 'poked the bear' on source of LG's dots in the discovery phase. Because they already knew who supplied LG's dots. As did us mushrooms. Back in November 2024 Ross Young said mac pro has qd and under a bit cross examination then said Shoei supplied them. In the 2024 fy presentation Dr P said they were talking to apple.

As we're all guessing i;ll go similar to nanonano. When Nano moved from cadmium to cfqd they probably found a few complications at precursor or later in the process that regardless of seeding or the heat up method would mean nanosys having to wander from its own ip into Nano's, that's why they are confident shoehi have infringed. Whether they can explain and prove that to a jury is a different animal.

Nano is pretty famous for saying you can't produce cfqd at scale without infringing their patents, they know all about nanosys/shoei having been sued by them for producing cadmium qds. We should find out around the 19th. Personally i'd be be happy for them to focus on sensors but as shoei are rumoured to be the supplier of dots for the apple mac pro it would clearly be a wrench for nano to walk away if they are confident they have the odds on their side.

Loads of retail punters bought in on hopes of multiplying their cash on a sale of the co, it's looking unlikely now imo. Still, price is a bit stupid.

Nano due to answer on the 19th, should an RNS then or the following monday

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61367121/Shoei_Chemical_Inc_et_al_v_Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd

Sell off probably down to those who think a sale of the co is unlikely and don't want to sit out a couple of years seeing if they make it in sensors.

On the non-infringement claim, yeah nanosys are probably the supplier for all cfqd outside of samsung, sky glass/phillips, LG etc

Expensive and time consuming to go head to head with Shoei i'd imagine and outside of the apple mac not much in the way of damages to be won. Also, as an older producer than themselves would a counter claim mean nano having to bring in other patents than just the ptab 4 shoei are challenging (one of which has expired)? Tricky one, cede laptop/pc display or risk the company on a finely balanced legal case.

Https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61367121/Shoei_Chemical_Inc_et_al_v_Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd

When i ask ai - without mentioning apple - i get shoei being pre-emptive and using an action often used to reassure oems up the chain. And from nanoco's perspective their options are patent battle thrrough counter claim or look to see if shoei are willing to take a license (lol).

This is most likely unfinished business arising from the LG settlement, ie supply of qd to the apple macpro. Will have arisen in discovery. Guess we will find out whether nanoco had any intention of going after nanosys when they are so focused on image sensors.

Someone asked him why he appeared to have less ebullience, which he denied, but the cdx related comments suggested 50/50 sale or stand alone, value for shareholders via organic or an inorganic outcome. Like to be wrong but i'm thinking a sale is unlikely unless they pull some really glamorous jda from somewhere. I think they have a couple of potential buyers who are pitching too low. Now the end of year stuff is out of the way think there is a good chance of an rns on ending relations with cdx. Being up for sale for a year is probably long enough. He was very confident of a sale by end of year though, wasn't he?

As you say, the structured nature of the 3 year to production deal with the 1st asian jda bodes well.

He was also reminded in the q & a that being the leading qd company for image sensors was very similar to the time nano was leading the qd field in display. He said he wasn't in charge then, implied it was a different company under him.

As dimitri said, the market doesn't know what i know.

Although that statement is a bit dishonest cos you are a trader it is indicative of why nano is priced as it is

Yes at the end of the day proof that they can defend their IP and the extra bit of cash is all that matters, but most who were bearish argued that LG would drag this out for years, not settle 14 months before a pre-trial meeting and 16n months before jury selection. It remains odd that they have done so.

For me 2 questions. Why did LG make an offer way before a trial date and why are the accepted terms confidential. (and the word license is nowhere to be seen.)

We were still in 'discovery' so you could argue that Nanoco was finally able to create a number in terms of lost revenue, but seems unlikely that LG went oh is that all well we'll settle rather than spend more on legal costs.

Did LG fold when asked about the apple macbook pro? i guess we will never know until the next Q&A with dimitri when he could be asked whatever happened to talking to apple about qd's in their laptop display.

Automotive paint's done a runner. Not many hints on jda's outside of area's the company has been involved in before. Very much focused on image sensors. Take his point that they can't force jda's they have to wait for the partner to be ready.