Member Info for SmithyB

There is also a small chance that things get interesting quickly once venue is resolved. I imagine a full list of infringing products will be pretty much top priority for nano (ie apple) and if lg are not helpful we know from N Pickett at the fy presentation Q&A in 2024 that they had been in discussion with apple, those discussions will be brought into court. Seems very different from just nano v samsung.

If a glacial speed is LGs approach it might leave Apple in an odd position. AFAIK it is still hasn't promoted the presence of qds in the macbook pro lcd screen.

Presumably this is a technical/procedural issue if they have also asked for a change of venue to N California. But who knows.

Wasn't here for the v Samsung, wonder how much commentary nano will give? On friday LG answered including their 'affirmative defenses' which is presumably that they didn't infringe, then they gave a disclosure statement and a load of exhibits. Who is their hansol, got to be nanosys for qned and macbook?

Accused products p12 footnote on claim as K said but as you say others (like macbook) in 'discovery' :

7The Accused Products include, by way of example and not limitation, all models, sizes, and variants found within

the LG QNED75 Series; the LG QNED80 Series; the LG QNED 80T Series; the LG QNED81 Series; the LG

QNED82T Series; the LG QNED85 Series; the LG QNED85T Series; the LG QNED88T Series; the LG QNED90

Series; the LG QNED90T Series; the LG QNED95 Series; the LG QNED99 Series; and the LG QNED99T Series.

Discovery may reveal the existence of additional infringing products/series.

Yes it is possible Edison don't know what they are talking about when they say further broadening of the JDA base would support negotiations.

Yes i agree LG case won't be a factor in the sale, it's just interesting.

Nothing in M & A seems fixed to me, i don't think they have to do anything by anytime to get the deal done by end of year, yes, agree, payout by tender to shareholders might be later than end of year.

Nano's full claim doc here

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16105781

Actually - UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER (not my caps, just a copy and paste)

Ceo has consistently said end of year for sale. Willing to think he and chair don't burn their track records with nanoco's history of failing to make the world beyond samsumg commercially adopt quantum dots before they have been in post for 12 months.

If anyone knows anyone with access to pacer that's a lot of docs posted by LG, also unopposed motion to move claim to N California.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57775824/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd_v_LG_Electronics_Inc_et_al

I'm neutral on this unsuspected hidden value argument, Intangible things like trade secrets or goodwill seem to me to be the reason why strategic buyers normally pay a premium above a bare valuation. And i hope that nanoco are still in discussion with strategic buyers rather financial private equity types. The latter might pay 50m, the former c80m, more if there are two bidding against each other.

All we have is Edison;s latest piece of analysis:

Nanoco’s strategic review with CDX is ongoing, and discussions with a number of interested parties are underway. The process is expected to conclude before the end of FY25, with several outcomes possible. The expansion of the company’s JDA customer base should support these negotiations.

It probably doesn't deserve over examination but the ceo has never talked about any outcome other than the sale of nanoco technologies. Final sentence suggests to me that the interested parties are waiting for jda's outside of sensors and display before agreeing to negotiate on whatever valuation nanoco have put on the operating business. Obviously i suspect solar paint is one of them.

Guess i have to reverse and accept i was wrong. The 6 filings are not on espacenet or found as PCT either and remain just filings in the UK. Trade secret approach looks likely. Won't bore you with ai output other than to say well documented institutional knowledge gets around the key staff departure (potential) weakness.

Amerloque, repeating your yourself does not advance your odd argument.

Ok, reading AI is very boring. Nanoco have filed 6 times since your given edge of the cliff date. No filings 2022/23. A better argument for that gap might be the state of the company and the fact that its only relationship was stm, it didn't have to invent more than it already had.

Why don't you do a search on uk patents, puts a hole in your rather strange argument.

Thanks for the apology. Mercedes are interested in solar paint. Funnily enough Dimitri first mentions it in the same month that mercedes do some pr on it.

Where did i say or even imply that nano are working with mercedes? I have said that in Dimitri's 3 pieces to camera he has got increasing excited about paint. And more recently that merc were interested in this. Would be good if Nano were working with them. Prefer byd though. The TU says they are working on jdas outside anything nano has previously been involved in, paint would be an obvious one.

Because you instantly par and better with samsung on ip by purchasing them. You've added pv i see, lol. you really do have a downer on nano for someone who has only top-sliced his holding.

Latest addition to nano platform tech is the June 2025 patent filed on Method of creating p-doped qds. It means that if you want qds with better light transport (more holes) you go via nano.

Any samsung competitor would find nanoco more interesting surely?

I'm still waiting for the car paint jda Dimitri. Merc is interested:

https://www.livescience.com/technology/electric-vehicles/near-unlimited-ev-range-now-a-possibility-thanks-to-surprising-new-technology-solar-paint

Meta is Plessey's only customer. It is difficult to compare plessey to anything.